Our audit will meet all applicable federal and state requirements. Samples will be used to the extent necessary to support our conclusions on compliance with laws and regulations.
APPROACH FOR DRAWING AUDIT SAMPLES
We design our audit procedures for compliance using sampling procedures to result in sample items being selected on a random basis. To accomplish this, we utilize our data extraction software, TeamMate Analytics, to ensure our selections meet the established criteria while maintaining the random selection. We also use samples across different audit areas to be as efficient as possible while testing the necessary items to get comfortable with the applicable balances.
IDENTIFICATION OF ANTICIPATED POTENTIAL AUDIT PROBLEMS
Eide Bailly understands the potential for problems that may arise while conducting our audit and we are prepared to address any issues with you as they arise. We are committed to making our relationships work and do what it takes to make our clients feel comfortable even if it means late-night conference calls.
We will also work our schedule so when we finish scheduled fieldwork, we will be 95% done with the audit and any wrap-up will be related to report issues. We believe we have a system in place that, combined with the experience we have gained, will translate to meeting your reporting deadlines with a smooth and efficient audit.
As noted above, our service model does not view the audit process as an annual “event.” Instead, we communicate with management on an ongoing basis and keep you apprised of accounting pronouncements, changes in regulations and other changes that may impact the City.
Our communication with management will include the following:
• Personal interaction between the team serving the City and management in the form of meetings, phone calls and emails. We like to be involved with clients throughout the year to help address ongoing issues that impact your operations, and schedule quarterly calls to stay in touch. Our preferred communication is through face-to-face meetings, or at least phone conversations. We value your time and attempt to keep meetings relevant, appropriate and productive. 430
CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
32 | eidebailly.com
• Status updates as audits progress with appropriate members of management through oral and written communications.
• Ongoing communication of important regulatory changes and accounting updates occurs via email, shortly after the changes are announced or finalized.
• Occasional webinars and seminars on topics of critical interest to our government clients will communicate important information for management to be aware of.
Under this communications approach, we will discuss specific preferences you have in communicating with us including frequency and style.
As we get to know your organization, our process will become increasingly customized to the City, yet it will still follow the framework we have put together as guidelines our staff are expected to embrace as part of our service culture.
Most audits have issues that arise from time to time; however, we will resolve these issues through frequent communications with you, and by helping you with implementation issues, adjusting journal entries or communications with GASB staff.
We're experienced in transitioning many clients from predecessor professional service providers. In each case, we worked closely with client personnel and accomplished the transition with minimal disruption of client activities. We further minimize the disruption to the City by staffing our first year engagement with higher level resources, including managers and partners.
Assistance from City Staff
Your service team will meet with the City’s management for initial planning and pre-audit conference to discuss audit schedules and review prior year audit problems (if any). We'll then provide City personnel a Prepared by Client Guide (PBC), which highlights the workpapers and information needed for the audit process. We'll hold meetings with the accounting personnel throughout the audit process determining the list of open items and the plan to finalize those items.
During the audit, our use of City personnel will include answering questions, updating schedules, addressing issues identified and obtaining support documentation. Our audit processes focus on performing the audit efficiently, which includes constant communication amongst the team members so we're not asking redundant questions or requesting the same document several times. We also hold weekly meetings with management to determine the status of the audit and any outstanding items to be addressed. This keeps the amount of hours needed by City personnel to a minimum.
We ask our clients to have the requested schedules, documentation, confirmations and financial statements prepared by the requested dates. Having these items prepared before we arrive for final fieldwork ensures the success of meeting the mutually agreed upon deadlines.
Maintaining Positive Relationships
Our number one goal is to meet the City’s expectations while providing the necessary required audit services.
We work with our teams to provide the best client service and select team members based on that goal.
However, there are times we may not meet that expectation or fall short in client satisfaction. When those times occur, we admit our shortcomings and meet with management to determine on an agreed upon plan to improve those areas.
431
CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
33 | eidebailly.com
As the Engagement Partner, Roger Alfaro is responsible in monitoring the City’s satisfaction of our services and will meet with your management during the year to evaluate the overall satisfaction and make any necessary adjustments.
Our clients know and respect us for our positive culture — we’re also proud to be ranked #8 in the 2023 Vault Accounting 25 list for client interaction.
Over the past three years, Eide Bailly’s Net Promoter Score (NPS) has averaged 65, with the most recent score being 70. For context, the professional survey firm ClearlyRated reports an average NPS of 39 for the accounting industry. While we know our score reflects a high level of satisfaction, we're committed to consistent and regular improvements to drive continual improvements for our client base.
SAMPLE FORMATS FOR REQUIRED REPORTS
Due to the size of the issued reports, we have provided links to a few reports for similar clients.
Example Reports
Client Name Report Link
City of South Lake Tahoe, CA Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for Year Ended September 30, 2022 City of Brea, CA Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for Year Ended June 30, 2022 City of Rancho Cordova, CA Annual Comprehensive Financial Report for Year Ended June 30, 2022 We understand and believe that the financial statement is your report, and we will work with you to deliver a final product, consistent with what the City has seen in the past, that meets your approval while maintaining compliance with applicable standards.
432
CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
34 | eidebailly.com
Cost Proposal
EXPECTED FEES
Our fees are based on the complexity of the issue and the experience level of the staff members necessary to address it. If you request additional services, we’ll obtain your agreement on fees before commencing work, so there are no surprises or hidden fees.
We propose the following fees based on our understanding of the scope of work and the level of involvement of the City’s staff:
Total All-Inclusive Maximum Price
Professional Services 2024 2025 2026
Annual Financial Statement Audit $ 99,400 $ 103,873 $ 108,547 Single Audit (assumes one major program) 10,600 11,077 11,575 Total All-Inclusive Maximum Price $ 110,000 $ 114,950 $ 120,122 Schedule of Professional Fees and Expenses
Rates for Additional Professional Services
Financial
Statement
Audit Hours
Single Audit
Hours Total Hours Hourly Rate Total Fees
Partners 38 2 40 $ 350/hr. $ 14,000
Managers 76 4 80 $ 275/hr. 22,000
Senior Associate 216 8 224 $ 200/hr. 44,800
Professional Staff 220 40 260 $ 175/hr. 45,500
Clerical/Support Staff 12 4 16 $ 50/hr. 800
Total Labor 562 58 620 $127,100
Travel included
Other (Current Client Discount) (17,100)
Total All-Inclusive Maximum Price | FY2024 $110,000
Hourly Rate by Staff Level 2024
Partner $350/hr.
Sr. Manager $275/hr.
Manager $225/hr.
Senior Associate $175/hr.
Associate $150/hr.
433
CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
35 | eidebailly.com
Out-of-Pocket Fees
The professional fees listed above reflect a hybrid audit approach inclusive of all out-of-pocket expenses and you’ll not be billed for expenses such as travel time, mileage and meals. Total fees also include a 5% technology fee used to support and enhance the quality work we provide by investing in technology.
Future Year Pricing Guarantees
Our fee increases for future years are consistent with inflationary increases in the industry. They are contingent upon no major changes to the City, and that significant accounting and auditing rule changes and procedures remain consistent with current requirements. Fees don’t include additional time that could be incurred due to changes to the scope of the engagement.
Billing Policy Regarding Telephone Inquiries
We know clients appreciate access to all their service team members. We embrace this opportunity for constant communication and will ensure our team members are available when you have questions and issues. This service is included in the scope of the engagement. If a particular issue surfaces that falls outside the scope of this engagement, we’ll bring it to your attention and obtain approval before proceeding.
Manner of Payment
Progress payments will be made on the basis of hours of work completed during the course of the engagement in accordance with the firm’s dollar cost bid proposal. Interim billings shall cover a period of not less than a calendar month. Final payment will be made after delivery of the firm’s final reports. 434
CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
36 | eidebailly.com
Description of Recent Projects/References
CLIENT REFERENCES
As a top 25 CPA firm, we’ve built our business on relationships and believe our clients to be the best critics of our service. The clients below have similarities to your organization, and we encourage you to contact them to learn about their Eide Bailly experiences.
Similar Clients
County of Solano
2015-Present
Contact Phyllis Taynton, Auditor-Controller
707.784.6280 | [email protected]
Scope ACFR Audit, single audit, GANN Limit AUP, First 5 Solano audit Partner James Ramsey
Hours 1,500 hours
City of Palmdale
2019-Present
Contact Janelle Samson, Director of Finance
661.267.5433 |[email protected]
Scope
Preparation & audit of the ACFR (GFOA), Single Audit, GASB 87 implementation services, Housing Authority Audit, Financial Authority, Foundation Audit, Civic Authority Audit, Review of AD/CFD-10, Gann Limit Agreed-Upon Procedures Partner Roger Alfaro
Hours 750 hours
City of Brea
2017-Present
Contact Monica Lo, Financial Services Manager
714.990.7683 | [email protected]
Scope ACFR-GFOA, Single Audit, Gann Limit AUP, State Controller’s Report Partner James Ramsey/Roger Alfaro
Hours 700 hours
City of Rancho
Cordova
2019-Present
Contact Michele Mingay, Finance Manager
916.851.8730 | [email protected]
Scope Preparation & audit of the ACFR (GFOA), Rancho Cordova Public Financing Agency, Single Audit, GANN Limit AUP, State Controller’s Report Partner James Ramsey
Hours 600 hours
City of Whittier
2013-2021
Contact Alice Hui, Assistant Director of Administrative Services 562.567.9810 | [email protected]
Scope Preparation & audit of the ACFR (GFOA), Single Audit, Audit of the Whittier Utility Authority, Gann Limit Agreed Upon Procedures (AUP)
Partner Roger Alfaro/David Showalter
Hours 550 hours
435
CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
37 | eidebailly.com
The Right Choice for the City
YOUR SUCCESS IS OUR SUCCESS
The value of being an Eide Bailly client is that we offer you the best of all worlds. Since we are a full-service firm, you will have multiple industry specialists available when you need them, but your service team will always be client focused. You will experience partner involvement during all phases of the engagement, as well as throughout the year. At Eide Bailly, we promise our clients an experience, second to none, where they feel understood, connected and confident.
Understood
You have goals and dreams. We’re inspired to help you achieve those goals now and in the future. By applying our technical and industry knowledge, we make the complex simple.
Connected
Our professionals bring their expertise and thought leadership to every interaction with you. You'll benefit from new ideas, opportunities and solutions as they happen. We’ll connect you with the right resources and deliver comprehensive solutions in a respectful, peer-to-peer approach. We keep the answers within your reach.
Confident
With Eide Bailly beside you, you’ll feel confident addressing challenges and embracing opportunities as they arise. We go the extra mile to deliver unmatched solutions for your business because your success is our success.
Our Culture
It’s no secret that culture speaks volumes about a company. Some companies stand for honesty, trust, accountability, respect and integrity.
Others value passion, teamwork, innovation and superior customer service. At Eide Bailly, these values and more are at the forefront of our business.
Culture has been the unshakable foundation underpinning 100 years of growth and innovation. Without it, Eide Bailly would be just a name, instead of the symbol for ‘business done right’ that it is today. Our clients know and respect us for our positive culture — we’re also proud to be ranked as a top 10 firm in the Vault 2024 Accounting 25 list for both our culture and for client interaction.
436
CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
38 | eidebailly.com
GROWING OUR SUCCESSFUL RELATIONSHIP
Our longstanding relationship with the City has allowed us to build efficiencies into the audit process to enable an efficient and effective audit process. We will continue to leverage this historical knowledge to provide value to the City beyond our assurance engagement.
We understand and recognize the careful consideration the City must undertake when determining whether to continue with Eide Bailly as your current accounting firm or transition to a new firm. Other firms responding to your proposal request will highlight their abilities to create a smooth transition; however, the reality is that a transition will cause some inconvenience to management and staff. Sometimes circumstances exist that may ultimately drive your decision to switch firms, but we hope to highlight all the reasons not to.
Eide Bailly has made a commitment to provide you with a level of service and attention that surpasses our competitors, and more importantly, makes you feel as valued as you are.
To us, work isn’t just work; we see it as a chance to help you solve problems, achieve goals and pursue passions.
After thoughtfully reviewing your needs and taking the time to understand your business, we think we’re the best fit for this opportunity.
We can connect you with the knowledge, resources and solutions that help bring confidence to your business decisions. If you have questions or would like additional information, don’t hesitate to contact us. We want to make sure you have everything you need to make your decision.
Roger Alfaro, CPA
Partner
909.755.2829
[email protected]
We Want to Work with You
We’re driven to help clients take on the now and the next with inspired ideas, solutions and results. We look forward to working with you.
ADVANTAGES OF WORKING WITH EIDE BAILLY
Depth of Resources: We have the ability to rotate partners to provide a fresh, objective view.
Additional Offerings: Extensive experience extends firmwide and continues to provide additional resources at your disposal.
Senior-Level Involvement: Partners and managers are extensively involved throughout the audit process.
Proactive Communication: We’re responsive and direct, and we’ll continue to present information relevant to decision-making.
A Trusted Advisor: We strive to be your trusted advisor, making recommendations and identifying mutually beneficial business opportunities.
437
438
A CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
This Agreement is made and entered into as of the 23rd day of April 2024 by and between the City of South Lake Tahoe, a municipal corporation (“City”) and Eide Bailly, LLP (“Consultant”).
RECITALS
A. Consultant is specially trained, experienced and competent to perform the special services which will be required by this Agreement.
B. Consultant possesses the skill, experience, ability, background, certification and knowledge to provide the services described in this Agreement on the terms and conditions described herein.
C. City desires to retain Consultant to render professional services as set forth in this Agreement.
AGREEMENT
1. Scope of Services. Consultant shall perform the services set forth in this agreement and shall provide said services at the time, place, and in the manner specified in this agreement. Consultant shall have no power or authority by this Agreement to bind City in any respect.
The Consultant agrees that it has satisfied itself by its own investigation and research regarding the conditions affecting the work to be done and labor and materials needed, and that its decision to execute this Contract is based on such independent investigation and research.
All services provided by Consultant pursuant to this Agreement will be provided in accordance with the terms set forth in the Exhibit A, “Scope of Services,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Exhibit B, “Compensation Schedule,” attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, outlines the fees and compensation which shall be paid pursuant to this Agreement.
2. Term/Time of Performance. The services by Consultant are to commence upon the execution of the Agreement and continue for three years with the option for each of the two subsequent years.
439
3. Compensation. Compensation to be paid to Consultant shall be in accordance with the Schedule set forth in Exhibit B which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. In no event shall Consultant’s compensation, including travel and out-of-pocket expenses, exceed $110,000 in the first year, $114,950 in the second year and $120,122 in the third year (except for additional single audit programs, if required) without additional written authorization from City. Payment by City under this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of defects, even if such defects were known to City at the time of payment. Payment is contingent upon compliance with all terms and conditions of this Agreement, as set forth herein. Consultant shall obtain prior written authorization from the City Project Manager for any costs in excess of budgeted amounts for each line item, task, or obligation under the Scope of Services.
4. Method of Payment. Consultant shall submit monthly billings to City describing the work performed during the preceding month. Consultant’s bills shall include a brief description of the services performed, the date the services were performed, the number of hours spent and by whom, the applicable hourly rate, and a description of any reimbursable expenditures. City shall pay Consultant no later than 30 days after approval of the monthly invoice by City staff.
5. Extra Work. At any time during the term of this Agreement, City may request that Consultant perform extra work. As used herein, “Extra Work” means any work which is determined by City to be necessary for the proper completion of the Project, but which the parties did not reasonably anticipate would be necessary at the execution of this Agreement. Consultant shall not perform, nor be compensated for, extra work without prior written authorization from City.
6. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by City or Consultant immediately for cause or without cause upon thirty days (30) days written notice of termination. Upon termination, Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for services performed up to the effective date of termination, and City shall be entitled to all work performed to that date.
Termination, revocation, or expiration of this Agreement shall not release either party from liability resulting from an event which occurred prior to such termination, revocation or expiration.
440
7. Ownership of Documents. All plans, studies, documents and other writings, including working notes and internal documents, specifically prepared by and for Consultant, its officers, employees and agents and subcontractors for and required to be delivered to City under this Agreement, shall become the property of City upon payment to Consultant for such work, and City shall have the sole right to use such materials in its discretion without further compensation to Consultant or to any other party. Consultant shall, at Consultant’s expense, provide such reports, plans, studies, documents and other writings to City upon written request. All documents prepared by Consultant are confidential and shall be maintained to preserve their confidential nature. Release of any such documents to third parties shall only be made upon written consent of City, unless disclosure is required by law or applicable professional standards.
8. Consultant’s Books and Records.
a. Consultant shall maintain any and all ledgers, books of account, invoices, vouchers, canceled checks, and other records or documents evidencing or relating to charges for services, or expenditures and disbursements charged to City for a minimum period of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from the date of final payment to Consultant for services provided pursuant to this Agreement.
b. Consultant shall maintain all documents and records which demonstrate performance under this Agreement for a minimum period of three (3) years, or for any longer period required by law, from records shall be available at Consultant’s address indicated for the date of termination or completion of this Agreement. c. Any records or documents required to be maintained pursuant to this Agreement shall be made available for inspection or audit, at any time during regular business hours, upon written request by the City Manager, City Attorney, City Auditor or a designated representative of these officers. Copies of such documents shall be provided to City for inspection at City offices when it is practical to do so. Otherwise, unless an alternative is mutually agreed upon, the receipt of notices in this Agreement.
d. Where City has reason to believe that such records or documents may be lost or discarded due to dissolution, disbandment or 441
termination of Consultant’s business, City may, by written request by any of the above-named officers, require that custody of the records be given to City and that the records and documents be maintained at City offices. Access to such records and documents shall be granted to any party authorized by Consultant, Consultant’s representatives, or Consultant’s successor-in-interest.
9. Independent Contractor. It is understood that Consultant, in the performance of the work and services agreed to be performed, shall act as and be an independent contractor and shall not act as an agent or employee of City.
Consultant shall obtain no rights to retirement benefits or other benefits which accrue to City’s employees, and Consultant hereby expressly waives any claim it may have to any such rights. All employees, agents, contractors or subcontractors hired or retained by Consultant are employees, agents, contractors or subcontractors of Consultant and not of the City.
City is not required to make any deductions or withholdings form the compensation payable to Consultant under the provisions of this Contract, and is not required to issue W-2 Forms for income and employment tax purposes for any of Consultant’s assigned personnel. Any third party persons employed by Consultant shall be entirely and exclusively under the direction, supervision, and control of Consultant. Consultant hereby indemnifies and holds City harmless from any and all claims that may be made against City based upon any contention by any third party that an employer-employee relationship exists by reason of this Contract.
10. Interest of Consultant. Consultant, (and principals, associates and professional employees of consultant) covenants and represents that it does not now have any investment or interest in real property and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirect, in the area covered by this Agreement or any other source of income, interest in real property or investment which would be affected in any manner or degree by the performance of Consultant’s services hereunder. Consultant further covenants and represents that in the performance of its duties hereunder no person having any such interest shall perform any services under this Agreement.
Consultant is not a designated employee within the meaning of the Political Reform Act because Consultant:
a. Will conduct research and arrive at conclusions with respect to his/her rendition of information, advice, recommendation or counsel 442
independent of the control and direction of City or of any City official, other than normal agreement monitoring; and,
b. Possesses no authority with respect to any city decision beyond rendition of information, advice, recommendation or counsel. [FPPC Reg. 18700(a)(2)].
11. Professional Ability of Consultant. City has relied upon the professional training and ability of Consultant to perform the services hereunder as a material inducement to enter into this Agreement. Consultant shall therefore provide properly skilled professional and technical personnel to perform all services under this Agreement. All work performed by Consultant under this Agreement shall be in accordance with applicable legal requirements and shall meet the standard of quality ordinarily to be expected of competent professionals in Consultant’s field of expertise.
12. Compliance with Laws. Consultant shall comply with all applicable federal, state, regional and local laws, codes, ordinances and regulations in carrying out his/her duties under this Agreement. Consultant shall observe and comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, regulations and codes of federal, state and local governments, and shall commit no trespass on any public or private property in performing any of the work authorized by this Agreement. The City, its officials, officers, elected officials, appointed officials and employees shall not be liable at law or in equity as a result of any failure of Consultant to comply with this section.
In the event it is determined that the Consultant is required to pay prevailing wages for the work performed under this Agreement, the Consultant shall pay all penalties and wages as required by law.
13. Licenses. Consultant represents and warrants to City that it has all licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of whatsoever nature which are legally required of Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant represents and warrants to City that Consultant shall, at its sole cost and expense, keep in effect or obtain at all times during the term of this Agreement, any licenses, permits, insurance and approvals which are legally required of Consultant to practice its profession. Consultant shall maintain a City of South Lake Tahoe business license at all times services are performed under this Agreement. Consultant acknowledges that payments made pursuant to this Agreement may be withheld until this provision has been satisfied. 443
14. Indemnity. Consultant hereby agrees to and shall indemnify and hold harmless City, its elected and appointed boards, officers, agents, employees and volunteers from and against any liability for any and all claims, demands, actions, losses, damages and injuries, direct or indirect (including any and all costs and expenses in connection therein), arising out of this Agreement or caused in any way by Consultant’s negligent performance of this Agreement or its breach of its obligations contained in this Agreement, except for any such claims arising out of the negligence or misconduct of the City.
City does not, and shall not, waive any rights against Consultant which it may have by reason of the aforesaid hold harmless agreement, because of the acceptance by City, or the deposit with City by Consultant, of any of the insurance policies hereinafter set forth.
This hold harmless agreement by Consultant shall apply to all damages and claims for damages, or alleged to have been suffered, by reason of any of the aforesaid operation of Consultant or any subcontractor, regardless of whether or not such insurance policies shall have been determined to be applicable to any of such damages or claims for damages.
15. Insurance Requirements.
a. Consultant, at Consultant’s own cost and expense, shall procure and maintain, for the duration of the contract, the following insurance policies.
i. Workers’ Compensation Coverage. Consultant shall maintain Workers’ Compensation Insurance and Employer’s Liability Insurance for his/her employees in accordance with the laws of the State of California. In addition, Consultant shall require each subcontractor to similarly maintain Workers’
Compensation Insurance and Employer’s Liability Insurance in accordance with the laws of the State of California for all of the subcontractor’s employees. Any notice of cancellation of all Workers’ Compensation policies must be received by City at least thirty (30) days prior to such change. Consultant shall provide thirty (30) days written notice of nonrenewal of any Workers’ Compensation policies. The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of subrogation against City, its officers, agents, employees and volunteers for losses arising from work
performed by Consultant for City.
444
ii. Commercial General Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain commercial general liability insurance no less broad than ISO form CG 00 01 in an amount not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. Coverage must be made on
the standard Occurrence form. Claims-Made forms are not acceptable without prior written consent of City. City of South Lake Tahoe must be endorsed as an additional insured for liability arising out of ongoing operation by on behalf of Consultant. If a commercial general liability insurance form or other form with a general aggregate limit is used, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to the work to be performed under this Agreement or the general
aggregate limit shall be at least twice the required
occurrence limit.
iii. Automobile Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain automobile liability insurance covering bodily injury and property damage for all activities of the Consultant arising out of or in connection with the work to be performed under this Agreement, including coverage for hired and non-owned
vehicles, in an amount of not less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) combined single limit for each occurrence. iv. Professional Liability Coverage. Consultant shall maintain professional errors and omissions liability insurance for protection against claims alleging negligent acts, errors or omissions which may arise from Consultant or by its employees, or subcontractors. The amount of this insurance shall not be less than one million dollars ($1,000,000) on a claims-made annual aggregate basis, or a combined single-limit per occurrence basis.
b. Endorsements. Each general liability and automobile liability insurance policy shall be with insurers possessing a AM Best’s rating of no less than A:VII and shall be endorsed with the following specific language:
i. City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are to be covered as additional
insured’s under Consultant’s General Liability and Automobile 445
Liability policies with respect to liability arising out of this Agreement and/or work performed by or on behalf of the
Consultant, including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations.
ii. This policy shall be considered primary insurance as respects City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers. Any insurance maintained by City, including any self-insured retention City may have, shall be considered excess insurance only and shall not contribute with it.
iii. This insurance shall act for each insured and additional insured as though a separate policy had been written for each,
except with respect to the limits of liability of the insuring Consultant.
iv. The insurer waives all rights of subrogation against City except for Consultant’s Professional Liability and Employers’ Liability policies, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees or agents.
v. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to City, its elected or appointed officers, officials, employees, agents or volunteers. vi. No policies of insurance carried by Consultant shall be suspended, voided, canceled, or changed in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days written notice to the City Attorney by Certified Mail.
c. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. The Consultant shall be responsible for all deductibles in all of Consultant’s insurance policies. d. Certificates of Insurance. Consultant shall provide certificates of insurance with original endorsements to City as evidence of the insurance coverage required herein. Consultant shall not commence work under this contract until all insurance required under this section has been approved by City as to form, amount and carrier, nor shall Consultant allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until all similar insurance required and reasonably consistent limits of the subcontractor has 446
been so obtained and approved. Certificates of insurance shall contain no exclusions unless negotiated with the City Attorney and approved, in writing, by the City Attorney.
16. Notices. Any notice required to be given under this Agreement shall be in writing and either served personally or sent prepaid, first class mail. Any such notice shall be addressed to the other party at the address set forth below.
Notice shall be deemed communicated within 48 hours from the time of mailing if mailed as provided in this section.
If to City: City of South Lake Tahoe
1901 Lisa Maloff Way
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Provide a copy to: City Attorney’s Office
City of South Lake Tahoe
1901 Lisa Maloff Way, Suite 300
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
If to Consultant: Eide Bailly
2151 River Plaza Dr., Ste. 308
Sacramento, CA 95833
Provide a copy to:
17. Assignment and Subcontracting. The parties recognize that a substantial inducement to City for entering into this Agreement is the professional reputation, experience and competence of Consultant. Assignments of any or all rights, duties or obligations of the Consultant under this Agreement will be permitted only with the express consent of City. Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of the work to be performed under this Agreement without the written authorization of City. If City consents to such subcontract, Consultant shall be fully responsible to City for all acts or omissions of the subcontractor. Nothing in the Agreement shall create any contractual relationship between City and subcontractor nor shall it create any obligation on the part of City to pay or to see to the payment of any monies due to any such subcontractor other than as otherwise required by law.
18. Waiver. Waiver of a breach or default under this Agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision under this Agreement.
447
19. Dispute Resolution. Any dispute concerning this Agreement will be first submitted to the City Manager or his designee for resolution. If no resolution is reached, such dispute shall be submitted to the City Council. If no resolution is reached, then the Mediation process in Consultant’s engagement letter shall be followed prior to the commencement of any action by either party.
20. Controlling Law Venue. This Agreement and all matters relating to it shall be governed by the laws of the State of California and any action brought relating to this Agreement shall be held exclusively in the Superior Courts in the County of El Dorado, South Lake Tahoe Division.
21. Prohibited Interests. Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any Consultant or person, other than the independent contractors hired in accordance with Consultant’s standard business practice, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any Consultant or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant or an independent contractor hired as discussed above, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. For the term of this Agreement, no member, officer or employee of City, during the term of his or her service with City, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom.
22. Equal Opportunity Employment. Consultant represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and it shall not discriminate against any subcontractor, employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, disability, ancestry, sex or age. Such non-discrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination. Consultant shall also substantially comply with all relevant provisions of City’s Minority Business Enterprise program, Affirmative Action Plan, or other related programs or guidelines currently in effect or hereinafter enacted in performance of the services hereunder. City shall provide to Consultant each program or guideline Consultant will be expected to comply with in the provision of the services, which Consultant will have an opportunity to review.
23. Drug-Free Workplace Certification. By signing this Agreement, Consultant hereby certifies under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the Consultant will comply with the requirements of the DrugFree Workplace Act of 1990 (Government Code Section 8350, et seq.) and will provide a drug-free work place by taking the following actions:
448
a. Publish a statement notifying employees that unlawful manufacture, distribution dispensation, possession, or use of a controlled substance is prohibited and specifying actions to be taken against employees for violations, as required by Government Code Section 8355 (a). b. Establish a Drug-Free Awareness Program as required by Government Code Section 8355(b) to inform employees about all of the following:
i. The dangers of drug abuse in the workplace;
ii. The person’s or organization’s policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace;
iii. Any available counseling, rehabilitation and employee assistance program; and
iv. Penalties that may be imposed upon employees for drug abuse violations.
c. Provide, as required by Government Code Section 8355(c), that every employee who performs grant activities under this Agreement:
i. Will receive a copy of the Consultant’s drug-free policy statement; and
ii. Will agree to abide by the terms of the Consultant’s statement as a condition of employment on this Agreement.
Failure to comply with these requirements may result in suspension of payments under this Agreement or termination of the Agreement, or both, and Consultant may be ineligible for award of any future City agreements if City determines that any of the following has occurred: the Consultant (1) has made false certification, or (2) violates the certification by failing to carry out the requirements as noted above.
24. Anti-Lobbying Certification. Consultant shall submit to City the Anti-Lobbying Certification contained in Exhibit C. Further, Consultant shall require that the language of the certification in Exhibit C be included in all contracts or subcontracts entered into in connection with this Agreement and that all Consultants and contractors shall certify and disclose accordingly.
25. Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion. By signing this Agreement, Consultant assures that neither it nor its principals, is presently debarred, suspended, proposed for debarment, declared ineligible, or voluntarily excluded from participating in covered transactions by any Federal department or agency.
449
26. Americans with Disabilities Act. By signing this Agreement, Consultant assures the City that it complies with the American with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1990, (42 U.S.C. 12101, et. seq.), which prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability, as well as all applicable regulations and guidelines issued pursuant to ADA.
27. Amendments. This Agreement may be modified or amended only by a written document executed by both Consultant and City and approved as to form by the City Attorney.
28. Severability. If any term or portion of this Agreement is held to be invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.
29. Order of Priority. In the event of any conflict between Consultant’s Engagement Letter and this Agreement, this Agreement shall control.
30. Execution. This Agreement may be executed in several counterparts, each of which shall constitute one and the same instrument and shall become binding upon the parties when at least one copy hereof shall have been signed by both parties hereto. In approving this Agreement, it shall not be necessary to produce or account for more than one such counterpart.
31. Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence for this Agreement.
32. Authority to Enter Agreement. Consultant has all requisite power and authority to conduct its business and to execute, deliver, and perform the Agreement.
Each party warrants that the individuals who have signed this Agreement have the legal power, right, and authority to make this Agreement and to bind each respective party.
450
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on the date first written above.
CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE: CONSULTANT:
By___________________________ By ________________________________ Cody, Bass Mayor Roger Alfaro, CPA, Partner
Date __________________________ Date _____________________________ Business License # __012020_____
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By____________________________ Date ________________________________ Heather Stroud, City Attorney
ATTEST:
By______________________________ Date ________________________________ Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
Attachments:
Exhibit A – Scope of Services
Exhibit B – Compensation Schedule
Exhibit C - Anti-Lobbying Certification
04/09/2024
451
EXHIBIT A
SCOPE OF SERVICES
The City of South Lake Tahoe desires the auditor to express an opinion on the fair presentation of its general-purpose financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.
The auditor is to provide an “in-relation-to” report on the combining and individual fund financial statements and supporting schedules based on the auditing procedures applied during the audit of the basic financial statements. The auditor is not required to audit the statistical section of the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report. Certain limited procedures should be applied to the supplementary information, management’s discussion and analysis, and budgetary comparison information, but an expression of an opinion is not required. The auditor is not required to express an opinion on the introductory and statistical sections.
Reports to be Issued
Following the completion of the audit of the fiscal year’s financial statements, the auditor shall issue:
1. A report of the fair presentation of the financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles, basic financial statements, including government-wide financial statements and fund financial statements, for all funds, and accompanying notes to the basic financial statements.
2. A report on internal controls over financial reporting and on compliance and other matters based on an audit of the financial statements performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards.
3. A report on compliance with requirements applicable to each major program and internal control over compliance in accordance with OMB Circular A-133.
4. An “in-relation-to” report on the schedule of federal financial assistance, if applicable.
5. A report on the internal control structure used in administering federal financial assistance programs, if applicable.
6. A report on compliance with general and specific requirements related to major and nonmajor federal financial assistance programs, if applicable; and
7. Required Single Audit and Other Compliances including schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards.
8. Draft financial statements for each fiscal year and Final Reports.
Time Requirements
It is anticipated that the audit work will be performed in two phases:
452
1. Interim Audit Work
Interim work should take place in August or early September and would consist of planning and interim audit procedures (such as gaining an understanding of relevant systems, procedures and internal controls, selected compliance and transaction testing, etc.)
2. Year-End Audit Work
The second phase would involve updating and completing the examination of the Basic Financial Statements and preparing opinion letters and other relevant financial reports. The year-end audit field work is to begin no earlier than the first week following the New Year holiday and is to be completed no later than the end of the first week of February.
3. Draft Reports
The Auditor shall provide the City with complete drafts of the Financial Statements (including footnotes and supplementary schedules), Single Audit (if available) and Gann Limit Reports, and management letter no later than February 28 of each year. The City will review and provide comments or responses to the auditors within 10 calendar days of receipt of each of the draft reports.
4. Final Reports
The Auditor shall provide the City final copies of the audit reports and management letter no later than March 20 of each year.
Internal Control and Compliance Reports
In the required reports on internal controls, the auditor shall communicate any reportable conditions found during the audit. A reportable condition shall be defined as a significant deficiency in the design or operation of the internal control structure which could adversely affect the organization’s ability to record, process, summarize, and report financial data consistent with the assertions of management in the financial statements.
Reportable conditions that are also material weaknesses shall be identified as such in the report.
Non-reportable conditions discovered by the auditors shall be reported in a separate letter to management, which shall be referred to in the reports on internal controls. The reports on compliance shall include all instances of noncompliance.
Auditors shall ensure that the City is informed of each of the following:
• The auditor’s responsibility under generally accepted auditing standards • Significant accounting policies and regulations
• Management judgments and accounting estimates
• Significant audit adjustments
• Other information in documents containing audited financial statements 453
• Disagreements with management
• Management consultation with other accountants
• Major issues discussed with management prior to retention • Difficulties encountered in performing the audit
Irregularities and illegal acts. Auditors shall be required to make an immediate, written report of all irregularities and illegal acts of which they become aware to the following parties:
Mayor/City Treasurer
City Manager
Director of Finance
City Attorney
Special Considerations
1. The City desires assistance in preparation of the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) to ensure compliance with the reporting requirements for a Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting issued by the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA). The City has won such an award every year for the last sixteen years. It is the City’s intention to continue to receive the award annually, and the City will continue to prepare the ACFR to meet the requirements of those programs. The auditor selected will be expected to review the ACFR in relation to the award checklist to ensure compliance with the award program, and to meet the GFOA submittal deadline.
2. It is anticipated that the City of South Lake Tahoe will prepare one or more official statements in connection with the sale of debt securities which will contain the generalpurpose financial statements and the auditor’s report thereon. The auditor shall be required, if requested by the Director of Finance to issue a “consent and citation of expertise” as the auditor and any necessary “comfort letters.”
3. The schedules of federal financial assistance and related auditors’ report, as well as the reports on compliance and internal controls, are not to be included in the annual comprehensive financial report but are to be issued separately.
4. The independent audit firm is expected to keep the City abreast of new developments affecting municipal finance and reporting, impact on accounting and reporting should the State of California impose state-mandated procedures, impacts of Government Accounting Standards Board disclosure requirements, required changes in grant procedures, and the like.
454
Working Paper Retention and Access to Working Papers
All working papers and reports must be retained, at the auditor’s expense, for a minimum of five (5) years, unless the firm is notified in writing by the City of South Lake Tahoe of the need to extend the retention period. The auditor will be required to make working papers available, upon request, to the following parties or their designee:
City of South Lake Tahoe
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
U.S. Government Accountability Office
Parties designated by the Federal or State governments or by the City of South Lake Tahoe as part of an audit quality review process
Auditors or entities of which the City of South Lake Tahoe is a sub recipient of grants State of California, Office of the State Controller
In addition, the firm shall respond to the reasonable inquiries of successor auditors and allow successor auditors to review working papers relating to matters of continuing accounting significance.
455
EXHIBIT B
SCHEDULE OF CHARGES AND TIMELINE
BUDGET
Year 1 Estimated fees (not to exceed) $ 110,000
Year 2 Estimated fees (not to exceed) $ 114,950
Year 3 Estimated fees (not to exceed) $ 120,122
Each year includes Single Audit (assumes one major program) *Additional programs will be $4,000 each if audited in the previous three years, otherwise, $10,600 in 2024, $11,077 in 2025, or $11,575 in 2026.
Travel and out-of-pocket expenses $ N/A___
TIMELINE
Following is the anticipated audit schedule for 2024:
• Auditors submit interim audit checklist of required information/ documentation needed from the City ………………………..………..…July, 2024 • Start of interim field work…………………………………………....……August, 2024 • Auditors submit final audit checklist of required information/ documentation needed from the City……………………………….October, 2024 • City submits to auditors the final trial balance………………......December, 2024 • Start of final field work………………………………….………………..January, 2025 • Auditors submit draft financial statements to City……………..…. January, 2025 • City submits to auditors draft annual comprehensive financial report ………………………………………………………………….…..February, 2025
• Auditors submit to City the draft management letter ……….….….March, 2025 • Auditors submit to City the other audit reports and final review comments on the ACFR .…………………………….……………..…….March, 2025 • Auditors submit to City the final management letter ……..………..March, 2025 • Formal presentation to Council……………..…………..…………..…..…April, 2025 456
EXHIBIT C
ANTI-LOBBYING CERTIFICATION
Consultant shall submit to City this certification prior to or at the time of the execution of this Agreement.
This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by Section 1352, Title 31, U. S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty not less than $10,000 and no more than $100,000 for such failure.
The undersigned certifies, to the best of his or her knowledge or belief, that:
1. No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of it, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awarding of any Federal contract, the making of any Federal grant, the making of any Federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement; and
2. If any funds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, cooperative agreement, it will complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, “Disclosure Form to Report Lobbying,” in accordance with its instruction.
Consultant:
Roger Alfaro, CPA, Partner
By:________________________________________
457
What inspires you, inspires us. | eidebailly.com
2151 River Plaza Dr., Ste. 308 | Sacramento, CA 95833-4133 | T 916.570.1880 | F 916.570.1875 | EOE 1 April 9, 2024
To the Honorable City Council and City Manager
of the City of South Lake Tahoe, California
You have requested that we audit the financial statements of the governmental activities, the business-type activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of South Lake Tahoe, California (the City) as of September 30, 2024, and for the year then ended, and the related notes to the financial statements, which collectively comprise the City’s basic financial statements.
In addition, we will audit the entity’s compliance over major federal award programs for the period ended September 30, 2024. We are pleased to confirm our acceptance and our understanding of this audit engagement by means of this letter.
Our audits will be conducted with the objectives of our expressing an opinion on each opinion unit and an opinion on compliance regarding the entity’s major federal award programs. The objectives of our audit of the financial statements are to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements as a whole are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error, and to issue an auditor’s report that includes our opinion. Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance but is not absolute assurance and therefore is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAS) and in accordance with Government Auditing Standards will always detect a material misstatement when it exists. Misstatements, including omissions, can arise from fraud or error and are considered material if there is a substantial likelihood that, individually or in the aggregate, they would influence the judgment made by a reasonable user based on the financial statements.
The objectives of our compliance audit are to obtain sufficient appropriate audit evidence to form an opinion and report at the level specified in the governmental audit requirement about whether the entity complied in all material respects with the applicable compliance requirements and identify audit and reporting requirements specified in the governmental audit requirement that are supplementary to GAAS and Government Auditing Standards , if any, and perform procedures to address those requirements.
Accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (U.S. GAAP), as promulgated by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB), require that the management’s discussion and analysis, pension schedules, and budgetary schedules be presented to supplement the basic financial statements. Such information, although not a part of the basic financial statements, is required by the GASB, who considers it to be an essential part of financial reporting for placing the basic financial statements in an appropriate operational, economic, or historical context. As part of our engagement, we will apply certain limited procedures to the required supplementary information (RSI) in accordance with auditing standards generally 458
2 accepted in the United States of America. These limited procedures will consist primarily of inquiries of management regarding their methods of measurement and presentation and comparing the information for consistency with management’s responses to our inquiries. We will not express an opinion or provide any form of assurance on the RSI. The following RSI is required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. This RSI will be subjected to certain limited procedures but will not be audited:
• Management’s Discussion and Analysis
• Schedule of Changes in the Net Pension Liability and Related Ratios • Schedule of the City’s Proportionate Share of the Net Pension Liability • Schedule of Employer Contributions
• Budgetary Comparison Schedules of the General Fund and Each Major Special Revenue Fund Supplementary information other than RSI will accompany the City’s basic financial statements. We will subject the following supplementary information to the auditing procedures applied in our audit of the basic financial statements and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling the supplementary information to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the financial statements or to the financial statements themselves, and additional procedures in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. We intend to provide an opinion on the following supplementary information in relation to the financial statements as a whole:
• Budgetary Comparison Information – Capital Projects Funds • Combining Individual Fund Financial Statements and Schedules Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
We will subject the schedule of expenditures of federal awards to the auditing procedures applied in our audit of the basic financial statements and certain additional procedures, including comparing and reconciling the schedule to the underlying accounting and other records used to prepare the financial statements or to the financial statements themselves, and additional procedures in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America. We intend to provide an opinion on whether the schedule of expenditures of federal awards is presented fairly in all material respects in relation to the financial statements as a whole.
Also, the financial report will include the following other additional information that will not be subjected to the auditing procedures applied in our audit of the financial statements:
• Introductory Section
• Statistical Section
Data Collection Form
Prior to the completion of our engagement, we will complete the sections of the Data Collection Form that are our responsibility. The form will summarize our audit findings, amounts and conclusions. It is management’s responsibility to submit a reporting package including financial statements, schedule of expenditure of federal awards, summary schedule of prior audit findings and corrective action plan along with the Data Collection Form to the federal audit clearinghouse. The financial reporting package must be text searchable, unencrypted, and unlocked. Otherwise, the reporting package will not be accepted by the federal audit clearinghouse. We will assist you in the electronic submission and certification. You may request from us copies of our report for you to include with the reporting package submitted to pass-through entities. 459
3 The Data Collection Form is required to be submitted within the earlier of 30 days after receipt of our auditors’ reports or nine months after the end of the audit period, unless specifically waived by a federal cognizant or oversight agency for audits. Data Collection Forms submitted untimely are one of the factors in assessing programs at a higher risk.
Audit of the Financial Statements
We will conduct our audits in accordance with GAAS, the standards appliable to financial audits contained in Government Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States of America, the audit requirements of Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance). As part of an audit of financial statements in accordance with GAAS and in accordance with Government Auditing Standards and Uniform Guidance, we exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit. We also:
• Identify and assess the risks of material misstatement of the financial statements, whether due to fraud or error, design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks, and obtain audit evidence that is sufficient and appropriate to provide a basis for our opinion. The risk of not detecting a material misstatement resulting from fraud is higher than for one resulting from error, as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of internal control. • Obtain an understanding of internal control relevant to the audit in order to design audit procedures that are appropriate in the circumstances, but not for the purpose of expressing an opinion on the effectiveness of the entity’s internal control. However, we will communicate to you in writing concerning any significant deficiencies or material weaknesses in internal control relevant to the audit of the financial statements that we have identified during the audit. • Evaluate the appropriateness of accounting policies used and the reasonableness of significant accounting estimates made by management, as well as evaluate the overall presentation of the financial statements, including the disclosures, and whether the financial statements represent the underlying transactions and events in a manner that achieves fair presentation. • Conclude, based on the audit evidence obtained, whether there are conditions or events, considered in the aggregate, that raise substantial doubt about the City’s ability to continue as a going concern for a reasonable period of time.
Because of the inherent limitations of an audit, together with the inherent limitations of internal control, an unavoidable risk that some material misstatements or noncompliance may not be detected exists, even though the audit is properly planned and performed in accordance with GAAS and Government Auditing Standards of the Comptroller General of the United States of America. Please note that the determination of abuse is subjective and Government Auditing Standards does not require auditors to detect abuse.
Our responsibility as auditors is limited to the period covered by our audit and does not extend to any other periods.
We will issue a written report upon completion of our audit of the City’s basic financial statements. Our report will be addressed to the governing body of the City. Circumstances may arise in which our report may differ from its expected form and content based on the results of our audit. Depending on the nature of these circumstances, it may be necessary for us to modify our opinions, add an emphasis-of-matter or other-matter paragraph(s) to our auditor’s report, or if necessary, withdraw from the engagement. If our opinions on the basic financial statements are other than unmodified, we will discuss the reasons with you in advance. If, for any reason, we are unable to complete the audit or are unable to form or have not formed opinions, we may decline to express opinions or to issue a report as a result of this engagement. 460
4 In accordance with the requirements of Government Auditing Standards, we will also issue a written report describing the scope of our testing over internal control over financial reporting and over compliance with laws, regulations, and provisions of grants and contracts, including the results of that testing. However, providing an opinion on internal control and compliance over financial reporting will not be an objective of the audit and, therefore, no such opinion will be expressed.
Audit of Major Program Compliance
Our audit of the City’s major federal award program(s) compliance will be conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Single Audit Act, as amended; and the Uniform Guidance and will include tests of accounting records, a determination of major programs in accordance with the Uniform Guidance, and other procedures we consider necessary to enable us to express such an opinion on major federal award program compliance and to render the required reports. We cannot provide assurance that an unmodified opinion on compliance will be expressed. Circumstances may arise in which it is necessary for us to modify our opinion or withdraw from the engagement.
The Uniform Guidance requires that we also plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the material noncompliance with applicable laws and regulations, the provisions of contracts and grant agreements applicable to major federal award programs, and the applicable compliance requirements occurred, whether due to fraud or error, and express an opinion on the entity’s compliance based on the audit.
Reasonable assurance is a high level of assurance but is not absolute assurance and therefore is not a guarantee that an audit conducted in accordance with GAAS, Government Auditing Standards, and the Uniform Guidance will always detect material noncompliance when it exists. The risk of not detecting material noncompliance resulting from fraud is higher than for that resulting from error, as fraud may involve collusion, forgery, intentional omissions, misrepresentations, or the override of internal control. Noncompliance with the compliance requirements is considered material if there is a substantial likelihood that, individually or in the aggregate, it would influence the judgment made by a reasonable user of the report on compliance about the entity’s compliance with the requirements of the federal programs as a whole.
As part of a compliance audit in accordance with GAAS and in accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we exercise professional judgment and maintain professional skepticism throughout the audit. We also identify and assess the risks of material noncompliance, whether due to fraud or error, and design and perform audit procedures responsive to those risks.
Our procedures will consist of determining major federal programs and performing the applicable procedures described in the U.S. Office of Management and Budget OMB Compliance Supplement for the types of compliance requirements that could have a direct and material effect on each of the entity’s major programs, and performing such other procedures as we considers necessary in the circumstances The purpose of those procedures will be to express an opinion on the entity’s compliance with requirements applicable to each of its major programs in our report on compliance issued pursuant to the Uniform Guidance.
Also, as required by the Uniform Guidance, we will obtain an understanding of the entity’s internal control over compliance relevant to the audit in order to design and perform tests of controls to evaluate the effectiveness of the design and operation of controls that we consider relevant to preventing or detecting material noncompliance with compliance requirements applicable to each of the entity’s major federal award programs.
Our tests will be less in scope than would be necessary to render an opinion on these controls and, accordingly, no opinion will be expressed in our report. However, we will communicate to you, regarding, among other matters, the planned scope and timing of the audit and any significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in internal control over compliance that we have identified during the audit. 461
5 We will issue a report on compliance that will include an opinion or disclaimer of opinion regarding the entity’s major federal award programs, and a report on internal controls over compliance that will report any significant deficiencies and material weaknesses identified; however, such report will not express an opinion on internal control.
Management Responsibilities
Our audit will be conducted on the basis that management and, when appropriate, those charged with governance, acknowledge and understand that they have responsibility:
1. For the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America;
2. For the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of financial statements that are free from material misstatement, whether due to fraud or error;
3. For identifying, in its accounts, all federal awards received and expended during the period and the federal programs under which they were received;
4. For maintaining records that adequately identify the source and application of funds for federally funded activities;
5. For preparing the schedule of expenditures of federal awards (including notes and noncash assistance received) in accordance with the Uniform Guidance;
6. For designing, implementing, and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the entity is managing federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards;
7. For identifying and ensuring that the entity complies with federal laws, statutes, regulations, rules, provisions of contracts or grant agreements, and the terms and conditions of federal award programs and implementing systems designed to achieve compliance with applicable federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of federal award programs;
8. For disclosing accurately, currently, and completely, the financial results of each federal award in accordance with the requirements of the award;
9. For identifying and providing report copies of previous audits, attestation engagements, or other studies that directly relate to the objectives of the audit, including whether related recommendations have been implemented;
10. For taking prompt action when instances of noncompliance are identified;
11. For addressing the findings and recommendations of auditors, for establishing and maintaining a process to track the status of such findings and recommendations and taking corrective action on reported audit findings from prior periods and preparing a summary schedule of prior audit findings;
12. For following up and taking corrective action on current year audit findings and preparing a corrective action plan for such findings;
13. For submitting the reporting package and data collection form to the appropriate parties;
14. For making the auditor aware of any significant contractor relationships where the contractor is responsible for program compliance;
15. To provide us with:
a. Access to all information of which management is aware that is relevant to the preparation and fair presentation of the financial statements including disclosures, and relevant to federal award programs, such as records, documentation, and other matters; b. Additional information that we may request from management for the purpose of the audit; and c. Unrestricted access to persons within the entity and others from whom we determine it necessary to obtain audit evidence.
462
6 16. For including the auditor’s report in any document containing financial statements that indicates that such financial statements have been audited by us, including i. A written acknowledgement of all the documents that management expects to issue that will be included in the annual report and the planned timing and method of issuance of that annual report; and
ii. A final version of the annual report (including all the documents that, together, comprise the annual report) in a timely manner prior to the date of the auditor’s report;
17. For adjusting the financial statements to correct material misstatements and confirming to us in the management representation letter that the effects of any uncorrected misstatements aggregated by us during the current engagement and pertaining to the current year period(s) under audit are immaterial, both individually and in the aggregate, to the financial statements as a whole;
18. For acceptance of nonattest services, including identifying the proper party to oversee nonattest work;
19. For maintaining adequate records, selecting and applying accounting principles, and safeguarding assets;
20. For informing us of any known or suspected fraud affecting the entity involving management, employees with significant role in internal control and others where fraud could have a material effect on compliance;
21. For the accuracy and completeness of all information provided;
22. For taking reasonable measures to safeguard protected personally identifiable and other sensitive information; and
23. For confirming your understanding of your responsibilities as defined in this letter to us in your management representation letter.
With regard to the schedule of expenditures of federal awards referred to above, you acknowledge and understand your responsibility (a) for the preparation of the schedule of expenditures of federal awards in accordance with the Uniform Guidance, (b) to provide us with the appropriate written representations regarding the schedule of expenditures of federal awards, (c) to include our report on the schedule of expenditures of federal awards in any document that contains the schedule of expenditures of federal awards and that indicates that we have reported on such schedule, and (d) to present the schedule of expenditures of federal awards with the audited financial statements, or if the schedule will not be presented with the audited financial statements, to make the audited financial statements readily available to the intended users of the schedule of expenditures of federal awards no later than the date of issuance by you of the schedule and our report thereon.
With regard to the supplementary information referred to above, you acknowledge and understand your responsibility (a) for the preparation of the supplementary information in accordance with the applicable criteria, (b) to provide us with the appropriate written representations regarding supplementary information, (c) to include our report on the supplementary information in any document that contains the supplementary information and that indicates that we have reported on such supplementary information, and (d) to present the supplementary information with the audited financial statements, or if the supplementary information will not be presented with the audited financial statements, to make the audited financial statements readily available to the intended users of the supplementary information no later than the date of issuance by you of the supplementary information and our report thereon.
As part of our audit process, we will request from management and, when appropriate, those charged with governance, written confirmation concerning representations made to us in connection with the audit.
We understand that your employees will prepare all confirmations we request and will locate any documents or invoices selected by us for testing.
463
7 If you intend to publish or otherwise reproduce the financial statements and make reference to our firm, you agree to provide us with printers’ proofs or masters for our review and approval before printing. You also agree to provide us with a copy of the final reproduced material for our approval before it is distributed.
Nonattest Services
With respect to any nonattest services we perform, we agree to perform the following:
• Prepare or assist with preparing financial statements in conformity with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles based on information provided by you. • Complete the auditee’s portion of the Data Collection Form We will not assume management responsibilities on behalf of the City. The City’s management understands and agrees that any advice or recommendation we may provide in connection with our audit engagement are solely to assist management in performing its responsibilities.
The City’s management is responsible for (a) making all management decisions and performing all management functions; (b) assigning a competent individual to oversee the services; (c) evaluating the adequacy of the services performed; (d) evaluating and accepting responsibility for the results of the services performed; and (e) establishing and maintaining internal controls, including monitoring ongoing activities.
Our responsibilities and limitations of the nonattest services are as follows:
• We will perform the services in accordance with applicable professional standards. • The nonattest services are limited to the services previously outlined above. Our firm, in its sole professional judgment, reserves the right to refuse to do any procedure or take any action that could be construed as making management decisions or assuming management responsibilities.
Fees and Timing
Roger Alfaro is the engagement partner for the audit services specified in this letter. Responsibilities include supervising services performed as part of this engagement and signing or authorizing another qualified firm representative to sign the audit report. We expect to begin our audit approximately July 2024.
Our fees are based on the amount of time required at various levels of responsibility, plus actual out-of-pocket expenses, including administrative charges and a technology fee. Invoices are payable upon presentation. We estimate that our fee for the audit will be $110,000, exclusive of considerations related to the adoption of new GASB Statements.
The ability to perform and complete our engagement consistent with the estimated fee included above depends upon the quality of your underlying accounting records and the timeliness of your personnel in providing information and responding to our requests. To assist with this process, we will provide you with an itemized request list that identifies the information you will need to prepare and provide in preparation for our engagement, as well as the requested delivery date for those items. A lack of preparation, including not providing this information in an accurate and timely manner, unanticipated audit adjustments, and/or untimely assistance by your personnel may result in an increase in our fees and/or a delay in the completion of our engagement. We endeavor to notify you of circumstances we encounter that could significantly affect our fee estimate. Whenever possible, we will attempt to use the City’s personnel to assist in the preparation of schedules and analyses of accounts. This effort could substantially reduce our time requirements and facilitate the timely conclusion of the audit.
464
8 We may be requested to make certain audit documentation available to outside parties, including regulators, pursuant to authority provided by law or regulation or applicable professional standards. If requested, access to such audit documentation will be provided under the supervision of Eide Bailly LLP’s personnel. Furthermore, upon request, we may provide copies of selected audit documentation to the outside party, who may intend, or decide, to distribute the copies of information contained therein to others, including other governmental agencies. We will be compensated for any time and expenses, including time and expenses of legal counsel, we may incur in making such audit documentation available or in conducting or responding to discovery requests or participating as a witness or otherwise in any legal, regulatory, or other proceedings as a result of our Firm’s performance of these services. You and your attorney will receive, if lawful, a copy of every subpoena we are asked to respond to on your behalf and will have the ability to control the extent of the discovery process to control the costs you may incur.
Should our relationship terminate before our audit procedures are completed and a report issued, you will be billed for services to the date of termination. All bills are payable upon receipt. A service charge of 1% per month, which is an annual rate of 12%, will be added to all accounts unpaid 30 days after billing date. If collection action is necessary, expenses and reasonable attorney’s fees will be added to the amount due.
Other Matters
During the course of the engagement, we will only provide confidential engagement documentation to you via Eide Bailly’s secure portal or other secure methods, and request that you use the same or similar tools in providing information to us. Should you choose not to utilize secure communication applications, you acknowledge that such communication contains a risk of the information being made available to unintended third parties. Similarly, we may communicate with you or your personnel via e-mail or other electronic methods, and you acknowledge that communication in those mediums contains a risk of misdirected or intercepted communications.
Should you provide us with remote access to your information technology environment, including but not limited to your financial reporting system, you agree to (1) assign unique usernames and passwords for use by our personnel in accessing the system and to provide this information in a secure manner; (2) limit access to “read only” to prevent any unintentional deletion or alteration of your data; (3) limit access to the areas of your technology environment necessary to perform the procedures agreed upon; and (4) disable all usernames and passwords provided to us upon the completion of procedures for which access was provided. We agree to only access your technology environment to the extent necessary to perform the identified procedures.
Regarding the electronic dissemination of audited financial statements, including financial statements published electronically on your website or elsewhere, you understand that electronic sites are a means to distribute information and, therefore, we are not required to read the information contained in these sites or to consider the consistency of other information in the electronic site with the original document.
Professional standards prohibit us from being the sole host and/or the sole storage for your financial and nonfinancial data. As such, it is your responsibility to maintain your original data and records and we cannot be responsible to maintain such original information. By signing this engagement letter, you affirm that you have all the data and records required to make your books and records complete.
We may use third party service providers and/or affiliated entities (including Eide Bailly Shared Services Private Limited) (collectively, “service providers”) in order to facilitate delivering our services to you. Our use of service providers may require access to client information by the service provider. We will take reasonable precautions to determine that they have the appropriate procedures in place to prevent the unauthorized release of confidential information to others. We will remain responsible for the confidentiality of client information accessed by such service provider and any work performed by such service provider. 465
9 Neither of us may use or disclose the other’s confidential information for any purpose except as permitted under this engagement letter or as otherwise necessary for Eide Bailly to provide the services. Your confidential information is defined as any information you provide to us that is not available to the public. Eide Bailly’s confidential information includes our audit documentation for this engagement. Our audit documentation shall at all times remain the property of Eide Bailly LLP. The confidentiality obligations described in this paragraph shall supersede and replace any and all prior confidentiality and/or nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) between us.
We agree to retain our audit documentation or work papers for a period of at least eight years from the date of our report.
Further, we will be available during the year to consult with you on financial management and accounting matters of a routine nature.
You agree to share all facts that may affect your financial statements, even if you first become aware of those facts after the date of the auditor’s report but before the date your financial statements are issued.
At the conclusion of our audit engagement, we will communicate to the City Council the following significant findings from the audit:
• Our view about the qualitative aspects of the entity’s significant accounting practices; • Significant difficulties, if any, encountered during the audit; • Uncorrected misstatements, other than those we believe are trivial, if any; • Disagreements with management, if any;
• Other findings or issues, if any, arising from the audit that are, in our professional judgment, significant and relevant to those charged with governance regarding their oversight of the financial reporting process;
• Material, corrected misstatements that were brought to the attention of management as a result of our audit procedures;
• Representations we requested from management;
• Management’s consultations with other accountants, if any; and • Significant issues, if any, arising from the audit that were discussed, or the subject of correspondence, with management.
Government Auditing Standards require that we provide, upon request, a copy of our most recent external peer review report and any subsequent review reports to the party contracting for the audit. Accordingly, we will provide a copy of our most recent peer review report at your request.
Eide Bailly LLP is a member of HLB International, a worldwide organization of accounting firms and business advisors, ("HLB"). Each member firm of HLB, including Eide Bailly LLP is a separate and independent legal entity and is not owned or controlled by any other member of HLB. Each member firm of HLB is solely responsible for its own acts and omissions and no other member assumes any liability for such acts or omissions. Neither Eide Bailly LLP, nor any of its affiliates, are responsible or liable for any acts or omission of HLB or any other member firm of HLB and hereby specifically disclaim any and all responsibility, even if Eide Bailly LLP, or any of its affiliates are aware of such acts or omissions of another member of HLB. 466
10 Eide Bailly LLP formed The Eide Bailly Alliance Network, a network for small to mid-sized CPA firms across the nation. Each member firm of The Eide Bailly Alliance, including Eide Bailly LLP, is a separate and independent legal entity and is not owned or controlled by any other member of The Eide Bailly Alliance. Each member firm of The Eide Bailly Alliance is solely responsible for its own acts and omissions and no other member assumes any liability for such acts or omissions. Neither Eide Bailly LLP, nor any of its affiliates, are responsible or liable for any acts or omission of The Eide Bailly Alliance or any other member firm of The Eide Bailly Alliance and hereby specifically disclaim any and all responsibility, even if Eide Bailly LLP, or any of its affiliates are aware of such acts or omissions of another member of The Eide Bailly Alliance.
Eide Bailly LLP has owners that are not licensed as certified public accountants as permitted under Section 5079 of the California Business Code. It is not anticipated that any of the non-licensee owners will be performing services for the City.
MEDIATION
Any disagreement, controversy or claim arising out of or related to any aspect of our services or relationship with you (hereafter a “Dispute”) shall, as a precondition to litigation in court, first be submitted to mediation. In mediation, the parties attempt to reach an amicable resolution of the Dispute with the aid of an impartial mediator. Mediation shall begin by service of a written demand. The mediator will be selected by mutual agreement. If we cannot agree on a mediator, one shall be designated by the American Arbitration Association (“AAA”). Mediation shall be conducted with the parties in person in the Sacramento office. Each party will bear its own costs in the mediation. The fees and expenses of the mediator will be shared equally by the parties.
Neither party may commence a lawsuit until the mediator declares an impasse.
LIMITED INDEMNITY
Eide Bailly LLP and its partners, affiliates, officers and employees (collectively “Eide Bailly”) shall not be responsible for any misstatements in your financial statements that we may fail to detect as a result of misrepresentations or concealment of information by any of your owners, directors, officers or employees. You shall indemnify and hold Eide Bailly harmless from any claims, losses, settlements, judgments, awards, damages and attorneys’ fees arising from any such misstatement or concealment of information.
If through no fault of Eide Bailly we are named as a party to a dispute between you and a third party, you shall indemnify and hold Eide Bailly harmless against any losses, damages, settlements, judgments, awards, and the costs of litigation (including attorneys’ fees) we incur in connection with the dispute.
Eide Bailly shall not be entitled to indemnification under this agreement unless the services were performed in accordance with professional standards in all material respects.
LIMITATION OF LIABILITY
The exclusive remedy available to you for any alleged loss or damages arising from or related to Eide Bailly’s services or relationship with you shall be the right to pursue claims for actual damages that are directly caused by Eide Bailly’s breach of this agreement or Eide Bailly’s violation of applicable professional standards. In no event shall Eide Bailly’s aggregate liability to you exceed two times fees paid under this agreement, nor shall Eide Bailly ever be liable to you for incidental, consequential, punitive or exemplary damages, or attorneys’ fees. 467
11 TIME LIMITATION
You may not bring any legal proceeding against Eide Bailly unless it is commenced within twenty-four (24) months (“Limitation Period”) after the date when we delivered our report, return, or other deliverable under this agreement to you, regardless of whether we do other services for you or that may relate to the audit. The Limitation Period applies and begins to run even if you have not suffered any damage or loss, or have not become aware of a possible Dispute.
GOVERNING LAW AND VENUE
Any Dispute between us, including any Dispute related to the engagement contemplated by this agreement, shall be governed by California law. Any unresolved Dispute shall be submitted to a federal or state court located in the Sacramento, California.
ASSIGNMENTS PROHIBITED
You shall not assign, sell, barter or transfer any legal rights, causes of actions, claims or Disputes you may have against Eide Bailly to any person.
Please sign and return the attached copy of this letter to indicate your acknowledgment of, and agreement with, the arrangements for our audit of the financial statements including our respective responsibilities.
We appreciate the opportunity to be your certified public accountants and look forward to working with you and your staff.
Respectfully,
Roger Alfaro, CPA
Partner
*************************************************************** RESPONSE:
This letter correctly sets forth our understanding.
Acknowledged and agreed on behalf of the City of South Lake Tahoe, California by:
Name: _______________________________________________________________ Title: ________________________________________________________________ Date: ________________________________________________________________ 468
cbh.com
Report on the Firm’s System of Quality Control
To the Partners of Eide Bailly LLP
and the National Peer Review Committee
We have reviewed the system of quality control for the accounting and auditing practice of Eide Bailly LLP (the “Firm”) applicable to engagements not subject to Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (“PCAOB”) permanent inspection in effect for the year ended April 30, 2023. Our peer review was conducted in accordance with the Standards for Performing and Reporting on Peer Reviews established by the Peer Review Board of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (“Standards”).
A summary of the nature, objectives, scope, limitations of, and the procedures performed in a system review as described in the Standards may be found at www.aicpa.org/prsummary. The summary also includes an explanation of how engagements identified as not performed or reported on in conformity with applicable professional standards, if any, are evaluated by a peer reviewer to determine a peer review rating.
Firm’s Responsibility
The Firm is responsible for designing and complying with a system of quality control to provide the Firm with reasonable assurance of performing and reporting in conformity with the requirements of applicable professional standards in all material respects. The Firm is also responsible for evaluating actions to promptly remediate engagements deemed as not performed or reported on in conformity with the requirements of applicable professional standards, when appropriate, and for remediating weaknesses in its system of quality control, if any.
Peer Reviewer’s Responsibility
Our responsibility is to express an opinion on the design of and compliance with the Firm’s system of quality control based on our review.
Required Selections and Considerations
Engagements selected for review included engagements performed under Government Auditing Standards, including compliance audits under the Single Audit Act; audits of employee benefit plans; audits performed under FDICIA; and examinations of service organizations (SOC 1® and SOC 2® engagements).
As a part of our peer review, we considered reviews by regulatory entities as communicated by the Firm, if applicable, in determining the nature and extent of our procedures.
Opinion
In our opinion, the system of quality control for the accounting and auditing practice of Eide Bailly LLP applicable to engagements not subject to PCAOB permanent inspection in effect for the year ended April 30, 2023, has been suitably designed and complied with to provide the Firm with reasonable assurance of performing and reporting in conformity with applicable professional standards in all material respects. Firms can receive a rating of pass, pass with deficiency(ies,) or fail. Eide Bailly LLP has received a peer review rating of pass.
Atlanta, Georgia
January 9, 2024
469
City of South Lake Tahoe
Agenda Item Executive Summary
Joe Irvin, City Manager
__________________________________
Meeting Date: April 23, 2024
Agenda Item #:14
Agenda Item: Application from HVR Acquisitions LLC for Tourist Core Area Plan/Specific Plan Amendments to Rezone a Portion of Assessor's Parcel Number. 029-441-024 From Recreation to Tourist Center Mixed-Use
Executive Summary: HVR Acquisitions LLC (HVR) submitted a development application in 2019 to the City of South Lake Tahoe, proposing an amendment to the Tourist Core Area Plan/Specific Plan. At that time, HVR proposed to amend the existing zoning for two parcels: APNs 029-240-011 & 029-441-003 from Recreation to Tourist Center Mixed-Use (TSC-MU). The amendment would have expanded the boundary of the TSC-MU district, allowing additional land uses (multi-family, tourist accommodation, commercial and public services uses) that are not allowed in the Recreation district and would allow additional heights up to 56 feet from 36 feet and increase density to 25 units an acre.). HVR subsequently amended the project description to remove APN 029-441-003 from the proposal. HVR intends to develop multi-family project on the rezoned property if the amendment is successful.
Requested Action / Suggested Motions: City Council is asked to either: 1) Pass a Resolution adopting the proposed Tourist Core Area Plan/Specific Plan Amendments and adopting the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration; or 2) Pass a Resolution denying the proposed Tourist Core Area Plan/Specific Plan Amendments.
Responsible Staff Member: John Hitchcock, Planning Manager Reviewed and Approved By: Zachary Thomas, Director of Development Services Susan Blankenship, City Clerk Olga Tikhomirova, Director of Finance Heather Stroud, City Attorney Attachments:
01-Staff Report - Tourist Core Area Plan.docx
02-Plan Area Statement 089B AND 091.pdf
03-Proposed Text Changes.pdf
04-Proposed Zoning.pdf
05-TCAP HVR Amendment NOA and NOI.pdf
06-Proof_of_Mailing.pdf
07-Draft Resolution Adopting IS/MND and Approving TCAP Amendment.docx 08-TCAP Amendment (Exh. 1 to Reso Approving).pdf
09-FINAL IS/MND.pdf
10-DRAFT IS/MND.pdf
11-Draft Resolution Denying TCAP Amendment.docx
12-PC Resolution 2024-005 ISMND Adoption.pdf
13-PC Resolution 2024-006 TCAP Recommend Adoption.pdf
14-CC Public Notice Tribune Proof.pdf
470
City Council Agenda Report April 23, 2024 Page 1 of 11
City of South Lake Tahoe
Report to City Council
Meeting Date: April 23, 2024
Title: Tourist Core Area Plan/Specific Plan Amendments
Location: Tourist Core Area Plan Mixed-Use District, APN 029-441-024 Responsible Staff Members: John Hitchcock, Planning Manager (530) 542-7472 Background: The TCAP was originally adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe on October 14, 2013, and by the TRPA Governing Board on November 11, 2013, and has since been amended to modify land use and plan boundaries. The plan provides land use guidance for future development and redevelopment and addresses land use regulations, development and design standards, transportation, recreation, public service, and environmental improvements for the area. It encourages general improvement and enhancement for the built environment and provides a framework to change the existing conditions into opportunities for redevelopment with a focus on achieving environmental improvements, encouraging a mixed-use land use pattern that includes high-density tourist accommodation and residential uses, commercial, public facilities, public spaces and opportunities for housing in close proximity to job centers. The TCAP is the center of tourist services and recreation access in the city and has traditionally been the area with the highest concentration of services and density.
HVR Acquisitions LLC (HVR) submitted a development application in 2019 to the City of South Lake Tahoe, proposing an amendment to the Tourist Core Area Plan/Specific Plan. HVR proposed to amend the existing zoning for two parcels, APNs 029-240-011 & 029-441-003 (see Figure 1), from Recreation (Rec) to Tourist Center Mixed-Use (TSC-MU). The amendment would expand the boundary of the TSC-MU district, allowing additional land uses (multi-family, tourist accommodation, commercial and public services uses) that are not allowed in the Recreation district and would allow additional heights up to 56 feet from 36 feet and increase density to 25 units an acre.). HVR's intent in pursuing the amendment is to develop multi-residential units on APN 029-441-004, which is already zoned TSC-MUC, and on the two subject parcels that are affected by this amendment.
After conducting a public workshop on the proposed amendment and receiving comments from the public, the League to Save Lake Tahoe, the California Tahoe Conservancy, and the Nevada Division of State Parks, the applicant amended the proposal in response to concerns. Discussion and analysis of the original proposal and revised amendment and its potential impacts are provided below in the Issue and Discussion section.
471
City Council Agenda Report April 23, 2024 Page 2 of 11
Figure 1 – Location Map & Amendment Area
Issue and Discussion: The subject parcels total 5.05 acres currently in the Recreation District (APNs 029-240-011 and 029-441-003). The Recreation district allows for a variety of recreation uses, such as dispersed recreation and parks. Permissible uses in this district are primarily related to recreation uses and include cross-country ski courses, day-use areas, group facilities, riding and hiking trails, rural sports, snowmobile courses, employee housing at 15 units per acre, and single-family dwellings (a caretaker residence). Height within the Recreation district is APN 029-441-004
472
City Council Agenda Report April 23, 2024 Page 3 of 11
capped at 36 feet, but like all other districts in the Tourist Core Area Plan, a maximum of 70 percent coverage is allowed on high capability lands.
The subject parcels were previously zoned tourist accommodation (see Attachment 02, PAS 089B – California South Stateline Resort Area, but were rezoned to recreation when the Stateline/Ski Run Community Plan was adopted in 1994. Under PAS 089B, prior to 1994, multi-family and single-family dwellings were permitted with a special use permit. When the Tourist Core Area Plan was adopted to replace the Stateline/Ski Run Community Plan, the Recreation district designation and permissible uses were carried over into the Tourist Core Area Plan.
Since the adoption of the community plan, the properties have been held in private ownership, and there have not been any proposals or discussions to develop the properties with recreationtype uses. It is likely that the properties were not developed because of existing site constraints and parcel size. TRPA completed a land capability verification for the subject parcels and has verified a stream environment zone (SEZ) on both parcels. In total, approximately 46% of the parcels are designated SEZ and are not developable (see Figure 3 and Figure 4). Any development would be limited to the high capability portion located to the southwestern portion of APN 029-240-011 and the northeastern portion of 029-441-003, which is adjacent to Van Sickle State Park.
Figure 3 – APN 029-240-011 Land Capability Verification 473
City Council Agenda Report April 23, 2024 Page 4 of 11
Figure 4 – APN 029-441-003 Land Capability Verification 474
City Council Agenda Report April 23, 2024 Page 5 of 11
Prior to preparing an Initial Study to evaluate the impacts of the proposed amendment, the City, in coordination with the applicant, conducted an online public scoping meeting on November 12, 2020, to take public comment on the proposed amendment and the scope of the environmental analysis. The meeting was attended by members of the public and staff members from the League to Save Lake Tahoe, the California Tahoe Conservancy, and the Nevada Division of State Parks. Commenters expressed concerns that the proposed amendment would impact the adjacent SEZ and its potential for quality habitat, result in management issues extending beyond the private development, encroachment, storage of equipment on public lands, change to the recreation character of the area resulting in scenic impacts, wildfire impacts, and creating parking issues at Van Sickle State Park.
Scenic
The developable portion of the subject parcel is approximately 540 feet from Van Sickle State Park and is well screened with mature vegetation located along the southern boundary of the Van Sickle Park property line and the adjacent parcel (see Figure 5). Any future potential project would also be required to implement the design standards of the Tourist Core Area Plan, which requires a mountain architectural aesthetic that incorporates building articulation, fenestration, pitched roofs, use of earthtone colors, natural and natural appearing materials, and onsite landscape to ensure development complements its natural setting. Incorporating the adopted design standards would reduce any potential scenic impacts or impacts to existing scenic views located onsite or offsite.
Encroachment
To reduce any potential encroachment on public lands, the SEZ, or degrade habitat, and restrict the storage of personal property on adjacent public lands, any future potential project will include a visually permeable perimeter fencing along the SEZ setback line. The fence will reduce any potential encroachment on the SEZ or on adjacent public lands.
Parking
Concerns were expressed by the California Tahoe Conservancy that limited parking at Van Sickle State Park would be used by private individuals in any future residential project, thereby excluding the public from parking at the park. The City parking standards require all project types, including residential, to provide adequate onsite parking to serve the residents and guests. Any potential future projects would be required to meet the City parking standards. Moreover, due to the proximity of the entrance of Van Sickle State Park to the subject parcel, it is unlikely any future residents or guests would utilize parking at the park. As noted by CTC staff, Van Sickle Park was purposely designed to encourage pedestrian access by limiting parking and providing recreation access to a highly urbanized south shore area via existing sidewalks and paths.
Fire Risk
Concerns were also raised about the proposed amendment increasing fire risk by pushing development into the Wildland-Urban Interface Zone. It should be noted that the Recreation 475
City Council Agenda Report April 23, 2024 Page 6 of 11
District already allows development, and all development, regardless of its zoning district, is required to use materials, systems and/or assemblies in the exterior design and construction that meet California Building Code 7A requirements for construction in the Wildland-Urban Interface Zone. All potential projects are also required to meet appropriate setback requirements for defensible space and must be approved by the City Fire Inspector.
Figure 5 – Subject Parcel in Relation to Van Sickle State Park Revised Project Description and Proposed Amendment
As a result of comments received during the scoping meeting and subsequent discussions with California Tahoe Conservancy staff, the proposed amendment was amended to address these concerns. The project description was revised to remove the parcel adjacent to Van Sickle State Park from the proposal (APN029-441-003). This parcel would remain zoned as recreation.
Subsequently, the remaining subject recreation parcel (APN 029-240-011) was merged with APN 029-441-004, which is located in the TSC-MU district, to create APN 029-441-024. However, the merge did not affect the area plan boundary, and a portion of the new merged parcel is still zoned Recreation and is the subject area of this proposed amendment (see Figure 6). 476
City Council Agenda Report April 23, 2024 Page 7 of 11
In response to concerns related to a change in recreation character and potential scenic impacts, the proposed amendment was also revised to add policies to the TSC-MU district that are specifically applicable to the subject parcel. These policies would limit the use of this parcel to residential, linear public facilities, recreation, resource management, and open space uses (tourist, commercial, and most general public service land uses would be prohibited). In addition, the density was proposed to be capped at four dwelling units an acre.
In addition to the change in the project description, the privately initiated area plan amendment was incorporated into the staff-initiated Tourist Core Area Plan Amendment to streamline the amendment process.
2024 Project Description and Proposed Amendment
On June 6, 2023, staff presented the Tourist Core Area Plan Amendment to the City Council.
During deliberation, the City Council questioned the proposed reduction in density and commented that the density should be higher considering the parcel is located in a designated Town Center. In addition to supporting higher density on the parcel, the Council directed staff to remove the privately initiated area plan amendment from the staff-initiated Tourist Core Area Plan Amendment and process the amendment separately on its own merit.
As a result of the City Council comments related to density, the applicant has revised the project description to remove the density limitation of four dwelling units an acre. All other aspects of the proposal would remain the same, including limiting residential and linear public facilities, recreation, resource management, and open space uses on the parcel. If the amendment is successful, the Tourist Core Area Plan density standard would potentially allow up to 32 additional residential units. In addition, the applicant has also revised the project description to commit to deed restricting two residential units in any potential future project to TRPA-designated "achievable units."
477
City Council Agenda Report April 23, 2024 Page 8 of 11
Figure 6 – Revised Amendment Area
478
City Council Agenda Report April 23, 2024 Page 9 of 11
Initial Study
To evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed amendment, Hauge Brueck Associates prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The IS/MND analyzes the project's potential to result in significant environmental impacts. Areas of analysis include aesthetics, agriculture and forestry, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, greenhouse gas emissions, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, land use planning, mineral resources, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation and traffic, utility and services systems, and additional mandatory findings of significance related to potential cumulative impacts. The analysis concluded that the proposed project could potentially have impacts in the following resource areas: public services and recreation.
The IS/MND concluded that the proposed amendment could potentially impact parking demand at full build-out if the amendment were successfully adopted. The IS/MND includes Mitigation Measure TRAN-1, which requires the property owner to enter into an agreement for offsite parking or submit a parking analysis that supports a reduction in the parking demand ratio.
Tribal Consultation
Pursuant to state law, the City has completed the requirements for consultation with Native American tribes under Assembly Bill 52 and the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. Consultation letters were sent on December 14. 2020 to the Ione Band of Miwok Indians, the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, the United Auburn Indian Community, and the Washoe Tribe of California and Nevada. The City did not receive a request for consultation on the proposed area plan amendment.
Public Comment Period and Public Noticing
The IS/MND has been sent, along with a Notice of Completion, to the California State Clearinghouse for distribution to state and regional agencies for review. The IS/MND has also been available at City offices (1052 Tata Lane) and online at https://www.cityofslt.us/DocumentCenter/View/14967/Tourist-Core-Area-Plan-Amendment-PDF.
The 30-day comment period begins on January 19, 2024, and ends on February 26, 2024.
A Notice of Availability and Notice of Intent, advertising the review period was published in the Tahoe Daily Tribune on January 26, 2024, and mailed to affected property owners on January 30, 2024. The Planning Commission conducted a duly noted public hearing on February 22, 2024, to take public comment on the proposed amendments and the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.
On March 21, 2024, the proposed amendments and the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was considered by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission received a presentation from staff and the applicant's representative, took public comment, voted 3-0 to pass a resolution adopting the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, and recommended the City Council adopt the Tourist Core Area Plan Amendments.
479
City Council Agenda Report April 23, 2024 Page 10 of 11 Environmental Considerations:
California Environmental Quality Act
See "Issue and Discussion" section above.
Financial Implications:
None
Policy Implications:
City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan
The following goals and policies are applicable to the proposed amendment.
The subject parcel is currently designated as Tourist Center in the City General Plan. The Tourist Center, land use designation, is defined as follows:
This designation provides for a mixture of uses, including tourist accommodation, commercial, intensive recreation, high-density residential, and mixed-use residential. This designation is applied to areas that are currently developed as commercial/visitor centers, have excess land coverage, where vertical mixed-use projects are appropriate and are near commercial, employment, transit, and public services.
The Land Use and Community Design Element of the General Plan includes the following goals and policies to encourage development, redevelopment, and upgrades to existing development.
Goal LU-2 : To focus future commercial, multi-family residential, tourist, civic, and social gathering space development in community plan area in order to maximize incentives and create transit,- bicycle-, and pedestrian-oriented places that serve the needs of both residents and visitors.
Policy LU-2.2: Community Plan Preparation, Adoption, and Implementation The City shall periodically update and implement the four Community Plans as a way to focus development commodities and revitalization efforts.
Policy 1-7: The City shall direct high-density residential development to sites located within walking distance of public transit and services. The City shall consider minimum density requirements in these areas.
The proposed amendment is generally consistent with the goals and policies listed above in that the amendment would potentially direct high-density residential uses within a designated Town Center and is within proximity of commercial, recreation, employment, transit and public service uses.
Tourist Core Area Plan
480
City Council Agenda Report April 23, 2024 Page 11 of 11 The Tourist Core Area Plan was adopted by the City "to establish a framework that will achieve redevelopment and reinvestment in properties, on the ground environmental improvement, enhancement of the built environment…and increased access to recreation opportunities." The proposed amendments would rezone the subject parcel to TSC-MUC and would potentially allow for residential development beyond the one caretaker unit or employee housing that is currently allowed. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Tourist Core Area Plan Town Center and TSC-MU designation, which encourages the diversification of land uses within close proximity to employment centers, services, recreation and transit.
While the TCAP currently shows the amendment area in the Recreation District it is also included in the TCAP Town Center Overlay and included in the Transfer of Development Rights Receiving Area. The amendment is, therefore, also internally consistent with the TCAP.
TRPA Regional Plan
The TRPA Conceptual Regional Land Use Map (https://www.trpa.gov/wpcontent/uploads/documents/archive/2/FinalAdoptedRegionalPlanMaps_amended1-2-2018.pdf) identifies the amendment area as "Tourist" land use and within a "Town Center" district. Town Centers are targeted for redevelopment in a manner that improves environmental conditions, creates a more sustainable and less auto-dependent development pattern, and provides economic opportunities in the Region. The amendment is, therefore, consistent with the TRPA Regional Plan. Specifically, the amendment is compatible with TRPA Land Use Policies LU-1.1 and LU-1.2 as well as Community Design Policy LU-2.1
A precedent exists for rezoning recreation properties to allow for residential and tourist accommodation uses. These include an amendment in the 1990s to Plan Area Statement 070 to permit tourist accommodation uses within the existing Edgewood Tahoe Golf Course and the 2012 TRPA Regional Plan creation of a Resort Recreation District for Edgewood Company's "mountain parcel" and the Heavenly Ski Resort California base lodge area. These amendments allow for multi-family development and tourist accommodation uses on formerly zoned recreation properties close to employment centers, services, recreation, and transit. 481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
Tourist Core Area Plan
Development and Design Standards C-1 November 16, 2021
Appendix C
Development and Design Standards
This section sets out the development standards, design standards and permissible uses for the land use districts in the Tourist Core Area Plan to achieve its desired urban form.
Applicability: All projects within the Tourist Core Area Plan shall meet the standards provided below. In addition, all projects are required to meet the Citywide Design Standards as well when applicable. Should a conflict occur between the Citywide standards and the Tourist Core Area Plan standards, the standards of this Area Plan shall apply. All regulations in the TRPA Code of Ordinances shall remain in effect unless superseded by the provisions of this Area Plan.
PERMISSIBLE USES
Table 1 lists the permitted primary land uses by district for the Tourist Core Area Plan and land use definitions are provided in Table 2. The regulations for the district are established by letter designations listed below. The designations apply strictly to the permissibility of land uses; applications for buildings or structures may require discretionary review. Uses not listed in the Table are prohibited.
(A) designates allowed uses subject to zoning compliance. An allowed use is one that can be established as the primary use of a building.
(S) designates uses that are permitted subject to approval of a Special Use Permit. A Special Use Permit requires discretionary approval by the City Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator following review and a determination that the nature of the proposed use, at the location proposed, is not detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. To obtain a special use permit, the applicant must generally show that the contemplated use is compatible with the zoning ordinance and land use standards. Findings that such use would be essential or desirable to the public convenience or welfare, and will not impair the integrity and character of the zoned district or be detrimental to the public health, safety, morals or welfare are required.
(TRPA) designates uses that require TRPA review and permitting (-) designates uses that are not permitted.
492
Tourist Core Area Plan
Development and Design Standards C-2 November 16, 2021
Table 1: PERMITTED USES BY LAND USE DISTRICT
Permitted Uses Key:
“A” – Allowed Use
“S” – Special Use
“T” – Temporary Use
“TRPA” – TRPA Review Required
“-“ – Use Not Permitted
TSC-C TSC-MU TSC-MUC TSC-NMX TSC-G TSC-G Special Area #1 REC OS
RESIDENTIAL
Domestic Animal Raising - - - - - - S -
Employee Housing S S A S S S A
Multiple Family Dwelling A A A A A A - -
Multi-Person Dwelling S S S S S S - -
Single Family Dwelling (includes
condominiums) A8 A A A A A S1 -
TOURIST ACCOMMODATION
Bed & Breakfast Facilities - A13 A9 S A A - -
Hotel, Motel, Other Transient Dwelling
Units A A13 A9 S A A - -
Time Sharing A A13 A9 S S A - -
RETAIL COMMERCIAL
General Retail and Personal Services A A13 A9 S A A - - Building Material & Hardware S6 - - - - S - -
Nursery - - A9 - - S - -
Outdoor Retail Sales A - S9 - - S - -
Eating & Drinking Places A S13 A9 S A A - -
Service Stations11 S S13 - - S S - -
ENTERTAIMENT COMMERCIAL
Amusement & Recreation S S13 - - - A - -
Privately Owned Assembly and
Entertainment S S - - - S S -
Outdoor Amusements - S S - S S S -
SERVICE COMMERCIAL
Animal Husbandry Services - - - - - A - -
Business Support Services A7 S13 S9 - S A - -
Health Care Services A2,5 A9 - A A - -
Professional Offices A3,4 A13 A9 A A A - -
Schools – Business & Vocational S - S9 - A A - -
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL
Small Scale Manufacturing S S13 S9 S - S12 - -
Industrial Services11 - - - - - S12 - -
WHOLESALE/STORAGE COMMERCIAL
Vehicle Storage & Parking11 S S13 S9 S S S - -
Wholesale and Distribution - - - - - S12
GENERAL PUBLIC SERVICE
Religious Assembly - S S9 - S A - -
Cultural Facilities S S13 S9 - S A - -
Daycare Centers/Preschool A A13 A10 A A A - -
Government Offices - - A9 - - S - -
Local Assembly & Entertainment S S - - - S - -
Local Public Health and Safety
Facilities11 A A A A A A A A
Proposed language is bolded and underlined
493
Tourist Core Area Plan
Development and Design Standards C-3 November 16, 2021
Table 1: PERMITTED USES BY LAND USE DISTRICT
Permitted Uses Key:
“A” – Allowed Use
“S” – Special Use
“T” – Temporary Use
“TRPA” – TRPA Review Required
“-“ – Use Not Permitted
TSC-C TSC-MU TSC-MUC TSC-NMX TSC-G TSC-G Special Area #1 REC OS Public Owned Assembly &
Entertainment S S - - - - S
Public Utility Centers11 - S13 - - - - - -
Social Service Organizations - - A9 - A A - -
LINEAR PUBLIC FACILITIES
Pipelines & Power Transmission S S S S S S S S
Transit Stations & Terminals S S S S S S S S
Transportation Routes S S S S S S S S
Transmission & Receiving Facilities S S S S S S S S
RECREATION
Cross Country Ski Courses - - - - - - S -
Day Use Areas A A A A A A A A
Group Facilities - - - - - - S -
Outdoor Recreation Concessions - - - - S S - -
Participant Sport Facilities S - - - - - - -
Riding and Hiking Trails - - - - - S S -
Rural Sports - - - - - S S -
Snowmobile Courses - - - - - S S -
Visitor Information Centers S S - - S - - -
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Forest and Timber Resource
Management A A A A A A A A
Vegetation Resource Management A A A A A A A A
Water Quality Improvements and
Watershed Management A A A A A A A A
Wildlife and Fisheries Resource
Management A A A A A A A A
Range Management - - - - - - A -
OPEN SPACE
Allowed in all areas of the Region A A A A A A A A
SHOREZONE
(Tolerance Districts 1 and 4)
Water Oriented Outdoor Recreation
Concession - - - - TRPAA
TRPAA - -
Beach Recreation - - - - TRPAA
TRPAA - -
Water Borne Transit - - - - TRPAS
TRPAS - -
Boat Launching Facilities - - - - TRPAS
TRPAS - -
Tour Boat Operations - - - - TRPAS
TRPAS - -
Safety and Navigation Devices - - - - TRPAA
TRPAA - -
(Shorezone Tolerance District 4)
494
Tourist Core Area Plan
Development and Design Standards C-4 November 16, 2021
Table 1: PERMITTED USES BY LAND USE DISTRICT
Permitted Uses Key:
“A” – Allowed Use
“S” – Special Use
“T” – Temporary Use
“TRPA” – TRPA Review Required
“-“ – Use Not Permitted
TSC-C TSC-MU TSC-MUC TSC-NMX TSC-G TSC-G Special Area #1 REC OS Marinas - - - - TRPAS
TRPAS - -
Buoys - - - - TRPAA
TRPAA - -
Piers - - - - TRPAS
TRPAS - -
Fences - - - - TRPAS
TRPAS - -
Boat Ramps - - - - TRPAS
TRPAS - -
Floating Docks and Platforms - - - - TRPAS
TRPAS - -
Shoreline Protective Devices - - - - TRPAS
TRPAS - -
Water Intake Lines - - - - TRPAA
TRPAA - -
Note: In the Regional Center all residential projects equal to or exceeding 100,000 square feet of new floor area or non-residential projects equal to or exceeding 80,000 square feet of new floor area require TRPA review and approval. In the Town Center all residential projects equal to or exceeding 50,000 square feet of new floor area or non-residential projects equal to or exceeding 40,000 square feet of new floor area require TRPA review and approval.
1. Caretaker Residence Only
2. All Health Care Services are allowed except emergency outpatient or urgent care facilities which shall only be considered along Heavenly Village Way, formerly Park Avenue.
3. Allow Realty Offices within the district and limit financial services to ATMs.
4. Allow consideration for placement of Realty Offices within the district, and only when operated in conjunction with approved Park Avenue Redevelopment fractional ownership tourist accommodation projects. Such use shall occupy no more than five percent (5%) of the commercial floor area with any project area within the district.
5. All Health Care Services uses permissible throughout special district; provided that any Health Care Services uses proposed to front on either side of US Highway 50 and/or the intersections of Heavenly Village Way (formerly Park Avenue) and Stateline Avenue are limited to second floor or higher. See TRPA Ordinance 2009-05 Exhibit 2 for specific limitation locations.
6. Outdoor storage and display is prohibited.
7. Shall not front on US Highway 50.
8. Condominiums only.
9. Use not permitted in Special Area #1, which comprises of APNs 028-081-02, 028-081-04 & 028- 081-15.
10. Daycare center allowed as an accessory use.
11. Land use category is identified in TRPA Code Section 60.3 as a “possible contaminating activity.” Triggering special requirements pursuant to TRPA Code Section 60.4 if located within a Source Water Protection Zone.
12. Use only allowed in connection with a retail commercial use where it will enhance the visitor experience and is limited in size to 30% of the associated retail space.
13. Uses not permitted in APN 029-441-024
495
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
TSC-MU
TSC-G
TSC-MU
REC
APN 029-441-024
(Previsouly 029-441-004
& 029-240-011)
Van Sickle
State Park
496
NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY /NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE
TOURIST CORE AREA PLAN (RECREATION PARCEL) AMENDMENT
The City of South Lake Tahoe (City) is seeking public comments on a proposed amendment to the Tourist Core Area Plan (TCAP). The City of South Lake Tahoe proposes two amendments to the TCAP, specifically:
1. Amend the existing zoning for a portion of APN 029-441-024 (see attached map), specifically the portion of the parcel formerly recognized as APN 029-240-011, from Recreation (Rec) to Tourist Center Mixed-Use (TSC-MU) to allow additional residential uses and match the zoning of the former Colony Inn parcel with which it has recently been consolidated (formerly APN 029-441-004).
2. Add applicable TSC-MU policies to APN 029-441-024 that would limit the use of this parcel to residential, linear public facilities, recreation, resource management, and open space (tourist, commercial, and most general public service land uses would be prohibited).
The amended plan will serve as a mutual plan for the City of South Lake Tahoe and TRPA by providing direction for how the applicable area shall be regulated to achieve regional environmental and land use objectives. The development standards and the specific policies referenced in the amendments are the land use standards intended to administer and regulate development within the 3.79 acre project area of the TCAP.
The City has prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed amendment in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.), the CEQA Guidelines. The IS/MND is being circulated for public review and comment pursuant to Section 15073 (a) of the CEQA Guidelines. The 30-day comment period begins on Friday, January 19, 2024 and ends on February 26, 2024. Comments should be submitted by email to [email protected] or by mail to:
John Hitchcock
City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Division
1052 Tata Lane
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
The City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on the proposed amendment at their regularly scheduled meeting on February 22, 2024 at 3:00 p.m. The Planning Commission agenda packet for this item will be available three days prior to the hearing at www.cityofslt.us/114/Planning-Commission. The hearing will be held in the City Council Chambers at 1901 Lisa Maloff Way, South Lake Tahoe, CA.
The IS/MND may be viewed and downloaded at the Planning Division web page:
https://www.cityofslt.us/1108/Current-Projects. If you require additional information, please contact John Hitchcock at (530) 542-7472. A copy of the IS/MND is available for public review at 1052 Tata Lane, South Lake Tahoe, California.
Written public comments received 72 hours prior to the meeting will be distributed to the Planning Commission. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any open session item will be made available for public inspection within the Agenda posted on the City’s Website.
Every reasonable effort will be made to accommodate any person needing special assistance to participate in the Planning Commission meetings. Contact the City Clerk at (530) 542-6005 in advance of the meeting for assistance [28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title II and Brown Act Government Code Sections 54953.2, 54954.1, 54954.2, and 54957.5]. 497
APN 029-441-024
498
CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT - PLANNING DIVISION
NOTICE OF OF A PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE PLANNING COMMISSION
Proof of Service by Mail
SUBJECT: Tourist Core Area Plan/Specific Plan Amendments and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Adoption
ADDRESS: 3794 Montreal Road
APN: 029-441-024
DATE OF HEARING: March 21, 2024
TIME AND LOCATION OF
HEARING:
3:00 p.m. at City Council Chambers, 1901 Lisa Maloff Way, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF EL DORADO
CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
I am an employee of the City of South Lake Tahoe, Development Services Department.
On March 8, 2024, I served the attached notice pursuant to Section 6.55.640 of the South Lake Tahoe Municipal Code and Government Code Sections 65090 and 65091 (Planning and Zoning Law) on the persons named thereon or attached thereto by placing a true copy thereof with postage thereon fully prepaid in the United States mail. I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct.
Signature
Executed on March 8, 2024, by John Hitchcock
Planning Manager
Development Service Department
1052 Tata Lane
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150-6251
499
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE PLANNING COMMISSION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that in accordance with Sections 65090 and 65091 (Planning and Zoning Law) of the Government Code: the City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on March 21, 2024 at 3:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, in the City Council Chambers, 1901 Lisa Maloff Way, South Lake Tahoe Airport, to consider the following:
• Tourist Core Area Plan/Specific Plan Amendments and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Adoption
Summary: The Planning Commission will be considering the adoption of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and a recommendation of an amendment to the Tourist Core Area Plan/Specific Plan. The proposed amendment would rezone a a portion of APN 029-441-024 from Recreation (Rec) to Tourist Center Mixed-Use (TSC-MU), (John Hitchcock, [email protected]).
Any interested person may appear at the public hearing and present written testimony or speak in favor or against the project proposal. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65009(b)(2), if you challenge the above application in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues, you, or someone else, raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. Written testimony may be addressed to the Planning Commission in care of the City Clerk to [email protected] or mailed to 1901 Lisa Maloff Way, Suite 206, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150.
Planning Commission agendas and related staff reports are available at least 72 hours in advance of regular meetings on the Planning Commission page of the City’s website www.cityofslt.us or by contacting the City Clerk.
Area to be rezoned
from Recreation to
Tourist Center
Mixed-Use District
Van Sickle
Bi-State Park
500
NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING CITY OF SOUTH
LAKE TAHOE PLANNING COMMISSION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that in accordance with
Sections 65090 and 65091 (Planning and Zoning Law)
of the Government Code: the City of South Lake Tahoe
Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing
on March 21, 2024 at 3:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter
as possible, in the City Council Chambers, 1901 Lisa
Maloff Way, South Lake Tahoe Airport, to consider the
following:
• Tourist Core Area Plan/Specific Plan Amendments
and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Adoption
•
Summary: The Planning Commission will be
considering the adoption of an Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration and a recommendation of an
amendment of the Tourist Core Area Plan/Specific
Plan. The proposed amendment would rezone a a
portion of: APNs 029-441-024 from Recreation (Rec) to
Tourist Center Mixed-Use (TSC-MU), (John Hitchcock,
[email protected]).
• Consideration of a Special Use Permit for Golf 247
Club LLC, 589 Tahoe Keys Boulevard, APN 022-210-
030, File #24-019
Summary: The Planning Commission will be
considering a City and a TRPA Special Use Permit for
an Amusement and Recreation Use proposed at 589
Tahoe Keys Boulevard. The applicant is proposing a
virtual reality golf gym at an existing commercial retail complex, (Gretchen Schooleman, gschooleman@
cityofslt.us).
• Plan Revision, Special Use Permit, and Variance
for the Landings at Tahoe Resort, 4104 Lakeshore
Boulevard, File #23-174
• Summary: Diamond Rock Hospitality Company
submitted a plan revision to revise a previous project
approved by the Planning Commission. The revised
project proposes the construction of one new twostory tourist accommodation building (Building E) that will consist of three tourist accommodation units with
accessory multi-use space and repurposing an existing
two-story building (Building D) to accommodate 11
tourist accommodation units and accessory space
to accommodate administrative offices and laundry
space. The plan revision includes 94 onsite parking
spaces as previously approved but modifies the
parking spaces to 49 valet parking spaces, 45 selfparking spaces, and two loading spaces. The plan revision also includes the construction of a 5-foot
asphalt sidewalk along Stateline Avenue, (John
Hitchcock, [email protected]).
Any interested person may appear at the public hearing
and present written testimony or speak in favor or
against the project proposal. Pursuant to Government
Code Section 65009(b)(2), if you challenge the above
application in court, you may be limited to raising
only those issues, you, or someone else, raised
at the public hearing described in this notice, or in
written correspondence delivered to the South Lake
Tahoe Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public
hearing. Written testimony may be addressed to the
Planning Commission in care of the City Clerk to
[email protected] or mailed to 1901 Lisa
Maloff Way, Suite 206, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150.
Planning Commission agendas and related staff
reports are available at least 72 hours in advance of
regular meetings on the Planning Commission page of
the City’s website www.cityofslt.us or by contacting the City Clerk.
Published: March 8, 2024
501
502
CA PACIFIC ELECTRIC CO LLC
933 ELOISE AVE
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA &
U S FOREST SERVICE
PO BOX 731002
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96158
CA PACIFIC ELECTRIC CO LLC
933 ELOISE AVE
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150
CALIFORNIA TAHOE
CONSERVANCY
2161 LAKE TAHOE BLVD #2
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150
STATE OF CALIFORNIA & CAL
IFORNIA TAHOE
1061 3RD ST
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150
KENNETH W & SKRZYPEK
ELIZABETH DOMANCHUK
KENNETH W & SKRZYPEK
ELIZABETH DOMANCHUK
WEALS DONNA C & ROBERT D
MALONE JOHN S & JANICE C GRAHAM
CA PACIFIC ELECTRIC CO LLC
933 ELOISE AVE
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150
JOHN S & JANICE C GRAHAM FERN STREET APTS A NV LLC
NORMANDY APARTMENTS A NV
LLC
SHARON & JOHNSON SIOBHAN
MCSWEENEY
SHARON & JOHNSON SIOBHAN
MCSWEENEY
GOLDEN OAK INVESTMENTS
INC & CA CORP
GOLDEN OAK INVESTMENTS
INC & CA CORP
GUSTAVO A & AMERICA I
SOMARRIBA
CA PACIFIC ELECTRIC CO LLC
933 ELOISE AVE
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150
HVR ACQUISITIONS CA LLC CRESCENT V LANDS INC
STATE OF CALIFORNIA & CAL
IFORNIA TAHOE
1061 3RD ST
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
2161 LAKE TAHOE BLVD
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-
TAHOE CRESCENT CA LLC
503
Resolution 2024-XX
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council
April 23, 2024
Adopting the Tourist Core Area Plan/Specific Plan Amendments and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
BACKGROUND
A. The Tourist Core Area Plan/Specific Plan was adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on October 15, 2013 (Ordinance 2013-1060).
B. The City received an application from HVR Acquisitions to amend the Tourist Core Area Plan to rezone a portion of APN 029-441-024 to Tourist Center Mixed-Use District and limit uses to residential, liner public facilities, recreation, resource management, and open space uses.
C. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15070, the City of South Lake has prepared an Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the Tourist Core Area Plan/Specific Plan Amendments in compliance with CEQA.
D. In accordance with Government Code Section 65352, the City prepared a Notice of Availability and Notice of Intent to adopt an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Tourist Core Area Plan/Specific Plan Amendments and circulated the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for public comment between January 19, 2024, and February 26, 2024.
E. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65453, a specific plan may be prepared and adopted by resolution or by ordinance and may be amended as often as deemed necessary by the legislative body.
F. The City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission, at a duly noticed public hearing held on March 21, 2024, considered the proposed amendments and found that 1) the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis, 2) that there is no substantial evidence that the proposed Tourist Core Area Plan/Specific Plan Amendments will have a 504
Resolution 2024-XX April 23, 2024 Page 2 of 2
significant effect on the environment, and adopted the Tourist Core Area Plan/Specific Plan Amendments Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.
BASED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE BACKGROUND, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council:
1. Finds that the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis.
2. Finds that there is no substantial evidence that the proposed Tourist Core Area Plan/Specific Plan Amendments will have a significant effect on the environment.
3. Finds the foregoing recitals are true and correct and made part of this resolution.
4. Adopts the Tourist Core Area Plan/Specific Plan Amendments as outlined in Exhibit 1 to this resolution.
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on April 23, 2024, by the following vote:
Yes:
No:
Absent:
Abstain:
________________________ Date:_________
Cody Bass, Mayor
Attest:
________________________
Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
The presence of an electronic signature certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy as approved by the South Lake Tahoe City Council.
505
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
TSC-MU
TSC-G
TSC-MU
REC
EXHIBIT 1 - EXISTING CONDITIONS
506
Sources: Esri, HERE, Garmin, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), (c) OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
TSC-MU
TSC-G
TSC-MU
REC
EXHIBIT 1 - PROPOSED CONDITIONS
REZONED AREA
TO TSC-MU
507
Tourist Core Area Plan
Development and Design Standards C-1 November 16, 2021
Appendix C
Development and Design Standards
This section sets out the development standards, design standards and permissible uses for the land use districts in the Tourist Core Area Plan to achieve its desired urban form.
Applicability: All projects within the Tourist Core Area Plan shall meet the standards provided below. In addition, all projects are required to meet the Citywide Design Standards as well when applicable. Should a conflict occur between the Citywide standards and the Tourist Core Area Plan standards, the standards of this Area Plan shall apply. All regulations in the TRPA Code of Ordinances shall remain in effect unless superseded by the provisions of this Area Plan.
PERMISSIBLE USES
Table 1 lists the permitted primary land uses by district for the Tourist Core Area Plan and land use definitions are provided in Table 2. The regulations for the district are established by letter designations listed below. The designations apply strictly to the permissibility of land uses; applications for buildings or structures may require discretionary review. Uses not listed in the Table are prohibited.
(A) designates allowed uses subject to zoning compliance. An allowed use is one that can be established as the primary use of a building.
(S) designates uses that are permitted subject to approval of a Special Use Permit. A Special Use Permit requires discretionary approval by the City Planning Commission or Zoning Administrator following review and a determination that the nature of the proposed use, at the location proposed, is not detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to property or improvements in the neighborhood. To obtain a special use permit, the applicant must generally show that the contemplated use is compatible with the zoning ordinance and land use standards. Findings that such use would be essential or desirable to the public convenience or welfare, and will not impair the integrity and character of the zoned district or be detrimental to the public health, safety, morals or welfare are required.
(TRPA) designates uses that require TRPA review and permitting (-) designates uses that are not permitted.
508
Tourist Core Area Plan
Development and Design Standards C-2 November 16, 2021
Table 1: PERMITTED USES BY LAND USE DISTRICT
Permitted Uses Key:
“A” – Allowed Use
“S” – Special Use
“T” – Temporary Use
“TRPA” – TRPA Review Required
“-“ – Use Not Permitted
TSC-C TSC-MU TSC-MUC TSC-NMX TSC-G TSC-G Special Area #1 REC OS
RESIDENTIAL
Domestic Animal Raising - - - - - - S -
Employee Housing S S A S S S A
Multiple Family Dwelling A A A A A A - -
Multi-Person Dwelling S S S S S S - -
Single Family Dwelling (includes
condominiums) A8 A A A A A S1 -
TOURIST ACCOMMODATION
Bed & Breakfast Facilities - A13 A9 S A A - -
Hotel, Motel, Other Transient Dwelling
Units A A13 A9 S A A - -
Time Sharing A A13 A9 S S A - -
RETAIL COMMERCIAL
General Retail and Personal Services A A13 A9 S A A - - Building Material & Hardware S6 - - - - S - -
Nursery - - A9 - - S - -
Outdoor Retail Sales A - S9 - - S - -
Eating & Drinking Places A S13 A9 S A A - -
Service Stations11 S S13 - - S S - -
ENTERTAIMENT COMMERCIAL
Amusement & Recreation S S13 - - - A - -
Privately Owned Assembly and
Entertainment S S - - - S S -
Outdoor Amusements - S S - S S S -
SERVICE COMMERCIAL
Animal Husbandry Services - - - - - A - -
Business Support Services A7 S13 S9 - S A - -
Health Care Services A2,5 A9 - A A - -
Professional Offices A3,4 A13 A9 A A A - -
Schools – Business & Vocational S - S9 - A A - -
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL
Small Scale Manufacturing S S13 S9 S - S12 - -
Industrial Services11 - - - - - S12 - -
WHOLESALE/STORAGE COMMERCIAL
Vehicle Storage & Parking11 S S13 S9 S S S - -
Wholesale and Distribution - - - - - S12
GENERAL PUBLIC SERVICE
Religious Assembly - S S9 - S A - -
Cultural Facilities S S13 S9 - S A - -
Daycare Centers/Preschool A A13 A10 A A A - -
Government Offices - - A9 - - S - -
Local Assembly & Entertainment S S - - - S - -
Local Public Health and Safety
Facilities11 A A A A A A A A
Proposed language is bolded and underlined
509
Tourist Core Area Plan
Development and Design Standards C-3 November 16, 2021
Table 1: PERMITTED USES BY LAND USE DISTRICT
Permitted Uses Key:
“A” – Allowed Use
“S” – Special Use
“T” – Temporary Use
“TRPA” – TRPA Review Required
“-“ – Use Not Permitted
TSC-C TSC-MU TSC-MUC TSC-NMX TSC-G TSC-G Special Area #1 REC OS Public Owned Assembly &
Entertainment S S - - - - S
Public Utility Centers11 - S13 - - - - - -
Social Service Organizations - - A9 - A A - -
LINEAR PUBLIC FACILITIES
Pipelines & Power Transmission S S S S S S S S
Transit Stations & Terminals S S S S S S S S
Transportation Routes S S S S S S S S
Transmission & Receiving Facilities S S S S S S S S
RECREATION
Cross Country Ski Courses - - - - - - S -
Day Use Areas A A A A A A A A
Group Facilities - - - - - - S -
Outdoor Recreation Concessions - - - - S S - -
Participant Sport Facilities S - - - - - - -
Riding and Hiking Trails - - - - - S S -
Rural Sports - - - - - S S -
Snowmobile Courses - - - - - S S -
Visitor Information Centers S S - - S - - -
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Forest and Timber Resource
Management A A A A A A A A
Vegetation Resource Management A A A A A A A A
Water Quality Improvements and
Watershed Management A A A A A A A A
Wildlife and Fisheries Resource
Management A A A A A A A A
Range Management - - - - - - A -
OPEN SPACE
Allowed in all areas of the Region A A A A A A A A
SHOREZONE
(Tolerance Districts 1 and 4)
Water Oriented Outdoor Recreation
Concession - - - - TRPAA
TRPAA - -
Beach Recreation - - - - TRPAA
TRPAA - -
Water Borne Transit - - - - TRPAS
TRPAS - -
Boat Launching Facilities - - - - TRPAS
TRPAS - -
Tour Boat Operations - - - - TRPAS
TRPAS - -
Safety and Navigation Devices - - - - TRPAA
TRPAA - -
(Shorezone Tolerance District 4)
510
Tourist Core Area Plan
Development and Design Standards C-4 November 16, 2021
Table 1: PERMITTED USES BY LAND USE DISTRICT
Permitted Uses Key:
“A” – Allowed Use
“S” – Special Use
“T” – Temporary Use
“TRPA” – TRPA Review Required
“-“ – Use Not Permitted
TSC-C TSC-MU TSC-MUC TSC-NMX TSC-G TSC-G Special Area #1 REC OS Marinas - - - - TRPAS
TRPAS - -
Buoys - - - - TRPAA
TRPAA - -
Piers - - - - TRPAS
TRPAS - -
Fences - - - - TRPAS
TRPAS - -
Boat Ramps - - - - TRPAS
TRPAS - -
Floating Docks and Platforms - - - - TRPAS
TRPAS - -
Shoreline Protective Devices - - - - TRPAS
TRPAS - -
Water Intake Lines - - - - TRPAA
TRPAA - -
Note: In the Regional Center all residential projects equal to or exceeding 100,000 square feet of new floor area or non-residential projects equal to or exceeding 80,000 square feet of new floor area require TRPA review and approval. In the Town Center all residential projects equal to or exceeding 50,000 square feet of new floor area or non-residential projects equal to or exceeding 40,000 square feet of new floor area require TRPA review and approval.
1. Caretaker Residence Only
2. All Health Care Services are allowed except emergency outpatient or urgent care facilities which shall only be considered along Heavenly Village Way, formerly Park Avenue.
3. Allow Realty Offices within the district and limit financial services to ATMs.
4. Allow consideration for placement of Realty Offices within the district, and only when operated in conjunction with approved Park Avenue Redevelopment fractional ownership tourist accommodation projects. Such use shall occupy no more than five percent (5%) of the commercial floor area with any project area within the district.
5. All Health Care Services uses permissible throughout special district; provided that any Health Care Services uses proposed to front on either side of US Highway 50 and/or the intersections of Heavenly Village Way (formerly Park Avenue) and Stateline Avenue are limited to second floor or higher. See TRPA Ordinance 2009-05 Exhibit 2 for specific limitation locations.
6. Outdoor storage and display is prohibited.
7. Shall not front on US Highway 50.
8. Condominiums only.
9. Use not permitted in Special Area #1, which comprises of APNs 028-081-02, 028-081-04 & 028- 081-15.
10. Daycare center allowed as an accessory use.
11. Land use category is identified in TRPA Code Section 60.3 as a “possible contaminating activity.” Triggering special requirements pursuant to TRPA Code Section 60.4 if located within a Source Water Protection Zone.
12. Use only allowed in connection with a retail commercial use where it will enhance the visitor experience and is limited in size to 30% of the associated retail space.
13. Uses not permitted in APN 029-441-024
511
FINAL INITIAL STUDY/
MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION
(State Clearinghouse #2022040027)
for the
DRAFT TOURIST CORE AREA
PLAN/SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENT
Prepared for
City of South Lake Tahoe
1053 Tata Lane
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Prepared by
Hauge Brueck & Associates
6151 Fair Oaks Blvd., Suite 108
Carmichael, CA 9582956085
March 7, 2024
512
FINAL INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
TCAP REC AMENDMENT AND MULTI - FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT
MARCH 2024 PAGE i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 SUMMARY AND FINDINGS...................................................................... 1
2.0 APPROVAL OF THE IS/MND.................................................................... 3
3.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ................................................................... 4
4.0 TEXT MODIFICATIONS TO THE INITIAL STUDY ................................. 11
ATTACHMENT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
ATTACHMENT B COMMENT LETTERS
513
FINAL INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
TCAP REC AMENDMENT AND MULTI - FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT
MARCH 2024 PAGE 1
1.0 SUMMARY AND FINDINGS
Project: TCAP Recreation Amendment and Multi-Family Housing Project (SCH# 2022040027)
Lead Agency: City of South Lake Tahoe
Project Contact:
Questions or comments regarding this document may be addressed to:
John Hitchcock
City of South Lake Tahoe
1052 Tata Lane
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Phone: (530) 542-7472
Email: [email protected]
Project Description:
This Initial Study (IS) has been prepared to address the potential environmental effects of the Tourist Core Area Plan/Specific Plan (TCAP) Amendment and Multi-Family Housing Project, located in the City of South Lake Tahoe, California. An Initial Study is a preliminary environmental analysis that is used by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lead agency as a basis for determining whether an EIR, a Mitigated Negative Declaration, or a Negative Declaration is required for a project under CEQA guidelines. The IS has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, Cal. Pub. Res. Code §21000 et seq. The City of South Lake Tahoe is the CEQA lead agency for this project. This IS evaluates the potential for the Area Plan/Specific Plan amendment and subsequent multifamily housing project to adversely affect the physical environment, and is an informational document that provides the City, other public agencies, interested parties and the public with an objective assessment of the potential environmental impacts that could result from project implementation.
The City is considering an applicant initiated amendment to the City of South Lake Tahoe TCAP, located in the City of South Lake Tahoe, California. The Project also includes a multi-family housing project, that is dependent on the adoption of the proposed TCAP amendment. The “amendment area” is defined as a
1.29 acre parcel, formerly Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 029-240-011 that is located adjacent to the former Colony Inn (formerly APN 029-441-004). The proposed amendment would rezone the amendment area from “Recreation” to “Tourist Center Mixed Use” and include policies that would limit future land uses on the combined parcels (former APN 029-240-011 and APN 029-441-004) to residential and other supporting land uses. The current Recreation district allows employee housing, and single family development as a special use, but does not allow multi-family development. If the amendment is approved, the applicant (HVR Acquisitions) wishes to expand a multi-family housing development previously approved on former APN 029-441-004 (2.5 acre) to the newly combined parcel. The two former parcels referenced above (APNs 029-240-011 and 029-441-004), were legally consolidated into a single parcel in June 2021 and are now designated as APN 029-441-024. As a result, the combined parcel of land is located in two different TCAP zoning districts with different permissible uses, height limits and density. The proposed rezone amendment, if adopted, would resolve this conflict. 514
FINAL INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
TCAP REC AMENDMENT AND MULTI - FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT
MARCH 2024 PAGE 2
Finding:
An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) has been prepared to assess the project’s potential effects on the environment and the significance of those effects. Based on the IS, it has been determined that the proposed project would not have significant effects on the natural environment after implementation of mitigation measures. This conclusion is supported by the following findings:
1. The proposed project would have no effects, no impact, or less-than-significant impacts related to aesthetics, biological resources, cultural/archaeological/historical/tribal resources, agricultural and forest resources, mineral and natural resources, energy, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, geology and soils, hazards/ hazardous materials/risk of upset/human health, wildfire, hydrology and water quality, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, utilities/service systems/energy resources and mandatory findings of significance.
2. Mitigation is required to avoid or reduce potentially significant impacts related to transportation/traffic and circulation (parking).
The following mitigation measure has been incorporated in the Project by the City of South Lake Tahoe to avoid or minimize environmental impacts. Implementation of this mitigation measure would avoid or reduce the environmental impacts of the proposed project to a less-than-significant level. This measure is included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment A).
TRAN-1 Parking Supply
Prior to construction of Phase 2 multi-family residential units, the applicant shall either enter into an agreement with an offsite land owner to utilize seven parking spaces, get agreement from the City for parking on nearby public roadway right of way, submit a parking analysis that supports a reduction in the parking demand ratio, or work with the City to amend TCAP parking standards for multi-family residential housing so that a parking deficit does not occur. 515
FINAL INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
TCAP REC AMENDMENT AND MULTI - FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT
MARCH 2024 PAGE 3
2.0 APPROVAL OF THE IS/MND
Certification by Those Responsible for Preparation of this Document. The City of South Lake Tahoe has been responsible for the preparation of this mitigated negative declaration and the incorporated initial study. I believe this document meets the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, is an accurate description of the proposed project, and that the lead agency has the means and commitment to implement the regulatory compliance measures/mitigation measures that will assure the project does not have any significant, adverse effects on the environment. I recommend approval of this document.
John Hitchcock, Planning Manager Date
City of South Lake Tahoe
Approval of the Project by the Lead Agency. Pursuant to Section 21082.1 of the California Environmental Quality Act, the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council has independently reviewed and analyzed the initial study and mitigated negative declaration for the proposed project and finds that the initial study and mitigated negative declaration for the proposed project reflect the independent judgment of the City of South Lake Tahoe. The lead agency finds that the project design features will be implemented as stated in the mitigated negative declaration.
I hereby approve this project.
Natalia Wieczorke, Chair Date
City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission
516
FINAL INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
TCAP REC AMENDMENT AND MULTI - FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT
MARCH 2024 PAGE 4
3.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
The Draft IS was circulated for public review and comment between January 19, 2024 and February 26, 2024. A Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration was sent to state agencies and persons and organizations expressing interest in the project. Copies of the Draft IS and supporting documents were available online on the City of South Lake Tahoe’s website.
Comments in the form of a letter were received from the League to Save Lake Tahoe on the Draft IS. The following pages provide a formal response to the comments contained within each letter/email. A list of those who offered comments is provided below:
Comments Received by Date
1. Darcie Goodman Collins, PhD, CEO League to Save Lake Tahoe – 02/21/24 Comments and Responses
Each unique comment on the content of the IS/IEC is provided below, followed by a response to the full comment. Attachment B provides a copy of the comment letter as numbered.
1. Darcie Goodman Collins, League to Save Lake Tahoe, 02/21/24 Letter Comment 1
“The parcel proposed for rezoning at the base of Van Sickle park is a restored site turned into open space and intended to be maintained as green space.”
Response 1
Please see Attachment B with copies of letters dated March 7, 2024 and June 5, 2023 from Feldman Thiel LLP that provides a response to many of the comments provided by the League to Save Lake Tahoe in its February 21, 2024 letter (and May 15, 2023 attachment). Applicable responses are also provided below, as supplemented.
This comment is incorrect. The parcel proposed for rezoning is the Back portion of the merged parcel (029-441-024) formerly known as APN 029-240-011. The Back is not a restored site as its SEZ has never been disturbed. While not subject to deed restrictions like the Front portion (formerly APN 029-441-004) of the merged parcel, the Back’s SEZ cannot be developed because new disturbance in an SEZ is prohibited under the TRPA Regional Plan. Accordingly, neither the proposed rezoning amendment nor the proposed MFD development on the Back will impact the SEZ.
Furthermore, the Back has never been designated open space to be maintained as green space. Instead, under the current REC zoning, the Back may be developed with single-family caretaker residence, employee housing, outdoor amusements, snowmobile courses, group facilities, etc.
The SEZ portion of the Front has been permanently retired through recorded deed restriction, while the Front’s high capability land is unrestricted and developable. To be sure, the City and TRPA approved a MFD Project on the Property’s high capability lands, construction of which commenced in 2023. In any event, the proposed amendment does not involve the Front. 517
FINAL INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
TCAP REC AMENDMENT AND MULTI - FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT
MARCH 2024 PAGE 5
The SEZ restoration on the Front was the responsibility of the owner’s predecessor in interest. While the owner is under a legal obligation not to disturb the SEZ, it is not required to maintain, modify or improve the SEZ. Nevertheless, the owner believes a functioning SEZ adds aesthetic and environmental value to the Property and, as documented in the IS/IEC project description, has applied to TRPA for a permit to again restore the functionality of the Front’s SEZ. Fencing is also proposed to protect the SEZ from encroachment by the public and the MFD Project’s residents.
Comment 2
“The rezoning is inconsistent with City and Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) plans, goals, and policies. The League objects to the proposed rezoning of APN: 029-441-024 (Colony Inn parcel) from recreation to tourist center mixed use “to accommodate higher density housing opportunities.” This rezoning is inconsistent with City and TRPA plans and the intended use of the parcel and incongruent with restoration goals.”
Response 2
Please see response to comment 7.
Comment 3
“The Colony Inn parcel was intended to be restored and permanently retired; and the stream environment zone (SEZ) restored, monitored, and maintained (see our previous letter, attached).” Response 3
Please see response to comment 1. Responses to the previous letter dated May 15, 2023 are provided below in responses 9-12.
Comment 4
“Rezoning the last area zoned for recreation/conservation land in the Tourist Core Area Plan (TCAP) area contradicts the goals and policies of the City’s General Plan and TRPA’s Regional Plan. High density workforce housing is currently allowed on the parcel under the Recreation zone, however the owner of the parcel plans to build short term rentals on the site if this rezoning goes through.
The developer would like to build 28 condominium-style short term rentals. The project enabled by this rezoning would also include two residential units that would be dedicated to the “achievable” income category, which does not have an income limit. The current Recreation District allows single family dwelling and employee housing but does not permit multi-family dwellings (that in this case will become short term rentals) as a permissible residential use.”
Response 4
As mentioned above, the Back of the combined parcel is not zoned for conservation. Rather, Conservation land is located to the east of the Property and includes Van Sickle State Park. As explained in the IS/IEC, the City’s General Plan designates the entire Property as Tourist. Within the Tourist land use category, the Recreation zoning allows some residential and a variety of commercial and developed recreation uses. As part of the approved MFD Project, a driveway with hammerhead turnaround will be constructed on the Back whether this amendment is approved or not. In other words, the Back Parcel will not remain undeveloped.
Please also see response to comment 2 regarding consistency with plan goals. The developer’s objective for the proposed amendment is outlined in Section 1.5 (beginning on page 5) of the IS/IEC.
Comment 5
“The old “Colony Inn” site was intended to be fully restored and permanently protected from future development. The developer took advantage of a loophole to get four 3-story short term rental buildings, with a 4 unit per acre density, each 36 feet tall, permitted for the Colony Inn parcel. The developer 518
FINAL INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
TCAP REC AMENDMENT AND MULTI - FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT
MARCH 2024 PAGE 6
subsequently combined the Colony Inn parcel with the still-recreation zoned “back parcel,” hoping to change the zoning and build more short term rentals at 25 units per acre in buildings up to 56 feet high.
The developer’s justification for increasing the number of units in this rezoning points to the City’s recently adopted housing policy goal to increase density in Town Centers. The purpose of this policy is clearly to increase housing opportunities for residents, not to increase the use of valuable residential commodities to build short term rentals.”
Response 5
Please see response to comment 1 regarding protections for the former “Colony Inn” site. The objectives for the proposed amendment and subsequent multi-family development are outlined in Section 1.5 (beginning on page 5) of the IS/IEC. The housing units will be available for purchase and it will be the decision of individual owners as to whether the units are used as short term rentals. The existing MFD Project on the Front of the merged parcel was approved in accordance with both the City’s and TRPA’s ordinances and categorically exempt from CEQA.
Comment 6
“We have continually opposed this rezoning because it is in direct conflict with the intent of the carefully negotiated zoning in TRPA’s 2012 Regional Plan. The clear zoning decisions made during the Regional Plan Update were created holistically and must not be changed by one project or a singular interest. Oneoff, project-driven amendments and rezoning attempts undermine both local and regional visions for growth in Tahoe.”
Response 6
This amendment involves a 1.29-acre tract of land (the Back of merged parcel) located in the TCAP Town Center where urban development is encouraged, close to transit, shopping, restaurants and other services. Where residential caretaker and employee housing are permissible uses in the REC District, rezoning the Back from REC to TSC-MU to allow another residential use (i.e., multiple-family dwellings) to be developed thereon does not undermine the vision for growth in Tahoe.
Comment 7
“The environmental review for the proposed rezoning selected limited TRPA- specific and -referenced goals and policies that this project may support but did not include goals and policies where this project clearly conflicts. This rezoning proposal does not allow a fair assessment of the pros and cons of the proposed project. These include, but are not limited to ROS-2.9, ROS-2.10, ROS-2.11, Land Use Element Goal 1 Policies 2 and 3, Soils Goal 1 Policy 7, Open Space Goal 1, and Stream Environment Standard SC-2.”
Response 7
The City General Plan’s Recreation and Open Space (ROS) Policies the League references are reprinted below followed by a response.
ROS‐2.9. Permanent Open Space Protection
The City shall permanently protect as open space areas of natural resource value, including forests, wetlands, stream and riparian corridors, and floodplains.
ROS‐2.10. Sufficient Size Open Space and Natural Areas
The City shall maintain open space and natural areas that are interconnected and of sufficient size to protect biodiversity, accommodate wildlife movement, and provide more sustainable ecosystems.
ROS‐2.11. Open Space Funding
The City should continue to seek and obtain local, State, and Federal funding for beach, meadow, and open space acquisition.
519
FINAL INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
TCAP REC AMENDMENT AND MULTI - FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT
MARCH 2024 PAGE 7
Response: The rezoning does not conflict with the foregoing policies. First, the Property is privatelyowned. More importantly, however, the Property’s SEZ is protected from development as a result of the recorded deed restrictions and TRPA’s prohibition of new disturbance within SEZ lands. Finally, the rezoning does not preclude the City from seeking funding for beach, meadow and open space acquisition.
The TRPA Goals and Policies the League references are reprinted below followed by responses.
Land Use Element Goal 1 Policy 2. Redeveloping Existing Town Centers is a High Priority.
Land Use Element Goal 1 Policy 3. The Plan Shall Seek to Maintain a Balance Between Economic/Social Health and the Environment.
Response: Rezoning the Back to allow MFD development in the Town Center close to services, while maintaining the SEZ in a natural state, is consistent with Land Use Element Goal 1 Policies 2 and 3.
Soils Goal 1 Policy 7. All Existing Natural Functioning Stream Environment Zones Shall Be Retained as Such and Disturbed Stream Environment Zones Shall Be Restored Whenever Possible.
Response: The Back’s undisturbed SEZ will remain in a natural state as it is protected from development under TRPA’s Ordinance and Goals and Policies. The Front’s SEZ is restricted from development through recorded deed restrictions, and the Property owner is seeking approval from TRPA to implement measures to restore the SEZ’s functionality. Accordingly, the rezoning and the proposed MFD development on the Back is consistent with this Goal and Policy.
Open Space Goal 1. Manage Areas of Open Space to Promote Conservation of Vegetation and Protection of Watersheds.
Response: The Property is not zoned for conservation. Development of the high capability lands of the Property (including the access roadway for the Back portion) is already approved and under construction.
The SEZ portions of the Property will be maintained as open space. Consequently, the amendment and further MFD development on the Back is consistent with this Goal and Policy.
Comment 8
“The League continues to oppose the rezoning consistent with the League’s mission, with increasing intensity as the proposal increases the development potential on one of the only two recreation parcels in the entire Tourist Core.
The rezoning process for this parcel has been fraught with delays and hangups because of the controversial nature of the project that would result from the rezoning. We have no business turning greenspace into development in Tahoe and the developer knew the limitation of the properties when they were purchased.
We urge the Planning Commission to recommend that City Council reject the proposed amendments because they conflict with the intent to permanently restore and protect the site from development, do not help achieve City or TRPA land use and open space goals and policies, and do not address the housing crisis in Tahoe.”
Response 8
Please see responses to comments 1 through 7.
520
FINAL INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
TCAP REC AMENDMENT AND MULTI - FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT
MARCH 2024 PAGE 8
Comment 9
“The League does not support the proposed rezoning of APN: 029-441-024 from recreation to tourist center mixed use “to accommodate higher density housing opportunities.” This rezoning would be inconsistent with City and TRPA plans and intent. The Colony Inn parcel was intended to be permanently retired and the stream environment zone (SEZ) restored. The SEZ restoration attempt failed. Rezoning the last recreation/conservation land in the TCAP area does not align with the goals and policies of the City’s General Plan or TRPA’s Regional Plan. High density workforce housing is currently allowed on the parcel under the Recreation zone. The owner of the parcel plans to build high-end short term rentals on the site if the rezoning goes through, and has attempted to achieve this rezoning through other efforts that the City did not support.
This seems to be under the guise of creating more housing, but we know that short term rentals are planned for the site. This rezoning was not included in the February 2022 Planning Commission TCAP amendment presentation and materials. This addition to the TCAP amendments appears to be a move by the land owner to go around the Planning Commission and City Council. City planning staff was going to recommend against this zoning change at the September 15, 2022 Planning Commission meeting and the applicant pulled the proposal.
We want the SEZ restored and corner parcel permanently protected.” Response 9
Please see response to comment 5. The restored SEZ is located on the Front which is already zoned TSCMU and not a part of this amendment. Likewise, the “corner parcel” referred to in the comment is not a part of the amendment. This amendment is limited to a rezoning of the 1.29-acre Back which is only accessible via the Front. The SEZ restoration on the Front was the responsibility of the Predecessor.
While the owner is under a legal obligation not to disturb the SEZ, it is not required to maintain, modify or improve the SEZ. Nevertheless, the Owner believes a functioning SEZ adds aesthetic and environmental value to the Property and has engaged consultants and TRPA staff to develop a plan.
Comment 10
“On March 18, 2008, the City passed a Resolution to permanently retire the Colony Inn site from future development as a condition of transferring the associated tourist accommodation units (TAUs) out of the City limits: “WHEREAS, the Colony Inn located partially Within an area identified for SEZ restoration, Once the Colony Inn is demolished, existing development will be transferred out of the SEZ and the site will be restored and permanently retired, thereby furthering the goals of the Stateline/Ski Run Community Plan and attainment of TRPA’s thresholds.”
The City included a Policy in the TCAP that aligns with its Resolution and approval of TAU transfers from the Colony Inn site: “Onsite land coverage reduction will occur primarily through environmental redevelopment by providing development incentives in centers that promote the relocation and transfer of land coverage. The City will endeavor, where feasible, to reduce and avoid creating new coverage in order to benefit the objectives of the TCAP and other areas of South Tahoe.” This language was discussed at the November 2013 TRPA Governing Board meeting, including whether or not to specifically include the Colony Inn site as a target restoration site. In the end, though a specific site was not targeted for restoration and the Colony Inn site was intended for restoration and permanent retirement as stipulated above.
The City needs to decide whether this amendment meets the intent of the General Plan and TCAP including the goals and policies contained within it. The City’s Attorney will also need to determine whether or not a new Resolution is required to allow this Area Plan amendment.
Between 2009 and 2013 the Colony Inn was demolished and the SEZ should have been restored, but the restoration failed. According to TRPA’s 2020 SEZ Baseline Report, the Colony Inn site (Colony Inn 521
FINAL INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
TCAP REC AMENDMENT AND MULTI - FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT
MARCH 2024 PAGE 9
Meadows) restoration failed.3 The SEZ only ranked a “C,” indicating an unhealthy SEZ due to a ditch running through the entire project, dewatering the meadow and leading to loss of vegetation vigor. With the proposed amendments, the coverage limit would increase from 30 percent to 70 percent, with coverage transfer on applicable lands with capability 4-7. Additional development around the SEZ where headcuts and ditches are present, significantly and irreversibly impact the SEZ which expressly violates the 2008 City Resolution and the intent of SEZ restoration. Regardless of the success of the SEZ restoration efforts, the site was to be permanently retired, in line with the City’s 2008 Resolution and enforced by TRPA’s approval of the Boulder Bay Community Enhancement Program Project EIS in 2009.4
In September, October, and November of 2013, the TRPA Regional Plan Implementation Committee (RPIC) and Governing Board had lengthy discussions internally and with the City and the public. One of the results of the discussion was the City reinforcing that it “wanted to identify [Colony Inn] as a priority site for getting the stream environment zone restoration completed.” Other outcomes relevant to these proposed amendments are enshrined in the TCAP itself:
• “The Colony Inn which was located in SEZ lands by the intersection of Montreal Road and Heavenly Village Way was demolished and 64,800 square feet of land coverage was removed and banked, and the site stabilized. The existing tourist accommodation units removed from the site are proposed for transfer to the Boulder Bay Project in North Stateline. A condition of the Boulder Bay permit requires that the property be restored to a functioning SEZ prior to the units being transferred.” Page 3-4.
• “The Tourist Core Area Plan responds to the needed SEZ improvements: Restore the disturbed SEZ on the Colony Inn parcel located along Montreal Road.” Page 7-5.
In July of 2013, the League submitted comments on the TCAP in its early stages of development, including a clarifying question about the Colony Inn site. The November 2013 TRPA Governing Board meeting included responses to comments and #8 directly addresses the Colony Inn site.6 While the Boulder Bay project has been long-delayed and is currently changing with new ownership of that site, TRPA’s transfer rules may still apply and the intent to permanently retire the site is clear.
TRPA Counsel will need to provide an analysis of the SEZ Restoration Credits and requirement to permanently retire and “stabilize” the site based on TRPA Code and TCAP approvals in 2013, and the final intent captured in TCAP.”
Response 10
The owner believes it is clear from the referenced Resolution’s language that the restoration and retirement applied only to the SEZ: WHEREAS, the Colony Inn is located partially within an area identified as a Stream Environment Zone (SEZ), and once the Colony Inn is demolished, existing development will be transferred out of the SEZ and the site will be restored and permanently retired....” The “site” is the SEZ, not the entire property.
City staff agree. Per an email from the City’s Planning Manager, John Hitchcock, dated July 26, 2022:
I have discussed this issue with Hilary, and we do not think the resolution is enforceable. I also could not find any information in our project files that the City required the parcel to be retired as part of our approval to allow [the Predecessor] to transfer the TAUs to another jurisdiction.
The actual transfer itself is a TRPA approval process. When [the Predecessor] applied to TRPA to transfer the TAUs, they were required to transfer the units pursuant to the TRPA Code, which only required SEZ site restoration and for the site to be deed restricted and kept in its natural state. 522
FINAL INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
TCAP REC AMENDMENT AND MULTI - FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT
MARCH 2024 PAGE 10
The City’s approval of the Approved Project on the Property evidences the City’s position that the Resolution does not stand for what the League argues. Once again, the proposed zoning amendment does not involve the Front. Only the Back is affected, and it was not the subject of the City’s Resolution or the SEZ restoration effort on the Front.
Regarding land coverage, properties within Town Centers are eligible for up to 70 percent land coverage.
The Back is already located within the Town Center and therefore eligible for up to 70 percent coverage.
Thus, the amendment has no impact on allowable land coverage.
Comment 11
“In the TCAP, the parcels in question are zoned as recreation. While this questionably aligns with the intent in the General Plan, Recreation districts in the TCAP are “intended to allow a variety of recreation uses such as dispersed recreation and parks. Permissible uses include day use areas and group facilities.” The dispersed recreation use most closely aligns with the intent of the Conservation designation in the General Plan. When the TCAP was developed, the Conservation designation arguably should have translated to the Open Space designation which “is intended to preserve land in its present use that would:
1) conserve and enhance natural or scenic resources; 2) protect streams environment zones, sensitive lands, water quality or water supply; 3) promote soil and habitat conservation; 4) enhance recreation opportunities; and/or 5) preserve visual quality along highways, roads, and street corridors or scenic vistas. The land is predominantly open, undeveloped, or in a lightly developed and is suitable for any of the following: natural areas, wildlife and native plant habitat; erosion control facilities, stream environment zones, stream corridors; passive parks; and/or trails for non-motorized activities.” This Open Space designation also aligns with TCAP policies NCR-2.3 and R-2.3,9 which would be very difficult or impossible to implement or achieve if the proposed amendments are approved.
TRPA’s Regional Plan (RPU) was updated in 2012, between the adoption of the City’s General Plan and the TCAP. The IS/MND, in section 1.8, selected a few TRPA- specific and -referenced goals and policies that this project may support but the ones it may conflict with are not included which does not allow a fair assessment of the pros and cons of the proposed project. These include, but are not limited to ROS-2.9, ROS-2.10, ROS-2.11, Land Use Element Goal 1 Policies 2 and 3, Soils Goal 1 Policy 7, Open Space Goal 1, and Stream Environment Standard SC-2.”
Response 11
The comment infers that the Back portion of the parcel subject of the proposed amendment is located within the GP conservation land use designation. The subject parcel of the amendment (currently recreation) is located within the GP Tourist land use category. Conservation land use is located to the east of the subject parcel.
Further, the Back is not located in the Open Space District of the TCAP which is more restrictive than REC zoning. The Back is zoned REC, not Open Space. Today, the Back has been approved for a driveway with hammerhead turnaround.
Please see response to comment 7 regarding consistency with plan goals and policies.
Comment 12
“To comply with the City’s and TRPA’s land use designations and goals and policies related to open space and recreation, the “corner parcel” at 3828 Montreal Road (APN 029-441-003) needs to be permanently retired as Recreation or Open Space through a deed restriction on the parcel. This would include the access easement associated with the Colony Inn to the Van Sickle access road.” Response 12
The corner parcel referenced in the comment is not part of the proposed amendment or subsequent multifamily development application. 523
FINAL INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
TCAP REC AMENDMENT AND MULTI - FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT
MARCH 2024 PAGE 11
4.0 TEXT MODIFICATIONS TO THE
INITIAL STUDY
The following changes to the IS dated January 2024 have been made based on agency input and public comment on the IS. Bold/Underlined text is new text that has been added to the IS. Text that is shown in strikeout has been removed from the IS.
There are no changes to the IS text required.
524
FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
TCAP REC AMENDMENT AND MULTI - FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT
MARCH 2024 PAGE A - 1
ATTACHMENT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND
REPORTING PROGRAM
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the TCAP Rec Amendment and Multi-Family Housing Project is provided in Table A-1 and prepared in compliance with requirements of California Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and Section 15097 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. In general, the City of South Lake Tahoe shall be responsible for implementing and monitoring the measure identified below. Table A-1 describes each mitigation measure and identifies the responsible agency, timing, and monitoring requirements.
Table A-1
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program Checklist for TCAP Rec Amendment and Multi-Family Housing Project Mitigation Measure Description
Monitoring
Responsibility Timing
Monitoring
Requirement
TRAN-1 Parking Supply Prior to construction of Phase 2 multi-family residential units, the applicant shall either enter into an agreement with an offsite land owner to utilize seven parking spaces, get agreement from the City for parking on nearby public roadway right of way, submit a parking analysis that supports a reduction in the parking demand ratio, or work with the City to amend TCAP parking standards for multi-family residential housing so that a parking deficit does not occur.
City of South
Lake Tahoe
Prior to
Phase 2
multi-family
residential
development
Provide adequate
parking supply to
meet parking
demand standards
for Phase 2 housing
525
FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
TCAP REC AMENDMENT AND MULTI - FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT
MARCH 2024 PAGE B - 1
ATTACHMENT B COMMENT LETTERS
526
February 21, 2024
City of South Lake Tahoe
Planning Commission
1901 Lisa Maloff Way, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Submitted via email
Re: Agenda Item #2: Tourist Core Area Plan Amendments
Dear Planning Commission Members and Staff,
For a multitude of compelling reasons, the League urges the City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission to reject the rezoning of the Colony Inn parcel. The parcel proposed for rezoning at the base of Van Sickle park is a restored site turned into open space and intended to be maintained as green space.
The rezoning is inconsistent with City and Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) plans, goals, and policies. The League objects to the proposed rezoning of APN: 029-441-024 (Colony Inn parcel) from recreation to tourist center mixed use “to accommodate higher density housing opportunities.” This rezoning is inconsistent with City and TRPA plans and the intended use of the parcel and incongruent with restoration goals. The Colony Inn parcel was intended to be restored and permanently retired; and the stream environment zone (SEZ) restored, monitored, and maintained (see our previous letter, attached). Rezoning the last area zoned for recreation/conservation land in the Tourist Core Area Plan (TCAP) area contradicts the goals and policies of the City’s General Plan and TRPA’s Regional Plan. High density workforce housing is currently allowed on the parcel under the Recreation zone, however the owner of the parcel plans to build short term rentals on the site if this rezoning goes through.
The developer would like to build 28 condominium-style short term rentals. The project enabled by this rezoning would also include two residential units that would be dedicated to the “achievable” income category, which does not have an income limit. The current Recreation District allows single family dwelling and employee housing but does not permit multi-family dwellings (that in this case will become short term rentals) as a permissible residential use.
The old “Colony Inn” site was intended to be fully restored and permanently protected from future development. The developer took advantage of a loophole to get four 3-story short term rental buildings, with a 4 unit per acre density, each 36 feet tall, permitted for the Colony Inn parcel. The developer subsequently combined the Colony Inn parcel with the still-recreation zoned “back parcel,” hoping to change the zoning and build more short term rentals at 25 units per acre in buildings up to 56 feet high.
The developer’s justification for increasing the number of units in this rezoning points to the City’s recently adopted housing policy goal to increase density in Town Centers. The purpose of this policy is clearly to increase housing opportunities for residents, not to increase the use of valuable residential commodities to build short term rentals. 1 [
]
[
][
][
2 3
4 ]
[
]
5 527
We have continually opposed this rezoning because it is in direct conflict with the intent of the carefully negotiated zoning in TRPA’s 2012 Regional Plan. The clear zoning decisions made during the Regional Plan Update were created holistically and must not be changed by one project or a singular interest. One-off, project-driven amendments and rezoning attempts undermine both local and regional visions for growth in Tahoe. The environmental review for the proposed rezoning selected limited TRPA- specific and -referenced goals and policies that this project may support but did not include goals and policies where this project clearly conflicts.
This rezoning proposal does not allow a fair assessment of the pros and cons of the proposed project. These include, but are not limited to ROS-2.9, ROS-2.10, ROS-2.11, Land Use Element Goal 1 Policies 2 and 3, Soils Goal 1 Policy 7, Open Space Goal 1, and Stream Environment Standard SC-2.
The League continues to oppose the rezoning consistent with the League’s mission, with increasing intensity as the proposal increases the development potential on one of the only two recreation parcels in the entire Tourist Core.
The rezoning process for this parcel has been fraught with delays and hangups because of the controversial nature of the project that would result from the rezoning. We have no business turning greenspace into development in Tahoe and the developer knew the limitation of the properties when they were purchased.
We urge the Planning Commission to recommend that City Council reject the proposed amendments because they conflict with the intent to permanently restore and protect the site from development, do not help achieve City or TRPA land use and open space goals and policies, and do not address the housing crisis in Tahoe.
Sincerely,
Darcie Goodman Collins, PhD
CEO League to Save Lake Tahoe
[
][
]
[
]
6 7
8 528
May 15, 2023
City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council Members
Hilary Roverud, Planning Director
1901 Lisa Maloff Way, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Submitted via email
Re: Agenda Item #15: Tourist Core Area Plan: 2023 Amendments, Montreal Parcel Rezoning Dear City Council Members and Staff,
As a member of the 2012 Regional Plan Update (RPU) Bi-State Working Group, the League to Save Lake Tahoe (League) appreciates the opportunity to continue to work with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) and the City of South Lake Tahoe (City) to implement the RPU. Effective implementation of Area Plans is critical to this ongoing effort. The League thanks the City for the opportunity to comment on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the proposed Tourist Core Area Plan (TCAP) amendments.
The League has commented to both the City and TRPA during the Scoping period and on the CEQA documents for the standalone Montreal amendment. We are strongly opposed to the rezoning of APN:
029-441-024 on Montreal Avenue and request it be removed from the proposed TCAP amendment package.
Overview
The League does not support the proposed rezoning of APN: 029-441-024 from recreation to tourist center mixed use “to accommodate higher density housing opportunities.” This rezoning would be inconsistent with City and TRPA plans and intent. The Colony Inn parcel was intended to be permanently retired and the stream environment zone (SEZ) restored. The SEZ restoration attempt failed. Rezoning the last recreation/conservation land in the TCAP area does not align with the goals and policies of the City’s General Plan or TRPA’s Regional Plan. High density workforce housing is currently allowed on the parcel under the Recreation zone. The owner of the parcel plans to build high-end short term rentals on the site if the rezoning goes through, and has attempted to achieve this rezoning through other efforts that the City did not support.
This seems to be under the guise of creating more housing, but we know that short term rentals are planned for the site. This rezoning was not included in the February 2022 Planning Commission TCAP amendment presentation and materials. This addition to the TCAP amendments appears to be a move by the land owner to go around the Planning Commission and City Council. City planning staff was going to recommend against this zoning change at the September 15, 2022 Planning Commission meeting and the applicant pulled the proposal.
We want the SEZ restored and corner parcel permanently protected. [
]
9 529
SEZ Impacts and Site Suitability for Development
On March 18, 2008, the City passed a Resolution to permanently retire the Colony Inn site from future development as a condition of transferring the associated tourist accommodation units (TAUs) out of the City limits: “WHEREAS, the Colony Inn located partially Within an area identified for SEZ restoration, Once the Colony Inn is demolished, existing development will be transferred out of the SEZ and the site will be restored and permanently retired, thereby furthering the goals of the Stateline/Ski Run Community Plan and attainment of TRPA’s thresholds.” 1
The City included a Policy in the TCAP that aligns with its Resolution and approval of TAU transfers from the Colony Inn site: “Onsite land coverage reduction will occur primarily through environmental redevelopment by providing development incentives in centers that promote the relocation and transfer of land coverage. The City will endeavor, where feasible, to reduce and avoid creating new coverage in order to benefit the objectives of the TCAP and other areas of South Tahoe.”2 This language was discussed at the November 2013 TRPA Governing Board meeting, including whether or not to specifically include the Colony Inn site as a target restoration site. In the end, though a specific site was not targeted for restoration and the Colony Inn site was intended for restoration and permanent retirement as stipulated above.
The City needs to decide whether this amendment meets the intent of the General Plan and TCAP including the goals and policies contained within it. The City’s Attorney will also need to determine whether or not a new Resolution is required to allow this Area Plan amendment.
Between 2009 and 2013 the Colony Inn was demolished and the SEZ should have been restored, but the restoration failed. According to TRPA’s 2020 SEZ Baseline Report, the Colony Inn site (Colony Inn Meadows) restoration failed.3 The SEZ only ranked a “C,” indicating an unhealthy SEZ due to a ditch running through the entire project, dewatering the meadow and leading to loss of vegetation vigor.
With the proposed amendments, the coverage limit would increase from 30 percent to 70 percent, with coverage transfer on applicable lands with capability 4-7. Additional development around the SEZ where headcuts and ditches are present, significantly and irreversibly impact the SEZ which expressly violates the 2008 City Resolution and the intent of SEZ restoration. Regardless of the success of the SEZ restoration efforts, the site was to be permanently retired, in line with the City’s 2008 Resolution and enforced by TRPA’s approval of the Boulder Bay Community Enhancement Program Project EIS in 2009.4 In September, October, and November of 2013, the TRPA Regional Plan Implementation Committee (RPIC) and Governing Board had lengthy discussions internally and with the City and the public. One of the results of the discussion was the City reinforcing that it “wanted to identify [Colony Inn] as a priority site 1 March 18, 2008 City of South Lake Tahoe Staff Report and Resolution. http://slt.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=4&clip_id=181&meta_id=15886 2 October 15, 2013 TCAP. Policy NCR-4.1, page 7-3. https://www.cityofslt.us/DocumentCenter/View/3508/Final-Tourist-CoreArea-Plan?bidId= 3 December 2020 Lake Tahoe Basin SEZ Baseline Condition Assessment. Report:
https://gis.trpa.org/TahoeSEZViewer/SEZ%20baseline%20condition%20assessment_v8.pdf; StoryMap:
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/815a21db82944f7f95ce94d76c73a19b&sa=D&source=d ocs&ust=1652741001866899&usg=AOvVaw2791Wlh0aSr9wKajKr5gZW 4 November 4, 2009 Boulder Bay CEP Project EIS. https://www.trpa.gov/wpcontent/uploads/documents/archive/4_01_Land_Use.pdf 10 [
530
for getting the stream environment zone restoration completed.”5 Other outcomes relevant to these proposed amendments are enshrined in the TCAP itself:
● “The Colony Inn which was located in SEZ lands by the intersection of Montreal Road and Heavenly Village Way was demolished and 64,800 square feet of land coverage was removed and banked, and the site stabilized. The existing tourist accommodation units removed from the site are proposed for transfer to the Boulder Bay Project in North Stateline. A condition of the Boulder Bay permit requires that the property be restored to a functioning SEZ prior to the units being transferred.” Page 3-4. ● “The Tourist Core Area Plan responds to the needed SEZ improvements: Restore the disturbed SEZ on the Colony Inn parcel located along Montreal Road.” Page 7-5.
In July of 2013, the League submitted comments on the TCAP in its early stages of development, including a clarifying question about the Colony Inn site. The November 2013 TRPA Governing Board meeting included responses to comments and #8 directly addresses the Colony Inn site.6 While the Boulder Bay project has been long-delayed and is currently changing with new ownership of that site, TRPA’s transfer rules may still apply and the intent to permanently retire the site is clear.
TRPA Counsel will need to provide an analysis of the SEZ Restoration Credits and requirement to permanently retire and “stabilize” the site based on TRPA Code and TCAP approvals in 2013, and the final intent captured in TCAP.
Recreation/Open Space
In the TCAP, the parcels in question are zoned as recreation. While this questionably aligns with the intent in the General Plan, Recreation districts in the TCAP are “intended to allow a variety of recreation uses such as dispersed recreation and parks. Permissible uses include day use areas and group facilities.”7 The dispersed recreation use most closely aligns with the intent of the Conservation designation in the General Plan. When the TCAP was developed, the Conservation designation arguably should have translated to the Open Space designation which “is intended to preserve land in its present use that would: 1) conserve and enhance natural or scenic resources; 2) protect streams environment zones, sensitive lands, water quality or water supply; 3) promote soil and habitat conservation; 4) enhance recreation opportunities; and/or 5) preserve visual quality along highways, roads, and street corridors or scenic vistas. The land is predominantly open, undeveloped, or in a lightly developed and is suitable for any of the following: natural areas, wildlife and native plant habitat; erosion control facilities, stream environment zones, stream corridors; passive parks; and/or trails for non-motorized activities.”8 This Open Space designation also aligns with TCAP policies NCR-2.3 and R2.3,9 which would be very difficult or impossible to implement or achieve if the proposed amendments are approved.
5 October 24, 2013 Meeting Minutes from TRPA RPIC meeting. Page 19. https://www.trpa.gov/wpcontent/uploads/documents/archive/January-29-2014-Governing-Board-Packet.pdf 6 November 20, 2013 Response to Comments on the TCAP. Response #8, Page 4. https://www.trpa.gov/wpcontent/uploads/documents/archive/6_FINAL_Attachment-E_Responses-to-Comments.pdf 7 October 15, 2013 TCAP. Page 5-6. 8 Ibid.
9 TCAP Policy NCR-2.3: Encourage the use and access to designated open space for passive recreation uses when they conform to resource restrictions
TCAP Policy R-2.3: Encourage landscaped, small passive parks in and around the Tourist Core ]
11 [
531
TRPA’s Regional Plan (RPU) was updated in 2012, between the adoption of the City’s General Plan and the TCAP. The IS/MND, in section 1.8, selected a few TRPA- specific and -referenced goals and policies that this project may support but the ones it may conflict with are not included which does not allow a fair assessment of the pros and cons of the proposed project. These include, but are not limited to ROS2.9, ROS-2.10, ROS-2.11, Land Use Element Goal 1 Policies 2 and 3, Soils Goal 1 Policy 7, Open Space Goal 1, and Stream Environment Standard SC-2.
To comply with the City’s and TRPA’s land use designations and goals and policies related to open space and recreation, the “corner parcel” at 3828 Montreal Road (APN 029-441-003) needs to be permanently retired as Recreation or Open Space through a deed restriction on the parcel. This would include the access easement associated with the Colony Inn to the Van Sickle access road.
Summary and Recommendations
The proposed rezoning is not consistent with the land use designations or the majority of the relevant goals and policies in the RPU, TCAP, or General Plan. This proposed rezoning should be removed from the proposed TCAP amendments.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide these comments. Please do not hesitate to contact me with questions.
Sincerely,
Darcie Goodman Collins, PhD
CEO League to Save Lake Tahoe
]
[
]
12 532
PO Box 1309
625 U.S. Hwy 50, Suite 209
Zephyr Cove, NV 89448
Tel: 775.580.7431
Fax: 775.580.7436
Website: fmttahoe.com
Email: [email protected]
Lewis S. Feldman
Kara L Thiel
Of Counsel
Catherine L DiCamillo
March 7, 2024
Planning Commission [email protected]
City of South Lake Tahoe [email protected]
1901 Lisa Maloff Way [email protected]
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Via Email
Re: Tourist Core Area Plan Amendment (TCAP)
Rezone Portion of APN 029-441-024 from Recreation (REC) to Tourist Center Mixed-Use (TSC-MU)
Honorable Planning Commission Members:
We submit this letter to correct the record with respect to comments the League to Save Lake Tahoe (the “League”) submitted to you on February 21, 2024, objecting to the proposed rezoning of a portion of the above-referenced property (the “Property”). Before addressing the League’s comments, we offer the following information to frame the issues raised.
The privately-owned Property is comprised of approximately 3.79 acres of land. The front 2.5 acres abutting Montreal Road (the “Front”) are zoned TSC-MU while the back 1.29 acres of the Property (the “Back”) are zoned REC. To be clear, both the Front and Back are already within the TCAP boundaries and the Town Center Overlay where urban development is encouraged, and the City’s General Plan designates the entire Property as Tourist. The Back is bounded by the Front to the west, an existing power plant to the south, a privately-owned undeveloped parcel immediately to the north and Van Sickle Bi-State Park beyond that, and CTC property to the east.
Under the current REC zoning, employee housing and a variety of commercial and recreation uses could be developed on the Back.1
Rezoning the Back to TSC-MU will allow additional
residential uses at higher densities to be developed on the Back. Both the City and TRPA have approved a multiple-family dwelling (MFD) project on the Front with the driveway serving the residences extending onto the Back (the “MFD Project”). (See enclosed rendering.) The public has no access to Van Sickle Park or the adjacent CTC property to the south through the Property – neither the Front nor the Back.
1 Outdoor amusements, privately-owned assembly and entertainment, group facilities and snowmobile courses are permissible uses in the REC District. 533
Planning Commission
March 7, 2024
Page No. 2 of 6
The amendment is only to change the TCAP’s zoning of the 1.29-acre Back from REC to TSCMU so the Property is uniformly zoned. While the Back is 1.29 acres in size, only 0.6 acre consists of developable high capability land. Thus, the amendment affects a mere 0.6 acre of land.
BACKGROUND
The Front is the site of the former Colony Inn and is comprised of both high capability Class 5 and low capability Class 1b, or SEZ, lands. The current owner’s predecessor in interest demolished the Colony Inn in or around 2009 and TRPA banked 104 tourist accommodation units (TAUs), one residential unit of use (RUU) and 64,810 sf of land coverage on the Front. Of the 104 TAUs, 84 were banked in the SEZ and 20 were banked in Class 5 lands. The Predecessor subsequently restored the SEZ portion of the Front pursuant to a plan approved by both TRPA and the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board. Several years of monitoring occurred, the restoration passed final TRPA inspection on October 16, 2015, and TRPA released the restoration security on November 20, 2015. (TRPA File No. ERSP2009-3560.) The 84 SEZ TAUs have been transferred off the Property, and ten of the 20 remaining TAUs in Class 5 lands have been converted to RUUs to support the MFD Project which is limited to the Property’s high capability lands. Pursuant to the TRPA Code, when development rights are transferred out of SEZ lands, a deed restriction permanently restricting the SEZ from future development must be recorded against the sending parcel. The appropriate deed restrictions were recorded against the Front in connection with the transfer of the 84 SEZ TAUs. The high capability lands of the Property are unaffected by the deed restrictions.
Erosion, homeless camps, unpermitted campfires, vandalism and other activities have occurred on the Property since the successful SEZ restoration. These activities have caused an incision in the SEZ such that water is no longer retained onsite, and the functioning of the restored SEZ has suffered as a result.
LEAGUE COMMENTS
“The parcel proposed for rezoning at the base of Van Sickle park is a restored site turned into open space and intended to be maintained as green space.” “The Colony Inn parcel was intended to be restored and permanently retired.”
Response: This comment is false. The parcel proposed for rezoning is the Back. The Back is not a restored site as its SEZ has never been disturbed. While not subject to deed restrictions like the Front, the Back’s SEZ cannot be developed because new disturbance in an SEZ is prohibited under the TRPA Regional Plan. Accordingly, neither the proposed amendment nor the proposed MFD development on the Back will impact the SEZ. 534
Planning Commission
March 7, 2024
Page No. 3 of 6
Furthermore, the Back has never been designated open space to be maintained as green space. Instead, under the current REC zoning, the Back may be developed with employee housing, outdoor amusements, snowmobile courses, group facilities, etc.
As mentioned above, the SEZ portion of the Front has been permanently retired through recorded deed restriction, while the Front’s high capability land is unrestricted and developable.
To be sure, the City and TRPA approved the MFD Project on the Property’s high capability lands, construction of which commenced in 2023. In any event, the proposed amendment does not involve the Front.
The SEZ restoration on the Front was the responsibility of the owner’s predecessor in interest. While the owner is under a legal obligation not to disturb the SEZ, it is not required to maintain, modify or improve the SEZ. Nevertheless, the owner believes a functioning SEZ adds aesthetic and environmental value to the Property and, as documented in the IS/IEC project description, has applied to TRPA for a permit to, again, restore the functionality of the Front’s SEZ. Fencing is also proposed to protect the SEZ from encroachment by the public and the MFD Project’s residents.
“Rezoning the last area zoned for recreation/conservation land in the Tourist Core Area Plan (TCAP) area contradicts the goals and policies of the City’s General Plan and TRPA’s Regional Plan.”
Response: This comment is misleading. The Back is not zoned for conservation.
Rather, Conservation land is located to the east of the Property and includes Van Sickle State Park. As explained above, the City’s General Plan designates the entire Property as Tourist.
Within the Tourist land use category, the Recreation zoning allows some residential and a variety of commercial and developed recreation uses. As part of the MFD Project, a driveway with hammerhead turnaround will be constructed on the Back whether this amendment is approved or not. In other words, the Back Parcel will not remain undeveloped. “The clear zoning decisions made during the Regional Plan Update were created holistically and must not be changed by one project or a singular interest. One-off, projectdriven amendments and rezoning attempts undermine both local and regional visions for growth in Tahoe.”
Response: This amendment involves a 1.29-acre tract of land located in the TCAP Town Center where urban development is encouraged, close to transit, shopping, restaurants and other services. Where residential caretaker and employee housing are permissible uses in the REC District, rezoning the Back from REC to TSC-MU to allow another residential use (i.e., multiple-family dwellings) to be developed thereon hardly undermines the vision for growth in Tahoe.
535
Planning Commission
March 7, 2024
Page No. 4 of 6
“The developer took advantage of a loophole to get four 3-story short term rental buildings, with a 4 unit per acre density, each 36 feet tall, permitted for the Colony Inn parcel.”
Response: The MFD Project was approved in accordance with both the City’s and TRPA’s ordinances and categorically exempt from CEQA.
“The environmental review for the proposed rezoning selected limited TRPA- specific and - referenced goals and policies that this project may support but did not include goals and policies where this project clearly conflicts. This rezoning proposal does not allow a fair assessment of the pros and cons of the proposed project. These include, but are not limited to ROS-2.9, ROS-2.10, ROS-2.11, Land Use Element Goal 1 Policies 2 and 3, Soils Goal 1 Policy 7, Open Space Goal 1, and Stream Environment Standard SC-2.” The City General Plan’s Recreation and Open Space (ROS) Policies the League references are reprinted below followed by a response.
ROS‐2.9. Permanent Open Space Protection
The City shall permanently protect as open space areas of natural resource value, including forests, wetlands, stream and riparian corridors, and floodplains.
ROS‐2.10. Sufficient Size Open Space and Natural Areas
The City shall maintain open space and natural areas that are interconnected and of sufficient size to protect biodiversity, accommodate wildlife movement, and provide more sustainable ecosystems.
ROS‐2.11. Open Space Funding
The City should continue to seek and obtain local, State, and Federal funding for beach, meadow, and open space acquisition.
Response: The rezoning does not conflict with the foregoing policies. First, the Property is privately-owned. More importantly, however, the Property’s SEZ is protected from development as a result of the recorded deed restrictions and TRPA’s prohibition of new disturbance within SEZ lands. Finally, the rezoning does not preclude the City from seeking funding for beach, meadow and open space acquisition.
The TRPA Goals and Policies the League references are reprinted below followed by responses.
Land Use Element Goal 1 Policy 2. Redeveloping Existing Town Centers is a High Priority.
Land Use Element Goal 1 Policy 3. The Plan Shall Seek to Maintain a Balance Between Economic/Social Health and the Environment.
536
Planning Commission
March 7, 2024
Page No. 5 of 6
Response: Rezoning the Back to allow MFD development in the Town Center close to services, while maintaining the SEZ in a natural state, is consistent with Land Use Element Goal 1 Policies 2 and 3.
Soils Goal 1 Policy. All Existing Natural Functioning Stream Environment Zones Shall Be Retained as Such and Disturbed Stream Environment Zones Shall Be Restored Whenever Possible.
Response: The Back’s undisturbed SEZ will remain in a natural state as it is protected from development under TRPA’s Ordinance and Goals and Policies. The Front’s SEZ is restricted from development through recorded deed restrictions, and the Property owner is seeking approval from TRPA to implement measures to restore the SEZ’s functionality.
Accordingly, the rezoning and the proposed MFD development on the Back is consistent with this Goal and Policy.
Open Space Goal 1. Manage Areas of Open Space to Promote Conservation of Vegetation and Protection of Watersheds.
Response: The Property is not zoned for conservation. Development of the high capability lands of the Property is already approved and under construction. The SEZ portions of the Property will be maintained as open space. Consequently, the amendment and further MFD development on the Back is consistent with this Goal and Policy.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN
The amendment and the project are consistent with the following General Plan Goals and Policies:
Land Use and Community Design Goal LU-3
To encourage the creation of more complete and well-designed neighborhoods that promote livability, safety, and sustainability.
Policy 3.3. Diverse Housing Choices
The City shall promote a wide range of housing opportunities, both ownership and rental, for all income levels.
Policy 3.6. Residential Variety in Existing Neighborhoods The City shall encourage development of a variety of new housing types that provide housing choices for consumers in terms of types of units, location, unit, sizes, and costs, design, amount of privacy, and neighborhood environment, while preserving neighborhood character.
Housing Element Goal HE-7
To provide for a variety of housing types, sizes, price ranges, and densities compatible with the existing character and integrity of residential neighborhoods. 537
Planning Commission
March 7, 2024
Page No. 6 of 6
Policy 7-2. The City shall encourage compatibility of physical design, building structure, and lot layout relationships between existing and new construction to help the new developments complement the surrounding neighborhoods.
CONCLUSION
We respectfully submit the League’s comments are without merit, and rezoning the Back is consistent with the City’s General Plan and adopted TCAP. Rezoning the Back from REC to TSC-MU is consistent with the General Plan designation of Tourist. The Back is located within the Town Center where urban development is encouraged. The amendment does not involve the Front and will not allow development to occur in the Back’s SEZ lands. Development is already approved on the Back in the form of a driveway with hammerhead turnaround. Further development of the Back with MFD residences will screen the power plant as viewed from the CTC property and Van Sickle B-State Park. Residential development of the Back will utilize TAUs (converted to RUUs) and land coverage banked on the Property, minimizing environmental impacts.
Thank you for your consideration of the foregoing.
Sincerely,
FELDMAN THIEL LLP
By:
Kara L. Thiel
KLT/ld
Enclosure
cc: Sue Blankenship: [email protected]
Dan Bardzell: [email protected]
Hilary Roverud: [email protected]
Zach Thomas: [email protected]
John Hitchcock: [email protected]
Client
538
Old Colony Inn | ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN July 27, 2023
MONTREAL ROAD
0 30 60 120
1” = 30’
BUILDING 1
TYPE A
BUILDING 2
TYPE A
BUILDING 4
10 PLEX APPROVED ROAD BUILDING 3 6 PLEX
539
PO Box 1309
625 U.S. Hwy 50, Suite 209
Zephyr Cove, NV 89448
Tel: 775.580.7431
Fax: 775.580.7436
Website: fmttahoe.com
Email: [email protected]
Lewis S. Feldman
Kara L Thiel
Of Counsel
Catherine L DiCamillo
June 5, 2023
South Lake Tahoe City Council [email protected]
1901 Lisa Maloff Way [email protected]
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 [email protected]
Via Email [email protected]
[email protected]
Re: Tourist Core Area Plan Amendment (TCAP)
Rezone Portion of APN 029-441-024 from Recreation (REC) to Tourist Center Mixed-Use (TSC-MU)
Honorable Council Members:
We submit this letter to correct the record with respect to comments the League to Save Lake Tahoe (the “League”) submitted to you on May 15, 2023, objecting to the proposed rezoning of the above-referenced property (the “Property”). Before addressing the League’s specific comments, we offer the following information to frame the issues raised.
The privately-owned1 Property is comprised of approximately 3.79 acres of land. The front 2.5 acres abutting Montreal Road (the “Front”) are zoned TSC-MU while the back 1.29 acres of the Property (the “Back”) are zoned REC. To be clear, both the Front and Back are already within the TCAP boundaries and the Town Center Overlay where urban development is encouraged, and the City’s General Plan designates the entire Property as Tourist. The Back is bounded by the Front to the north, an existing power plant to the west, a privately-owned undeveloped parcel immediately to the east and Van Sickle Bi-State Park beyond that, and CTC property to the south.
Under the current REC zoning, employee housing and a variety of recreation uses could be developed on the Back. Rezoning the Back to TSC-MU will allow additional residential uses at higher densities to be developed on the Back. Both the City and TRPA have approved a multiple-family dwelling (MFD) project on the Front with the driveway serving the residences extending onto the Back (the “Approved Project”). The public has no access to Van Sickle Park or the adjacent CTC property to the south through the Property – neither the Front nor Back. 1 The Property is owned by HVR Acquisitions, LLC (the “Owner”). 540
South Lake Tahoe City Council
June 5, 2023
Page No. 2
The amendment is only to change the TCAP’s zoning of the 1.29-acre Back from REC to TSCMU so the Property is uniformly zoned. While the Back is 1.29 acres in size, only 0.6 acre consists of developable high capability land. Thus, this component of the amendment affects a mere 0.6 acre of land.
BACKGROUND
The Front is the site of the former Colony Inn and is comprised of both high capability Class 5 and low capability Class 1b, or SEZ, lands. The Owner’s predecessor in interest (the “Predecessor”) demolished the Colony Inn in or around 2009 and TRPA banked 104 tourist accommodation units (TAUs), one residential unit of use (RUU) and 64,810 sf of land coverage on the Front. Of the 104 TAUs, 84 were banked in the SEZ and 20 were banked in Class 5 lands. The Predecessor subsequently restored the SEZ portion of the Front pursuant to a plan approved by both TRPA and the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board. Several years of monitoring occurred, and the restoration passed final TRPA inspection on October 16, 2015, and TRPA released the restoration security on November 20, 2015. (TRPA File No. ERSP2009- 3560.)
The 84 SEZ TAUs have been transferred off the Property, and ten of the 20 remaining TAUs in Class 5 lands have been converted to RUUs and will support the Approved Project which is limited to the Property’s high capability lands. Pursuant to the TRPA Code, when development rights are transferred out of SEZ lands, a deed restriction permanently restricting the SEZ from future development must be recorded against the sending parcel. The appropriate deed restrictions were recorded against the Front in connection with the transfer of the 84 SEZ TAUs.
The high capability lands of the Property are unaffected by the deed restrictions.
Erosion, homeless camps, unpermitted campfires, vandalism and other activities have occurred on the Property since the successful SEZ restoration. These activities have caused an incision in the SEZ such that water is no longer retained onsite, and the functioning of the restored SEZ has suffered as a result.
LEAGUE COMMENTS
“The Colony Inn parcel was intended to be permanently retired and the stream environment zone (SEZ) restored.”
Response: As mentioned above, the SEZ portion of the Front has been permanently retired through recorded deed restrictions. This amendment does not involve the Front. The SEZ portion of the Back has never been disturbed, was not part of the prior restoration effort on the Front and will not be developed whether this amendment is approved or not. New disturbance in an SEZ is prohibited. The Approved Project does not involve SEZ on the Front or Back.
541
South Lake Tahoe City Council
June 5, 2023
Page No. 3
“This rezoning was not included in the February 2022 Planning Commission TCAP amendment presentation and materials. This addition to the TCAP amendments appears to be a move by the land owner to go around the Planning Commission and City Council.” Response: The proposed rezoning of the Back has been contemplated since 2019.
Initially, the Owner applied to the City for the amendment, a scoping notice was published and a public meeting was held on the amendment. The League participated in the public meeting and submitted comments to the City and TRPA on multiple occasions. After years of back and forth between the Owner, the City and TRPA, the City ultimately decided to include and support the rezoning in a broader TCAP amendment package, albeit following the initial presentation to the Planning Commission meeting in February 2023. The League knows the Owner is not attempting a workaround and has spent years and hundreds of thousands of dollars in an effort to rezone 1.29 acres of land.
“We want the SEZ restored and corner parcel permanently retired.” Response: The restored SEZ is located on the Front which is already zoned TSC-MU and not a part of this amendment. Likewise, the “corner” parcel is not a part of the amendment.
This amendment is limited to a rezoning of the 1.29-acre Back which is only accessible via the Front.
The SEZ restoration on the Front was the responsibility of the Predecessor. While the owner is under a legal obligation not to disturb the SEZ, it is not required to maintain, modify or improve the SEZ. Nevertheless, the Owner believes a functioning SEZ adds aesthetic and environmental value to the Property and has engaged consultants and TRPA staff to develop a plan. The Owner even met with the League onsite last year to discuss further restoration efforts. The CTC declined to participate in funding SEZ restoration.
“On March 18, 2008, The City passed a Resolution to permanently retire the Colony Inn site from future development as a condition of transferring the associated tourist accommodation units (TAUs) out of the City limits.”
Response: It is clear from the Resolution’s language that the restoration and retirement applied only to the SEZ: WHEREAS, the Colony Inn is located partially within an area identified as a Stream Environment Zone (SEZ), and once the Colony Inn is demolished, existing development will be transferred out of the SEZ and the site will be restored and permanently retired….” The “site” is the SEZ, not the entire property. 542
South Lake Tahoe City Council
June 5, 2023
Page No. 4
City staff agree. Per an email from the City’s Planning Manager, John Hitchcock, dated July 26, 2022:
I have discussed this issue with Hilary, and we do not think the resolution is enforceable. I also could not find any information in our project files that the City required the parcel to be retired as part of our approval to allow [the Predecessor] to transfer the TAUs to another jurisdiction.
The actual transfer itself is a TRPA approval process. When [the Predecessor] applied to TRPA to transfer the TAUs, they were required to transfer the units pursuant to the TRPA Code, which only required SEZ site restoration and for the site to be deed restricted and kept in its natural state.
The City’s approval of the Approved Project on the Property evidences the City’s position that the Resolution does not stand for what the League argues. Once again, this amendment does not involve the Front. Only the Back is affected, and it was not the subject of the City’s Resolution or the SEZ restoration effort on the Front.
“With the proposed amendments, the coverage limit would increase from 30 percent to 70 percent….”
Response: Properties within Town Centers are eligible for up to 70 percent land coverage. The Back is already located within the Town Center and therefore eligible for up to 70 percent coverage. Thus, the amendment has no impact on allowable land coverage. “When the TCAP was developed, the Conservation designation [in the General Plan] arguably should have translated to the Open Space designation….” Response: This comment is misleading. The Back is not located in the Open Space District of the TCAP which is more restrictive than REC zoning. The Back is zoned REC, not Open Space. Today, the Back has been approved for a driveway with hammerhead turnaround.
CONCLUSION
We respectfully submit the League’s comments are without merit, and the rezoning of the Back is consistent with the City’s General Plan and adopted TCAP. Rezoning the Back from REC to TSC-MU is consistent with the General Plan designation of Tourist. The Back is located within the Town Center where urban development is encouraged. The amendment does not involve the Front and will not allow development to occur in the Back’s SEZ lands. Development is already approved on the Back. Development of the Back with residential development will screen the power plant as viewed from the CTC property and Van Sickle B-State Park. Residential 543
South Lake Tahoe City Council
June 5, 2023
Page No. 5
development of the Back will utilize TAUs and land coverage banked on the Property minimizing environmental impacts.
Thank you for your consideration of the foregoing.
Sincerely,
FELDMAN THIEL LLP
By:
Kara L. Thiel
KLT/ld
cc: Sue Blankenship: [email protected]
Hilary Roverud: [email protected]
John Hitchcock: [email protected]
Madison Dederick: [email protected]
Client
544
Draft Tourist Core Area Plan/Specific Plan Amendment
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Environmental Checklist/Finding of No Significant Effect
April 2022
545
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDM ENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT PAGE i
1.0 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................... 1
1.1 INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST.............................................1
1.2 TIERING PROCESS.....................................................................................................2
1.3 BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................4
1.4 PROJECT LOCATION, SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND USES.........................4
1.5 PROJECT OBJECTIVES/PURPOSE AND NEED..........................................................5
1.6 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION......................................................................................9
1.7 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT...............................................................................................9
1.8 RELATIONSHIP TO LAND USE PLANS, POLICIES AND REGULATIONS .................10
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ......................................................................... 14
3.0 BASELINE ................................................................................................. 22
4.0 METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS................................................... 23
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND IMPACT ANALYSIS .................... 24
5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED........................................25
5.2 CEQA ENVIROMENTAL DETERMINATION ...............................................................26
5.3 TRPA ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPELTED BY TRPA) .........27
5.4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS........................................................28
5.4.1 CEQA....................................................................................................................28
5.4.2 TRPA ....................................................................................................................28
5.4.3 Aesthetics (CEQA), Scenic Resources/Community Design and Light and Glare (TRPA) .................................................................................................................30
5.4.4 Agriculture and Forestry Resources .......................................................................39
5.4.5 Air Quality..............................................................................................................41
5.4.6 Biological Resources (Stream Environment Zones, Wetlands, Wildlife and Vegetation).....................................................................................................................47
5.4.7 Cultural Resources (CEQA) and Archaeological/Historical (TRPA).........................55
5.4.8 Energy...................................................................................................................55
5.4.9 Geology and Soils (CEQA) and Land (TRPA) ........................................................59
5.4.10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (CEQA) and Air Quality (TRPA)...............................67
5.4.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials (CEQA) and Risk Of Upset and Human Health (TRPA) .................................................................................................................70
5.4.12 Hydrology and Water Quality ...............................................................................76
5.4.13 Land Use and Planning........................................................................................84
5.4.14 Mineral Resources (CEQA) and Natural Resources (TRPA).................................87
5.4.15 Noise...................................................................................................................89
5.4.16 Population and Housing.......................................................................................94
5.4.17 Public Services....................................................................................................96
5.4.18 Recreation.........................................................................................................101
5.4.19 Transportation (CEQA) and Traffic and Circulation (TRPA) ................................104
5.4.20 Tribal Cultural Resources (CEQA) and Archaeological/Historical (TRPA) ...........109
5.4.21 Utilities and Service Systems (CEQA) and Utilities (TRPA) ................................109
5.4.22 Wildfire (CEQA).................................................................................................117
5.4.23 Mandatory Findings Of Significance...................................................................117
5.5 CERTIFICATION [TRPA ONLY]................................................................................127
5.6 REFERENCES .........................................................................................................128 APPENDIX A – LSC TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM DATED JULY 8, 2019 546
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDM ENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT PAGE 1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 INITIAL STUDY/INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
This Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist (IS/IEC) has been prepared to address the potential environmental effects of amending the City of South Lake Tahoe Tourist Core Area Plan/Specific Plan (TCAP), located in the City of South Lake Tahoe, California. The IS/IEC also analyzes the potential environmental effects of a proposed multi-family housing project, that is dependent on the adoption of the proposed TCAP amendment. The “amendment area” is defined as a 1.29 acre parcel, formerly Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 029-240-011 that is located adjacent to the former Colony Inn (formerly APN 029- 441-004). The proposed amendment would rezone the amendment area from Recreation to Tourist Center Mixed Use and include policies that would limit future land uses and density on the combined parcels (former APN 029-240-011 and APN 029-441-004). If adopted, these policies would ultimately decrease the maximum development potential on the two combined parcels. The current Recreation district allows single family development as a special use, but does not allow multi-family development. If the amendment is approved, the applicant (HVR Acquisitions) wishes to expand a multi-family housing development previously approved on former APN 029-441-004 (2.5 acre) to the newly combined parcel. The two former parcels referenced above (APNs 029-240-011 and 029-441-004), were legally consolidated into a single parcel in June 2021 and are now designated as APN 029-441-024. As a result, the combined parcel of land is located in two different TCAP zoning districts with different permissible uses, height limits and density.
The proposed rezone amendment, if adopted, would resolve this conflict.
An Initial Study (IS) is a preliminary environmental analysis that is used by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lead agency as a basis for determining whether an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), a Mitigated Negative Declaration, or a Negative Declaration is required for a project under CEQA guidelines. An Initial Environmental Checklist (IEC) is a preliminary environmental analysis that is used for determining whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), an Environmental Assessment (EA), a Mitigated Finding of No Significant Effect, or a Finding of No Significant Effect is required for a project under TRPA Rules of Procedure.
The IS/IEC contains a project description, description of environmental setting, identification and explanation of environmental effects, discussion of mitigation for potentially significant environmental effects, evaluation of the proposed project’s consistency with existing, applicable land use controls, and the names of persons who prepared the study.
The IS has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, Cal. Pub.
Res. Code §21000 et seq. The City of South Lake Tahoe is the CEQA lead agency for this project. The IEC has been prepared pursuant to the requirements of Article VI of the TRPA Rules of Procedures and Chapter 3 of TRPA’s Code of Ordinances. TRPA serves as lead agency pursuant to its own regulations.
The City of South Lake Tahoe is processing an application for an amendment pursuant to Chapter 13 of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) Code of Ordinances, which allows local governments to adopt conforming Area Plans that contain policies and development ordinances that are consistent with and further the goals and policies of the TRPA Regional Plan. Chapter 13 established a conformity process that:
§ Allows local governments to adopt an Area Plan that supersedes TRPA plans and ordinances if the plan is found to be in conformance with the Regional Plan; § Defines required content in an Area Plan that includes but is not limited to applicable policies, maps, ordinances and development and design standards; and 547
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDM ENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT PAGE 2 § Defines which development activities will not have a substantial effect on the natural resources in the Region and allows TRPA to transfer limited development permitting authority to local governments.
1.2 TIERING PROCESS
California Environmental Quality Act
The CEQA concept of "tiering" refers to the evaluation of general environmental matters in a broad program-level EIR, with subsequent focused environmental documents for individual projects that implement the program. This environmental document incorporates by reference and tiers from the discussions in the 2011 General Plan EIR (the Program EIR) and concentrates on issues specific to the TCAP. CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines encourage the use of tiered environmental documents to reduce delays and excessive paperwork in the environmental review process. This is accomplished in tiered documents by eliminating repetitive analyses of issues that were adequately addressed in the Program EIR and by incorporating those analyses by reference.
Section 15168(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines provides for simplifying the preparation of environmental documents on individual parts of the program by incorporating by reference analyses and discussions that apply to the program as a whole. Where an EIR has been prepared or certified for a program or plan, the environmental review for a later activity consistent with the program or plan should be limited to effects that were not analyzed as significant in the prior EIR or that are susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15152[d]).
This IS is tiered from the City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan EIR, in accordance with Sections 15152 and 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines and Public Resources Code Section 21094. The 2011 General Plan EIR is a Program EIR that was prepared pursuant to Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines. The 2011 General Plan is a comprehensive land use plan that guides physical development within the City of South Lake Tahoe through 2030. The 2011 General Plan EIR analyzes full implementation of uses and physical development proposed under the General Plan, and it identifies measures to mitigate the significant adverse program-level and cumulative impacts associated with that growth.
This IS/IEC will evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed TCAP Amendment with respect to the 2011 General Plan EIR to determine what level of additional environmental review, if any, is appropriate. As shown in the Determination in Section 5.2 of this document and based on the analysis contained in this IS/IEC, it has been determined that the proposed amendments would not have significant effects on the environment that were not adequately addressed in the 2011 General Plan EIR; therefore, a Negative Declaration will be prepared.
While the IS/IEC does not tier from the 2013 TCAP IS/IEC (this document uses more recently available data and provides a project specific analysis), the 2013 document is incorporated by reference. While the 2013 TCAP IS/IEC does not propose mitigation measures, it incorporates mitigation measures adopted under the 2011 General Plan EIR and the TRPA Regional Plan Update EIS. These mitigation measures would continue to be applicable to the project area, and no change to the application of such mitigation measures are proposed.
This IS/IEC concludes that potentially significant impacts are addressed by adopted policies and regulations applicable to the area, and the mitigation measures that have been adopted as part of the approval of the 2011 General Plan. These mitigation measures, to the extent they are applicable to the TCAP, will also be incorporated into project approvals as needed. Nothing in this IS in any way alters the obligations of the City to implement the General Plan mitigation measures. All future projects within the TCAP boundary 548
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDM ENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT PAGE 3 would be subject to project-level environmental review and permitting by the City and/or TRPA, with the permitting agency determined based on the size, nature and location of the project (Section 13.7.3 of the TRPA Code).
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
The TRPA concept of "tiering" refers to the coverage of general matters in a broader EIS (Program EIS) and subsequent documents incorporating by reference the general discussions and concentrating solely on the issues specific to the document subsequently prepared. Therefore, when an EIS has been certified for a project or matter, TRPA shall limit the analysis for a later related or consistent project or matter, to effects which were not examined as significant effects in the prior EIS or which are susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance by revisions in the project or matter through conditions of approval or mitigation.
Tiering is limited to situations where a later project or matter is consistent with a program, plan, policy, or ordinance for which an EIS was prepared, is consistent with applicable TRPA plans, and a supplemental EIS is not required.
This IEC is tiered from the TRPA 2012 RPU EIS in accordance with Section 6.12 of the TRPA Rules of Procedures. The 2012 RPU EIS is a Program EIS that was prepared pursuant to Article VI of TRPA Rules of Procedures (Environmental Impact Statements) and Chapter 3 (Environmental Documentation) of the TRPA Code of Ordinances. The 2012 RPU is a comprehensive land use plan that guides physical development within the Lake Tahoe Region through 2035. The 2012 RPU EIS analyzes full implementation of uses and physical development proposed under the 2012 RPU, and it identifies measures to mitigate the significant adverse program-level and cumulative impacts associated with that growth. The proposed project is an element of the growth that was anticipated in the 2012 RPU and evaluated in the 2012 RPU EIS. By tiering from the 2012 RPU EIS, this IEC will rely on the 2012 RPU EIS for the following:
§ a discussion of general background and setting information for environmental topic areas; § overall growth-related issues;
§ issues that were evaluated in sufficient detail in the 2012 RPU EIS for which there is no significant new information or change in circumstances that would require further analysis; and § assessment of cumulative impacts.
This IEC evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project with respect to the 2012 RPU EIS to determine what level of additional environmental review, if any, is appropriate. As shown in the Determination in Section 5.3 of this document, and based on the analysis contained in this IEC, it has been determined that the proposed project would not have significant effects on the environment. Therefore, a Finding of No Significant Effect will be prepared.
This IEC concludes that many potentially significant project impacts are addressed by the measures that have been adopted as part of the approval of the 2012 RPU. Therefore, those 2012 RPU EIS mitigation measures that are related to, and may reduce the impacts of, this project will be identified in this IEC. These mitigation measures will be incorporated into the approval for this project. Nothing in this IEC in any way alters the obligations of the City or TRPA to implement the mitigation measures adopted as part of the RPU.
549
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDM ENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT PAGE 4
1.3 BACKGROUND
All of the land within the Lake Tahoe Basin falls under the jurisdiction of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. This includes land under the local jurisdiction of the City of South Lake Tahoe. In order to be responsive to the unique needs and opportunities of the Region and local communities, the TRPA Regional Plan encourages and authorizes local jurisdictions to develop and adopt individual Area Plans that provide more specific development objectives and standards that are adapted to the needs of the specified area.
Local jurisdictions are permitted to develop, adopt, and implement regulations so long as they are consistent with the TRPA Regional Plan. The General Plan and Zoning Ordinances are the City’s primary policy documents that guide land use, transportation, infrastructure, community design, housing, environmental, and other decisions in a manner consistent with the planning statues for the State of California. The TCAP is designed to supplement the City’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance by designating zoning districts and providing specific guidance for the area included within the new Area Plan boundaries. The Area Plan is considered a specific plan pursuant to California State Law.
The process of amending a specific plan is provided in CA Government Code Section 65359 and generally follows the general plan amendment process outlined in Sections 65350 through 65358. This includes public hearings with public notice, and adoption by resolution or by ordinance. Specific plans may be amended as often as necessary by the local legislative body, but the amendment itself must be consistent with the adopted general plan for the area. TRPA Code of Ordinances Chapter 13 also indicates plan amendments require public hearing, and must be consistent with the Regional Plan. Amendments require findings, conformance review (conformance checklist), and threshold and compliance measure evaluations.
The TCAP serves as a comprehensive land use plan, consistent with the Lake Tahoe Regional Plan (Regional Plan) and the City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan (General Plan). The plan is intended to realize the area vision, assist in achieving and maintaining TRPA’s Environmental Threshold Carrying Capacities, implement the Tahoe Metropolitan Planning Organization’s Sustainable Communities Strategy, and implement the policy direction of both the Regional Plan and General Plan. The TCAP Vision Statement was developed by the community through a series of public workshops, and is stated below:
“The area is envisioned as a central destination that provides full services for tourists and permanent residents and offers unique experiences related to the many outdoor recreation possibilities that surround the core area. The Revitalization of the South Shore will catalyze the transformation from a failing and vestigial gaming economy into a sustainable outdoor tourism recreational destination by incorporating active streetscapes, shopping, entertainment and outdoor dining opportunities. In addition, transit and alternative travel will provide an essential part of the envisioned destination resort experience resulting in significant environmental gain and improvised scenic quality.” The Project proposes amendment of the TCAP but maintains the vision and the same priorities. Upon adoption by the City Council and TRPA Governing Board, the amended TCAP will serve as a mutual plan for both the City and TRPA.
1.4 PROJECT LOCATION, SETTING AND SURROUNDING LAND
USES
The TCAP functions as the central tourist destination in the South Lake Tahoe area. The boundaries of the TCAP are entirely within the City of South Lake Tahoe, located centrally along US Highway 50 and Ski Run Boulevard between Stateline and Fairway Avenue on US Highway 50 and between US Highway 50 and approximately Pioneer Trail along Ski Run Boulevard. This area serves as a direct recreation access point to Heavenly Mountain Ski Resort, Edgewood Golf Course, Ski Run and Lakeside Marinas, and Van 550
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDM ENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT PAGE 5 Sickle Bi-State Park, and as such is predominantly tourist related, with numerous hotels, motels, restaurants, and retail land uses. The area is served by transit, with a Route 50 stop at Beach Retreat & Lodge at US 50 and Takela Drive and at Safeway at US 50 and Johnson Blvd., and a Route 55 stop at Ski Run Blvd. and Spruce, with links to other Tahoe Transportation District routes. Additionally, the South Shore water taxi stops at Timber Cove, among three other stops within the South Shore area. A bike lane within US 50 and multi-use path parallel to US 50 run through the City and link to other bike lanes, bike routes, and multiuse trails in the South Shore with connections extending to Stateline, Meyers, Tahoe Keys, and Camp Richardson.
The TCAP covers approximately 304 acres. The proposed amendment would not change the total area within the TCAP or Town Center boundary. The amendment proposes to change the zoning of 1.29 acres of the newly created APN 029-441-024 from Recreation to Tourist Center Mixed-Use, which is the current zoning of the remainder of the newly formed parcel. Both segments of the parcel are located within the TCAP Town Center, and within the Tourist Center land use designation of the City’s General Plan. Figure 1-1 shows the boundary of the proposed amendment area. Table 1-1 documents the existing use, land capability and land coverage for the proposed amendment.
The TCAP Tourist Center Mixed-Use District is intended to primarily provide for tourist accommodation uses, with supporting retail commercial uses to meet the regional demand for quality accommodation in the Stateline area in a manner compatible with a pedestrian environment. The TCAP Recreation District is intended to allow a variety of recreation uses such as dispersed recreation and parks. Permissible uses include day use areas and group facilities.
Surrounding land uses include single-family and multi-family residential uses to the south, tourist and commercial uses to the west and north, and undeveloped and recreation lands (e.g, Van Sickle Bi-State Park) to the east. The parcel immediately east to the area proposed for zone change, APN 029-240-10, is zoned for Recreation and owned by the California Tahoe Conservancy. The adjacent parcel to the north, APN 029-441-003 (3828 Montreal Road), is zoned for Recreation and is privately-owned, undeveloped land that features an easement for vehicle entry into Van Sickle Bi-State Park from Montreal Road and Heavenly Village Way. An electric utility substation is also located immediately south of the amendment area. Finally, a multi-family residential development (Gondola Vista), similar to the future Project development proposed for the combined parcel, is located to the north just past the entry to Van Sickle BiState Park.
1.5 PROJECT OBJECTIVES/PURPOSE AND NEED
The proposed TCAP amendment does not propose any changes to the allowable land coverage, building height, or density in the TCAP Development and Design Standards.
The purpose of the proposed TCAP zoning amendment is to facilitate the development of multi-family housing on a 3.79 acre recently combined parcel (APN 029-441-024) that includes 1.29 acres of land within the Recreation zone and 2.50 acres of land within the Tourist Center Mixed Use zone. The Recreation zone does not permit multi-family housing. The applicant (HVR Acquisitions) wishes to develop up to six (6) additional multi-family residential units on the 1.29 acre portion of the parcel located within the Recreation zone as Phase 2 of a four (4) unit Multi-Family Project previously approved by the City for the portion included in the Tourist Center zone. Once built out, the eventual project would include a total of 10 multifamily residential structures (detached units) on the combined 3.79 acre parcel. The City application to merge the former parcels (APN 029-441-004 and APN 029-240-011) into a combined parcel (APN 029- 441-024) was approved in June 2021. It is anticipated that the multi-family residential units would be subdivided into individual airspace condominiums and rented as short-term vacation home rentals (VHRs). 551
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDM ENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT PAGE 6 The amendment would result in changes to the land use designation within the amendment area. However, this change aligns with the City’s and TRPA’s land use maps. The City’s General Plan designates the project area as a “Tourist Center.” The Tourist Center land use designation is intended for the most intensive land uses, including major commercial/visitor centers and mixed-use residential. This General Plan land use designation is used for areas in the City that are currently developed as commercial/visitor centers, have excess land coverage, where vertical mixed-use projects are appropriate, and are near commercial, employment, transit, and public services. Therefore, the proposed rezoning amendment and subsequent multi-family development project are compatible with Land Use and Community Design Policies, LU-3.3, LU-3.6, and LU-4.3.
While the TCAP currently assigns a Recreation zone to the former APN 029-240-011, the entire project area (combined parcel) is included in the TCAP Town Center Overlay and included in the Transfer of Development Rights Receiving Area. The TRPA Conceptual Regional Land Use Map (https://www.trpa.gov/wpcontent/uploads/documents/archive/2/FinalAdoptedRegionalPlanMaps_amended1-2-2018.pdf) identifies the amendment area as “Tourist” land use and within a “Town Center” district. Town centers are targeted for redevelopment in a manner that improves environmental conditions, creates a more sustainable and less auto-dependent development pattern and provides economic opportunities in the Region. The amendment is therefore consistent with aspects of both the TRPA Regional Plan and TCAP. Specifically, the rezoning amendment and development project are compatible with TRPA Land Use Policies LU-1.1 and LU-1.2 as well as Community Design Policy LU-2.1.
Precedent exists for rezoning recreation properties to allow for residential and tourist accommodation uses.
These include an amendment in the 1990s to Plan Area Statement 070 to permit tourist accommodation uses within the existing Edgewood Tahoe Golf Course and the 2012 RPU’s creation of a Resort Recreation District for Edgewood Company’s “mountain parcel” and Heavenly Ski Resorts California base lodge area.
These amendments allow for multi-family development and tourist accommodation uses on properties formerly zoned Recreation provided existing development is transferred from elsewhere in the Basin to support the development projects. Here, units of use and existing land coverage banked on the former APN 029-441-004 will support development of Phases 1 (approved) and 2 (proposed) of the Project.
When Measure T, a citizen-initiated ballot measure, passed in 2018, there were 1,764 permitted vacation home rentals (VHRs) in the City of South Lake Tahoe. Of those, 1,373 were outside areas designated as Town Center and 391 were within the Town Center. Today, the majority of VHRs within Town Centers consists of units in attached condominium developments, while the majority of VHRs outside Town Centers consists of detached single-family dwellings (SFDs). Measure T’s ban of the 1,373 VHRs outside Town Centers went into effect on January 1, 2022. As a result, there is now fewer options in the City to accommodate visitors wishing to reside as a group in a single structure. The majority of single-family dwelling VHRs on the South Shore are now located in the County miles away from the City Center.
Allowing residential uses on the recreation zoned property within the Town Center will further the goal of Measure T: remove VHRs from residential neighborhoods and locate them in Town Centers close to services, entertainment and dining. In addition to preserving the residential “feel” of neighborhoods, locating VHRs in walkable Town Center areas reduces VMT and traffic congestion.
The TCAP was originally adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe on October 14, 2013 and by the TRPA Governing Board on November 11, 2013 and has since been amended to modify land use and plan boundaries. The plan provides land use guidance for future development and redevelopment and addresses land use regulations, development and design standards, transportation, recreation, public service and environmental improvements for the area. It encourages general improvement and enhancement for the built environment and provides a framework to change the existing conditions into opportunities for redevelopment with a focus on achieving environmental improvements, encouraging a mixed-use land use 552
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDM ENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT PAGE 7 pattern that includes tourist accommodation, residential, commercial, public facilities, public spaces and opportunities for housing in close proximity to job centers. The TCAP is the center of tourist services in the City and recreation access and has traditionally been the area with the highest concentration of services and density.
Figure 1-1 Proposed TCAP Amendment Area
VAN
SICKLE
PARK
ENTRANCE
553
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDM ENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT PAGE 8 Table 1-1: Existing Amendment Area Land Capability and Land Coverage (APN 029-441-024) Land Capability (square feet) Banked Land Coverage (square feet) Parcel Use (Existing/Proposed) Acreage Class 1b Class 5 Class 7 Total Area Class 1 Class 5 Total 029-240-011 Recreation/Tourist 1.29 29,660 sf 0 26,601 sf 56,261 sf 0 0 0 029-441-004 Tourist/Tourist 2.50 62,631 sf 46,254 sf 0 108,885 sf 32,247 32,563 64,810 TOTAL AREA 3.79
92,291 sf
(2.12 acre)
46,254 sf
(1.06 acre)
26,601 sf
(0.61 acre)
165,146 sf
(3.79 acres) 32,247 32,563 64,810
Notes: Land capability verification for former APN 029-240-011 dated 12/13/13. Existing land coverage numbers as reported on sheet L0-01 for former APN 029-441-004. These two parcels have since been merged and are now identified as APN 029-441-024. 554
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 9
1.6 DOCUMENT ORGANIZATION
This IS/IEC includes the standard content for environmental documents under CEQA and TRPA Code of Ordinances and Rules of Procedures. An EIR/EIS was determined to be unnecessary for the proposed amendment and subsequent development project, as there are not potentially significant environmental effects associated with the implementation of proposed amendment to the TCAP or approval of the subsequent multi-family development Project. This IS/IEC is a full disclosure document, describing the plan amendment, subsequent project and their environmental effects in sufficient detail to aid decisionmaking.
Chapter 1 includes a description of the IS/IEC process, the tiering process, project background, the location of the Project and surrounding land uses, Project Objectives and Purpose and Needs Statement, the public involvement process and history, and the relationship of the TCAP to other land use plans, policies, and regulations.
Chapter 2 contains a description of the TCAP amendment, including an overview of the proposed changes to the Area Plan and Area Plan mapping, and a description of the proposed development Project, that may be permitted should the proposed TCAP amendment be adopted.
Chapter 3 provides the baseline conditions for the environmental analysis.
Chapter 4 contains the methods and assumptions used to analyze the potential environmental effects of the amendments.
Chapter 5 contains a detailed analysis of the environmental effects and necessary mitigation measures if applicable.
1.7 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Opportunities for public participation in the amendment process included a mailed scoping notice and community workshop held on November 12, 2020. At the time of the scoping process, two parcels were proposed for rezone from Recreation to Mixed-Use, including the parcel that is analyzed in this environmental document (former APN 029-240-011) and an adjacent parcel next to the Van Sickle Bi-State Park (APN 029-441-003). Two comment letters were received on the proposed TCAP amendment from the League to Save Lake Tahoe and the California Tahoe Conservancy/Nevada Division of State Parks. The comment letters included concerns over the type of eventual development (e.g., large scale residential or tourist uses) that would be built on the existing Recreation zoned parcel(s), and the proximity of the parcel(s) to the Van Sickle Bi-State Park. Comments suggested that the amendment would change the welcoming historic character and natural aesthetic of the Park, remove mature trees and naturally weathered granite boulders on lands adjacent to the Park, reduce Park parking available for the public, create pedestrian safety and management issues (e.g., user created trails, trash, storage of personal property), result in potential impacts to SEZ and previous restoration areas, and potentially conflict with the approved but not constructed Loop Road project. The League also suggested that the City and TRPA consider an alternative to rezone the subject parcels to open space. Subsequent to the receipt of comments from the Conservancy and League, the proposed amendment was changed to eliminate the recreation zoned parcel immediately adjacent to the Bi-State Park.
Pursuant to the requirements of CEQA, this IS/IEC will be sent, along with a Notice of Completion, to the California State Clearinghouse. In addition, copies of this document will be distributed to other Lake Tahoe Region reviewing agencies and interested stakeholders for review. A Notice of Availability and Notice of Public Hearing will be published in the Tahoe Daily Tribune and a Planning Commission hearing will be 555
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 10 conducted to solicit comments during a 30-day public review period. After closure of the public review period, the City of South Lake Tahoe and TRPA staff will respond to any public comments. City staff will then prepare an agenda item for the City Planning Commission’s recommendation and City Council’s action that include the IS/IEC, comments on the IS/IEC, and responses to the comments. If the City Council determines that the proposed amendment and development Project would not have significant adverse impacts, the City Council may adopt a Negative Declaration of environmental impact and adopt the amendment/approve the Project. Following City Council approval, a Notice of Determination would be filed with the El Dorado County recorder-clerk’s office and with the California State Clearinghouse.
Pursuant to the TRPA’s Rules of Procedure and Chapter 3 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances, the agencies IEC will be made available for public review along with the project staff report at least 14 days prior to hearings held to consider the proposed amendments. TRPA staff will prepare agenda items for the TRPA Regional Plan Implementation Committee, TRPA Advisory Planning Commission’s, and TRPA Governing Board consideration. If it is determined that no significant adverse impacts would result from the proposed project, the TRPA Governing Board may issue a Finding of No Significant Effect and adopt the TCAP zoning amendment and approve the proposed multi-family development project.
1.8 RELATIONSHIP TO LAND USE PLANS, POLICIES AND
REGULATIONS
The TCAP and project area falls under the direct jurisdiction of both the City of South Lake Tahoe and Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. In addition, federal and state agencies exercise varying levels of control concerning specific parcels or resources. This section identifies each agency’s responsibility relative to the proposed amendment; it also identifies the plans and policies to which the TCAP must show compliance.
Regional
The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) is a bi-state planning agency with authority to regulate growth and development within the Lake Tahoe Region. TRPA implements that authority through a BiState Compact and the TRPA Regional Plan. The Regional Plan Goals and Policies establish an overall framework for development and environmental conservation in the Lake Tahoe Region.
In December 2012, the TRPA Governing Board adopted an updated Lake Tahoe Regional Plan. General priorities of the updated Regional Plan that apply to these amendments include:
§ Accelerating water quality restoration and other threshold gains by supporting environmental beneficial redevelopment opportunities, restoration of disturbed lands and Environmental Improvement Program (EIP) investments.
§ Transitioning to more permitting delegated to local governments to create one-stop-shopping for homeowner improvements in order to return TRPA to a more regional role that the Bi-State Compact originally intended.
§ Creating walkable communities and increasing alternative transportation options.
Important policies addressed in the Lake Tahoe Regional Plan include:
§ Retaining the established regional growth control system. Under this system, rampant overdevelopment was stopped and open spaces preserved. Most of the policies from the 1987 Regional Plan stayed in place.
556
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 11 § Creating a more efficient planning system that integrates TRPA requirements into the plans and permits of other applicable government agencies.
§ Encouraging property owners to transfer development rights from sensitive and remote areas into Town/Regional Centers with the goal of restoring these lands. § Eliminating regulatory barriers to support upgrades and environmentally beneficial redevelopment of rundown buildings with aging infrastructure.
§ Simplifying overly complicated regulations for homeowners while achieving threshold gain. § Incorporating the 2020 Linking Tahoe: Regional Transportation Plan (most recently adopted in 2021) and the Active Transportation Plan (adopted in 2015) to support sidewalk and bike trail projects that reduce automobile dependency and increase walkability and safety. § Continuing to deliver restoration projects under the EIP which achieves erosion control on roadways and restore forests and wetlands.
The updated TRPA Code of Ordinance allows for the development of Area Plans to refine and implement the Regional Plan policies appropriate to specific areas. Chapter 13, Area Plans, of the TRPA Code of Ordinances includes new provisions that allow for local, state, and federal agencies, in coordination with TRPA staff, to prepare coordinated Area Plans for the implementation of land use goals, policies, and ordinances. The Area Plans, which must include implementing ordinances and zoning, are required to be consistent with the Regional Plan. Once an Area Plan has been found in conformance with the Regional Plan and is adopted, the associated local, state, or federal agencies may assume applicable development review authority through a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between TRPA and the other associated agency or organization. For City planning purposes, the objective is to amend the existing TCAP.
Chapter 13 (Area Plans) of the TRPA Code of Ordinances defines the required content of Area Plans and establishes that Area Plans may be approved by TRPA if they contain policies and development standards that are consistent with and further the goals and policies of the Regional Plan. With an adopted conforming Area Plan, local governments can opt to take over limited permitting authority from TRPA.
In addition, for Area Plans containing a designated Town Center, the following provisions shall be included:
§ Building and site design standards that reflect the unique character of each area and consider ridgeline and viewshed protection;
§ Community design standards to vary height and density and promote pedestrian activity and transit use;
§ Policies and strategies to promote walking, bicycling, transit use, and shared parking; § Ensure adequate capacity for redevelopment;
§ Identify an integrated community strategy for coverage reduction and enhanced storm water management; and
§ Demonstrate that all development activity within the Town Center will provide for and not interfere with environmental gains.
557
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 12 State of California
Several State agencies may play a role in development decisions within the Tahoe Region. As such, these State agencies must grant permits or other forms of permission prior to physical development. Affected agency staff will review the proposed amendments for consistency with adopted plans and policies. State agencies that may have a responsible agency role in projects that may be implemented include:
California Tahoe Conservancy: The mission of the California Tahoe Conservancy (CTC) is to protect and restore the natural environment of Lake Tahoe, including the lake’s exceptional clarity and diversity of wildlife habitat in the Region. The CTC implements a comprehensive set of programs to affirmatively address resource needs in the Tahoe Region, including the protection and restoration of the natural environment, especially water quality; enhancement of wildlife habitat; provision of public access and recreation opportunities; and management of acquired public land at Lake Tahoe.
Within the TCAP, the CTC has ownership of four parcels. One parcel was acquired to meet excess land coverage mitigation, for bicycle trail or other public service projects, or to sell. A second parcel was purchased to provide recreation access to Van Sickle Bi-State Park – this parcel is nearby to the Recreation parcel proposed for the rezone in this Project. The other two parcels were purchased under the Sensitive Lands Acquisition Program. CTC has also acquired former Caltrans right-of-way for shared-use trail use.
The CTC also manages a Land Bank Program that is designed to facilitate a number of natural resource objectives, assist the needs of the general public and environmental projects, and provide funding benefits.
An MOU originally signed with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) in early 1988, and recently updated in 2018, enables CTC to sell rights from the Land Bank on the open market.
Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board: Lahontan has water quality responsibilities including the California-side of the Lake Tahoe Region. This agency establishes water quality standards, subject to the approval of the State Board, and has broader enforcement power than TRPA. By issuing waste discharge permits and requiring monitoring to show compliance, among other activities, Lahontan actively enforces attainment of standards.
Any party responsible for construction activity over one acre must obtain a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES Permit) from Lahontan to eliminate or reduce pollutants from construction related storm water discharged to surface waters, which include riparian zones.
Lahontan is also responsible for incorporating the Lake Tahoe Daily Maximum (TMDL) pollutant load reduction targets into the NPDES permit for California municipalities in the Tahoe Region. This permit regulates stormwater discharge from El Dorado County’s stormwater management infrastructure and Federal rules require that El Dorado County implement programs to control pollutant runoff. The NPDES permit issued to El Dorado County stipulates a September 30, 2020 deadline to reduce estimated 2004 baseline jurisdictional pollutant loads of fine sediment particles by 21%, total nitrogen by 14% and total phosphorus by 14%. Lahontan is expected to update the NPDES permit every five years to include additional load reduction targets. Attainment of the 2026 target, termed the Clarity Challenge, is estimated to return Lake Tahoe to an average annual transparency of 80 feet (Lahontan 2010).
The City prepared an updated Pollutant Load Reduction Plan (PLRP) dated October 2021 that details the approach to meet pollutant load reduction requirements.
California Trustee Agencies: State agencies with trustee responsibility in the TCAP boundary include:
California Division of Forestry (tree removal and forest resource concerns), State Historic Preservation 558
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 13 Officer (cultural resources), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (plant and wildlife resources), and State Lands Commission, which oversees state-owned sovereign lands (Lake Tahoe).
City of South Lake Tahoe
The City of South Lake Tahoe implements its regulatory authority through its General Plan and City Code.
The City’s 1999 General Plan adopted TRPA’s Plan Area Statements (PASs) and Community Plans to replace its previous local zoning. In the City’s 2011 General Plan update, the City adopted new land use designations for PASs located within the County’s jurisdiction but retained the PASs and Community Plans in the Lake Tahoe Region as its zoning system. The existing PASs and Community Plans will remain in effect until superseded by an adopted conforming Area Plan or amendments to existing Area Plans. 559
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 14
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project includes two amendments to the TCAP, specifically:
• Amend the existing zoning for a portion of APN 029-441-024, specifically the portion of the parcel formerly recognized as APN 029-240-011, from Recreation (Rec) to Tourist Center Mixed-Use (TSC-MU) to allow additional residential uses and match the zoning of the parcel with which it has recently been consolidated (APN 029-441-004);
• Add applicable TSC-MU policies to APN 029-441-024 that would limit the use of this parcel to residential, linear public facilities, recreation, resource management, and open space (tourist, commercial, and most general public service land uses would be prohibited) and cap the maximum density of residential units on the parcel to 4 units per acre; The recreation portion of APN 029-441-024 is located within the TCAP town center overlay and is included as tourist land uses on the Regional Plan maps. No changes to the Regional Plan maps or town center overlay are proposed as part of these amendments. Under the proposal, the existing recreation portion of the combined parcel would be removed from the Recreation District and added to the Tourist Center Mixed Use (TSC-MU) District (see Figure 2-1) in alignment with the other portion of the combined parcel APN 029-441-024 formerly known as APN 029-441-004 (or the former Colony Inn parcel) . This amendment would reduce lands zoned Recreation by 1.29 acres, and increase lands zoned Tourist Center Mixed Use by the same amount.
The current Recreation District allows single family dwelling and employee housing but does not permit multi-family dwelling as a permissible residential use. The project applicant wishes to construct a multifamily residential development consisting of 10 detached units on the combined parcel (029-441-024). Four units of three-story multi-family residential development was previously approved by the City on the portion of the combined parcel formerly known as APN 029-441-004 (Permit 21070151 dated August 18, 2021). Should the TCAP amendments be adopted, the current multi-family development approval would be submitted for plan revision to add six additional multi-family residential units on the combined parcel (APN 029-240-024) (see Figure 2-2). While the former parcel numbers referenced above are in two separate TCAP zoning districts, the parcels have now been officially merged into one parcel by El Dorado County (recorded June 14, 2021, file number 2021-0039544). The amendment seeks to rectify the multiple zonings that now exist within the combined parcel.
Should the amendments be approved, the Project proposes to develop multi-family residential units within the TCAP mixed use district that allows up to 25 units/acre. Because of the proposed TCAP amendment, specifically the policy for the combined parcel that limits land use to multi-family residential and density to no more than 4 units per acre, the number of potential residential units would decrease as a result of the amendment. Based on the available residential density for former APN 029-441-004 (2.49 acres) by itself, up to 62 residential units (2.49 acres times 25 units/acre) could be proposed for the combined parcel.
However, given that former APN 029-441-004 only contains approximately 1 acre of high capability land, maximum development potential would be much lower, perhaps a maximum of 25 small residential units built in attached buildings. Consistent with the proposed policy for the combined parcel that limits residential to 4 units per acre, the Project is proposing 10 multi-family residential units on the 3.79 acre combined parcel that contains approximately 1.67 acres of high capability land. Each of the residential units would access Montreal Road using a shared access driveway as shown on Figure 2-2. Based on the proposed amendment of no more than 4 units per acre, maximum development potential would be 15 multi-family units. Limits on overall growth in the Region through the TRPA’s regional growth management system remain in place, so the overall regional development potential remains the same with and without the proposed amendment.
560
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 15 The amended TCAP will serve as a mutual plan for the City of South Lake Tahoe and TRPA by providing direction for how the area should be regulated to achieve regional environmental and land use objectives.
The existing development standards and the specific policies in the TCAP are the land use standards intended to administer and regulate the land use for the project area. Figure 1-1 depicts the portion of the combined parcel (former APN 029-240-011) to be moved from Recreation into the Mixed-Use zone. Figure 2-1 depicts the proposed amendment to the TCAP zoning.
No additional amendments to the TCAP are proposed beyond the rezoning and restriction of land uses within the parcel.
Figure 2-1 – Proposed TCAP TSC-MU Amendment Location
561
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 16 Figure 2-2 – Site Development Plans - Multi-Family Residential Project
2+8 2+8 2+8 2+8 2+8 33
33 33
; ;
; ; ;
; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ; ;
; ; ;
; ; ;
;
6,(55$32:(5
&203$1<($6(0(17
38%/,&87,/,7<($6(0(17
38(
%.3*
%.3*
%.
&
3*
%.3*
02175($/52$'
2+8 2+8 2+8 2+8 2+8 33 33 33
%HGURRP
0DVWHU
%DWK
0DVWHU
%HGURRP
0DVWHU
612:6725$*(7<3
83
%DWK
%HG
(QW\
*DUDJH
'HFN
83
75$6+(1&/2685(
$
%
&
'
(
QHUDO,QIRUPDWLRQDQG/HJHQGGZJ
6281':$//)(1&(
72%(
$%$1'21('
%8,/',1*
7<3($
%8,/',1*
7<3($
%8,/',1*
7<3(%
%8,/',1*
7<3($
%8,/',1*
7<3(%
%8,/',1*
7<3($
%8,/',1*
7<3('
%8,/',1*
7<3('
%8,/',1*
7<3((
%8,/',1*
7<3(&
PHASE 1 - APPROVED
WITH PHASE 2 - PROPOSED
Fencing
Mitigation
562
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 17 The primary list of permissible uses (A: Allowable or S: Special Use or --: not permissible) and maximum densities for the Recreation District and TCAP TSC-MU District are compared in Table 2-1. The rezone of the existing Recreation parcel to the TSC-MU District will:
• Add multi-family residential as an allowed use to the existing Recreation parcel and other changes to permissible uses as shown in TCAP Table 1;
• Increase the maximum density for multiple-family residential units from 0 units per acre (not an allowed use in Recreation) to 4 units per acre (per new note for TSC-MU District in Table 4); • Increase the maximum height allowance on the existing recreation parcel from 36 feet height allowance (with a maximum of three stories) to 56-foot height allowance with a maximum of four stories (currently allowed in TCAP TSC-MU); and
• Limit permissible uses in the TCAP TSC-MU District for the combined APN 29-441-024 to residential uses at a maximum density of 4 units per acre, uses accessory to any residential use, and uses allowed in all urban areas, such a linear public services (per new note for TSC-MU District in Table 1).
The amendment would alter the range of permissible uses currently allowed within the proposed amendment area, as shown in the TCAP permissible uses Table 1 below. The amendment would also restrict land uses on the combined parcels to residential uses and other uses allowed in all urban areas (tourist and commercial uses would not be allowed, except for accessory daycare uses) and cap the density of multifamily residential to 4 units per acre.
As part of the proposed amendments, compliance with all aspects of the TRPA Regional Plan and Code of Ordinances not specifically substituted by standards within the Area Plan including mitigation measures from the RPU EIS certified by the TRPA Governing Board on December 12, 2012 is required. The adoption of these measures includes compliance with measures that have already been incorporated into the TRPA Code, IEC, and standard conditions of approval for residential and grading projects. 563
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 18 Table 2-1: Comparison of Permissible Uses, Density, Land Coverage and Height Standards Recreation District Tourist Center Mixed-Use
Land Use
Category
Permissible Density Permissible Density
Residential
Employee
Housing
A 15 DU/acre S 15 DU/acre
Multiple Family
Dwelling
- - A 25 DU/acre
Multi-Person
Dwelling
- - S 25 persons/acre
Single Family
Dwelling
S
(Caretaker
residence only)
1 unit per parcel for parcels
less than an acre. 2 units for
parcels greater than an acre,
provided one unit is an
authorized secondary
residence
A
(includes condos)
1 unit per parcel for parcels
less than an acre. 2 units for
parcels greater than an acre,
provided one unit is an
authorized secondary
residence
Recreation District Tourist Center Mixed-Use
Land Coverage Up to 70% with Transfer Up to 70% with Transfer Height 36 Feet 56 Feet
Minimum
Setbacks
Frontage N/A 20 feet
Interior Side
(Residential Use)
10 feet 10 feet
Rear (Residential
Use)
10 feet 10 feet
Note: While the Tourist Center Mixed-Use District permits multiple-family dwelling densities of 25 units/acre, the proposed amendment would limit multiple-family dwelling density to 4 units/acre for APN 029-441-024.
TCAP Appendix C Table 1 would be revised as follows to limit the land uses allowed on the combined parcel APN 029-441-024. TCAP Appendix C Table 4 would be revised as follows to limit density for multi-family residential development to 4 units per acre. 564
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 19 Table 1: PERMITTED USES BY LAND USE DISTRICT
Permitted Uses Key:
“A” – Allowed Use
“S” – Special Use
“T” – Temporary Use
“TRPA” – TRPA Review Required
“-“ – Use Not Permitted
TSC
CTSC MU -
TSC-MUCTSC-NMXTSC-GTSC-G Special Area #1REC
OS
RESIDENTIAL
Domestic Animal Raising - - - - - - S -
Employee Housing S S A S S S A
Multiple Family Dwelling A A A A A A - -
Multi-Person Dwelling S S S S S S - -
Single Family Dwelling (includes condominiums) A8 A A A A A S1 - Accessory Dwelling Unit13 A A A A A A S -
TOURIST ACCOMMODATION
Bed & Breakfast Facilities - A12 A9 S A A - -
Hotel, Motel, Other Transient Dwelling Units A A12 A9 S A A - - Time Sharing A A12 A9 S S A - -
RETAIL COMMERCIAL
General Retail and Personal Services A A12 A9 S A A - - Building Material & Hardware S6 - - - - S - -
Nursery - - A9 - - S - -
Outdoor Retail Sales A - S9 - - S - -
Eating & Drinking Places A S12 A9 S A A - -
Service Stations11 S S12 - - S S - -
ENTERTAIMENT COMMERCIAL
Amusement & Recreation S S12 - - - A - -
Privately Owned Assembly and Entertainment S S - - - S S - Outdoor Amusements - S S - S S S -
SERVICE COMMERCIAL
Animal Husbandry Services - - - - - A - -
Business Support Services A7 S12 S9 - S A - -
Health Care Services A2,5 A9 - A A - -
Professional Offices A3,4 A12 A9 A A A - -
Schools – Business & Vocational S - S9 - S A - -
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL COMMERCIAL
Small Scale Manufacturing S S12 S9 S - - - -
WHOLESALE/STORAGE COMMERCIAL
Vehicle Storage & Parking11 S S12 S9 S S S - -
GENERAL PUBLIC SERVICE
Religious Assembly - S12 S9 - S A - -
Cultural Facilities S S12 S9 - S A - -
Daycare Centers/Preschool A A12 A10 A A A - -
Government Offices - - A9 - - S - -
Local Assembly & Entertainment S S12 - - - S - -
Local Public Health and Safety Facilities11 A A A A A A A A Public Owned Assembly & Entertainment S S - - - - S
Public Utility Centers11 - S12 - - - - - -
Social Service Organizations - - A9 - A A - -
LINEAR PUBLIC FACILITIES
565
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 20 Table 1: PERMITTED USES BY LAND USE DISTRICT
Permitted Uses Key:
“A” – Allowed Use
“S” – Special Use
“T” – Temporary Use
“TRPA” – TRPA Review Required
“-“ – Use Not Permitted
TSC
CTSC MU -
TSC-MUCTSC-NMXTSC-GTSC-G Special Area #1REC
OS
Pipelines & Power Transmission S S S S S S S S
Transit Stations & Terminals S S S S S S S S
Transportation Routes S S S S S S S S
Transmission & Receiving Facilities S S S S S S S S
RECREATION
Cross Country Ski Courses - - - - - - S -
Day Use Areas A A A A A A A A
Group Facilities - - - - - - S -
Outdoor Recreation Concessions - - - - S S - -
Participant Sport Facilities S - - - - - - -
Riding and Hiking Trails - - - - - S S -
Rural Sports - - - - - S S -
Snowmobile Courses - - - - - S S -
Visitor Information Centers S S - - S - - -
RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
Forest and Timber Resource Management A A A A A A A A
Vegetation Resource Management A A A A A A A A
Water Quality Improvements and Watershed
Management A A A A A A A A
Wildlife and Fisheries Resource Management A A A A A A A A Range Management - - - - - - A -
OPEN SPACE
Allowed in all areas of the Region A A A A A A A A
Note: In the Regional Center all residential projects exceeding 100,000 square feet or non-residential projects exceeding 80,000 square feet require TRPA review and approval. In the Town Center all residential projects exceeding 50,000 square feet or non-residential projects exceeding 40,000 square feet require TRPA review and approval.
1. Caretaker Residence Only
2. All Health Care Services are allowed except emergency outpatient or urgent care facilities which shall only be considered along Heavenly Village Way, formerly Park Avenue.
3. Allow Realty Offices within the district and limit financial services to ATMs.
4. Allow consideration for placement of Realty Offices within the district, and only when operated in conjunction with approved Park Avenue Redevelopment fractional ownership tourist accommodation projects. Such use shall occupy no more than five percent (5%) of the commercial floor area with any project area within the district.
5. All Health Care Services uses permissible throughout special district; provided that any Health Care Services uses proposed to front on either side of US Highway 50 and/or the intersections of Heavenly Village Way (formerly Park Avenue) and Stateline Avenue are limited to second floor or higher. See TRPA Ordinance 2009-05 Exhibit 2 for specific limitation locations.
6. Outdoor storage and display is prohibited.
7. Shall not front on US Highway 50.
8. Condominiums only.
9. Use not permitted in Special Area #1, which comprises of APNs 028-081-02, 028-081-04, & 028-081-15.
10. Daycare center allowed as an accessory use.
566
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 21
11. Land use category is identified in TRPA Code Section 60.3 as a “possible contaminating activity.” Triggering special requirements pursuant to TRPA Code Section 60.4 if located within a Source Water Protection Zone.
12. Use not permitted in APN 029-441-024.
13. See TRPA Code of Ordinances section 21.3.2 for the permissibility of accessory dwelling units.
TABLE 4: LOT AND DENSITY STANDARDS
DISTRICT
TSC-C
TSC-MUTSCMUCTSC
GTSCNMX
REC
Maximum Density: Employee
Housing Family (dwelling
units/acre)
15 15 15 15 15 15
Maximum Density: MultiPerson Dwelling
(persons/acre)
25 25 25 25 25 n/a
Maximum Density: MultiFamily (dwelling units/acre) 25 25 (C) 25 25 25 n/a Maximum Density: Single
Family Dwelling
1 unit per parcel for parcels less than one acre
2 units per parcel for parcels greater than or equal to one acre, provided one unit is an authorized secondary residence
Maximum Density: Tourist
Accommodation (dwelling
units/acre)
40 40 40 40 40 n/a
Minimum Lot Size (sq ft) 10,000
(A)
10,000
(A)
10,000
(A)
10,000
(A) 6,000 (A) 10,000 (A)
Minimum Lot Width (feet) 80 (A) 80 (A) 80 (A) 80 (A) 60 (A) 80 (A) Minimum Lot Depth (feet) 100 (A) 100 (A) 100 (A) 100 (A) 100 (A) 100 (A) Maximum Land CoverageBase + Transferred (% of
project area located within
land capability districts 4-7)
Within 300 feet of the High Water Mark of Lake Tahoe,
maximum coverage shall be 50 percent of the project area that is located within Land Capability Districts 4 through 7, inclusive. Further than 300 feet from the High Water Line of Lake Tahoe, maximum land coverage shall be 70 percent of the project area that is located within Land Capability Districts 4 through 7, inclusive. Also see Section 30.4 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances
A. Reduced Minimum Lot Size and Dimensions. Smaller lots may be approved as part of a condominium, or other airspace subdivision pursuant to City Code 6.55.190.
B. Mixed-Use Density. The maximum density for mixed-use projects includes up to 40 Tourist Units per acre and up to 25 residential units per acre. If a project includes nonconforming tourist or residential density, any new tourist or residential density must take into account the overage in overall density and reduce the allowable density for new construction so that the total density does not exceed 65 units per acre.
In the case of a mixed-use project that includes a commercial use or other use that is not subject to a density calculation, combined with residential and/or tourist uses, the project may include the total allowable commercial square footage, and the maximum allowable tourist and residential units per acre, using the full parcel area as the denominator in the density calculation.
The maximum mixed-use density for TSC-G Special Area 1 is 40 units per acre. Otherwise, the lot and density standards for TSC-G Special Area 1 are identical to those in the TSC-G zoning district.
C. Density for APN 029-441-024. The maximum density for multi-family residential development on APN 029- 441-024 is 4 units per acre.
567
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 22
3.0 BASELINE
As specified in Section 13.3.1 of the TRPA Code, all plans, policies, and regulations in the Regional Plan and the TRPA Code shall remain in effect unless superseded by the provisions of an adopted conforming Area Plan. Thus, existing baseline conditions for the purposes of this IS/IEC reflect current environmental conditions with the updated Regional Plan, TRPA Code, City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan and Zoning Ordinance in effect, and the existing TRPA plans, maps, and ordinances also in effect. The TCAP has approximately 14 years left of a 20-year planning horizon.
The proposed project evaluated in this IS/IEC is the amendment of the TCAP and PAS 085/092 boundaries.
With approval, the amendment would become part of the TRPA Regional Plan and would amend the existing TCAP and PAS 085/092 maps. The focus of the analyses herein is on the amendment of the maps to reflect the revised boundary and the potential environmental effects of implementing the amendment to the TCAP over its plan horizon.
568
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 23
4.0 METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS
This IS/IEC was prepared to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the TCAP amendments using as a tool the CEQA IS and TRPA IEC questions, responses, and supporting narrative. The analysis tiers and incorporates by reference specific analyses contained in the following environmental review documents, as appropriate:
§ TRPA/Rincon Consultants, Inc., 2020 Linking Tahoe: Regional Transportation Plan & Sustainable Communities Strategy IS/ND/IEC/FONSE
§ TRPA, Regional Plan Update EIS, certified by the TRPA Governing Board on December 12, 2012 (RPU EIS)
§ City of South Lake Tahoe, General Plan Update EIR, certified by the City Council on May 17, 2011 (City GP EIR)
§ City of South Lake Tahoe, Tourist Core Area Plan IS/ND/IEC/FONSE, certified by the City Council on October 15, 2013 and adopted by TRPA on November 11, 2013.
These program-level environmental documents include a regional and city-wide scale analysis and a framework of mitigation measures that provide a foundation for subsequent environmental review at an area plan level. These documents serve as first-tier documents for the TRPA review of the proposed TCAP Amendments. To the extent that the Area Plan is consistent with the Regional Plan and the RTP, for which the program EISs were prepared, the TCAP Amendments could be found to be “within the scope” of the program EISs. The IS/IEC is also a project-level environmental document for a proposal to add six additional multi-family residential units to a previously approved project that included four multi-family residential units. As such, this IS/IEC also supports the environmental review and permitting by the City of South Lake Tahoe for the revised Project.
TRPA has prepared an Area Plan Environmental Analysis Guidelines flowchart intended to assist local jurisdictions in considering environmental review requirements associated with the zoning districts and regional land uses proposed in area plans. The guidance poses the following questions:
§ Does a land use district in the area plan allow a use that has a greater potential impact than the corresponding regional land use classification in the Regional Plan? This includes any community plans and/or PASs that would be wholly or partially, replaced by the area plan. § Does a zoning district in the area plan allow a use that has a greater potential impact than the corresponding land use district in the PAS or community plan? § Does the project have a greater potential impact than the use allowed by the zoning district in the area plan/PAS?
These questions contemplate whether land use/zoning changes resulting from the adoption or amendment of an area plan would result in new uses that could result in potential environmental impacts not previously contemplated by the community plans, PASs, and Regional Plan. The proposed amendments do not create new districts, but shift one parcel from Recreation to the Mixed Use district. Since the amendments include policies that limit allowable residential density on the combined parcels to four units per acre, the amendments are within the scope of development contemplated in the City’s General Plan. The checklist responses include cross-referencing to other checklist items to reduce redundancy, where appropriate. 569
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 24
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST AND IMPACT
ANALYSIS
1. Project title: Tourist Core Area Plan Amendments and Multi-Family Housing Project
2. Lead agency name and address:
The City of South Lake Tahoe is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lead agency responsible for preparing an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) will serve as the lead agency for the Initial Environmental Checklist (IEC) under the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact.
City of South Lake Tahoe
1052 Tata Lane
South Lake Tahoe, California 96150
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
P.O. Box 5310
Stateline, Nevada 89449
3. Contact person(s) and phone number(s):
City of South Lake Tahoe: John Hitchcock, Planning Manager, (530) 542-7472, [email protected]
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency: Jennifer Self, Principal Planner, (775) 589-5261, [email protected]
4. Project location:
The TCAP is located within the City of South Lake Tahoe, and the area proposed for amendment is located east of Montreal Road as shown on Figure 1-1.
5. Project sponsor’s name and address:
HVR Acquisitions LLC
PO Box 803
Zephyr Cove, NV 89448
6. General Plan designation: Tourist.
7. Zoning: Tourist Center Mixed-Use / Recreation
8. Description of project: Refer to Chapter 2 of this document.
9. Surrounding land uses and setting:
Refer to Section 1.4 in Chapter 1 of this document.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement):
570
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 25 Amendment of the TCAP requires the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council and the TRPA Governing Board approval. Projects that may move forward as a result of the implementation of this amendment will also undergo project-level environmental review and may also require approval by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region, and/or El Dorado County Air Quality Management District.
5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
If environmental factors are checked below, there would be at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. As discussed in the IS/IEC checklist, there are no potentially significant impacts associated with the amendment. Applicable mitigation measures for general and cumulative impacts associated with the General Plan and the RPU are incorporated into the project approval.
Aesthetics Agriculture/Forest
Resources
Air Quality
Biological Resources Cultural Resources Energy
Geology Resources Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards/Hazardous Materials
Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services
Recreation Transportation/Traffic Tribal Cultural Resources Utilities/Service Systems Wildfire Mandatory Findings of Significance
None None with Mitigation
Incorporated
571
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 26
5.2 CEQA ENVIROMENTAL DETERMINATION
On the basis of this Initial Study:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
John Hitchcock, Planning Manager
City of South Lake Tahoe
Date
3/31/2022
572
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 27
5.3 TRPA ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION (TO BE COMPELTED
BY TRPA)
On the basis of this TRPA Initial Environmental Checklist:
a. The proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment and a finding of no significant effect shall be prepared in accordance with TRPA’s Rules of Procedures Yes No
b. The proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, but due to the listed mitigation measures which have been added to the project, could have no significant effect on the environment and a mitigated finding of no significant effect shall be prepared in accordance with TRPA’s Rules of Procedures.
Yes No
c. The proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment and an environmental impact statement shall be prepared in accordance with this chapter and TRPA’s Rules of Procedures.
Yes No
Signature of Evaluator Date
Title of Evaluator
573
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 28
5.4 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
The following environmental analysis has been prepared using the CEQA Guidelines Appendix G:
Environmental Checklist Form to complete an Initial Study (IS). This checklist also includes analysis of environmental impacts required in the TRPA Initial Environmental Checklist (IEC) found at:
http://www.trpa.org/wp-content/uploads/Initial_Environmental_Checklist.pdf.
5.4.1 CEQA
CEQA requires a brief explanation for answers to the Appendix G: Environmental Checklist except "No Impact" responses that are adequately supported by noted information sources (see Table 5-1). Answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
Table 5-1: CEQA Defined Levels of Impact Significance
Impact Severity Definition
No Impact A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
Less than Significant
Impact
"Less than Significant Impact" applies where the Project’s impact creates no significant impacts based on the criterion or criteria that sets the level of impact to a resource and require no mitigation to avoid or reduce impacts.
Less than Significant
Impact after Mitigation
"Less than Significant Impact after Mitigation" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from potentially "Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
Significant Impact "Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is potentially significant, as based on the criterion or criteria that sets the level of impact to a resource. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
Source: CEQA Appendix G Environmental Checklist Form 2018
5.4.2 TRPA
Article VI of the TRPA Rules of Procedures presents the rules governing the preparation and processing of environmental documents pursuant to Article VII of the Compact and Chapter 3 of the Revised TRPA Code of Ordinances.
TRPA uses an IEC, in conjunction with other available information, to determine whether an EIS will be prepared for a project or other matter. This could include preparation of an Environmental Assessment, in accordance with Section 3.4 of the TRPA revised Code, when TRPA determines that an IEC will not provide sufficient information to make the necessary findings for a project.
The IEC includes a series of questions categorized by and pertaining to resources regulated by TRPA. Each checklist item requires a checked response of “Yes,” “No,” “No, with Mitigation,” or “Data Insufficient.” A checked response of “Data Insufficient” or a determination that a project may have a significant effect on the environment (Section 3.3.2 of the TRPA Code) indicates that additional environmental review in the 574
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 29 form of an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would be required.
The IEC form indicates that all “Yes” and “No, with Mitigation” responses require written explanations.
This IEC provides supporting narrative for all responses. Where a checked response may not be intuitive or easily understood by the reader, that response has been marked with an asterisk (*) and a brief clarifying statement supporting the rationale for the checked response is included. Based on an initial review of the Project, TRPA and City staff determined that an IEC would provide sufficient information regarding the Project to make one of the findings below. As set forth in Code Subsection 3.3.1, based on the information submitted in the IEC, and other information known to TRPA, TRPA shall make one of the following findings and take the identified action:
1. The proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment and a finding of no significant effect shall be prepared in accordance with TRPA’s Rules of Procedure.
2. The proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, but due to the listed mitigation measures which have been added to the project, could have no significant effect on the environment and a mitigated finding of no significant effect shall be prepared in accordance with TRPA’s Rules of Procedure.
3. The proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment and an environmental impact statement shall be prepared in accordance with this Chapter and TRPA’s Rules of Procedure.
When completed, TRPA reviews the IEC to determine the adequacy and objectivity of the responses. When appropriate, TRPA consults informally with federal, state, or local agencies with jurisdiction over the project or with special expertise on applicable environmental impacts. 575
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 30
5.4.3 Aesthetics (CEQA), Scenic Resources/Community Design and Light and Glare (TRPA)
This section presents the analyses for potential impacts to aesthetics, scenic resources/community design and light and glare. Table 5-2 identifies the applicable impacts, anticipated level of impact, and whether mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Table 5-2: Aesthetics, Scenic Resources/Community Design and Light and Glare CEQA Environmental Checklist
Item
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Measures
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
5.4.3-1. Have a substantial adverse
effect on a scenic vista? (CEQA Ia) X
5.4.3-2. Substantially damage scenic
resources, including, but not limited to,
trees, rock outcroppings, and historic
buildings, within a state scenic
highway? (CEQA Ib)
X
5.4.3-3. Substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings? (CEQA
Ic)
X
5.4.3-4. Create a new source of
substantial light or glare, which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views
in the area? (CEQA Id)
X
TRPA Initial Environmental
Checklist Item Yes No, With Mitigation
Data
Insufficient No
5.4.3-5. Be visible from any state or
federal highway, Pioneer Trail or from
Lake Tahoe? (TRPA item 18a)
X
5.4.3-6. Be visible from any public
recreation area or TRPA designated
bicycle trail? (TRPA item 18b)
X
5.4.3-7. Block or modify an existing
view of Lake Tahoe or other scenic
vista seen from a public road or other
public area? (TRPA item 18c)
X
5.4.3-8. Be inconsistent with the height
and design standards required by the
applicable ordinance, Community Plan,
or Area Plan? (TRPA item 18d)
X
5.4.3-9. Be inconsistent with the TRPA
Scenic Quality Improvement Program
(SQIP) or Design Review Guidelines?
(TRPA item 18e)
X
576
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 31
5.4.3-10. Include new or modified
sources of exterior lighting? (TRPA
item 7a)
X
5.4.3-11. Create new illumination
which is more substantial than other
lighting, if any, within the surrounding
area? (TRPA item 7b)
X
5.4.3-12. Cause light from exterior
sources to be cast off-site or onto
public lands? (TRPA item 7c)
X
5.4.3-13. Create new sources of glare
through the siting of the improvements
or through the use of reflective
materials? (TRPA item 7d)
X
5.4.3-1. Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (CEQA Ia) The TCAP contains scenic vistas visible from public roadways, with one scenic vista located on Hwy 50 facing SSE, toward the project area, but because of intervening vegetation the amendment area is not visible from any scenic vista. The amendment area is characterized by non-sensitive lands and SEZ that was previously developed but since restored. The portion of Highway 50 associated with Scenic Roadway Unit 32 (Casino Area) includes viewshed #32-1, which looks towards and over the amendment area to Heavenly Valley ski-hill. Views from this Roadway Unit viewshed area are primarily foreground views of dense urban development, including the commercial strip, signs, and little natural vegetation. Middleground views of mountains are dominated by scars of Heavenly Valley ski-hill for southbound travelers. The 2015 rating for this roadway unit included a travel route rating threshold composite score of 14.5 (nonattainment). The 2019 scenic resource evaluation did not include any changes to this viewshed. Visual improvements to the built environment in the area occurred between 2001 and 2019; however, the analysis indicates that landscape view scores have remained at a score of 1 since 1982. The amendment area lies within the viewshed between Scenic Roadway Unit 32 on Hwy 50 and Heavenly Valley ski-hill, but is not visible from Hwy 50 or any other scenic corridor.
In amending the parcel from Recreation to TSC-MU, the existing height and coverage allowances in the TCAP TSC-MU would be applied to the rezoned parcel. Therefore, the maximum allowed height would increase from 36 feet to 56 feet; a difference of 20 feet. In addition, the coverage limit would increase from 30 percent to 70 percent with coverage transfer on applicable lands with capability 4-7. The amendment would also alter what land uses are allowed on the parcel with transference into the TCAP TSC-MU. The amended parcel would add multi-family residential as an allowed use and increase the maximum density for multiple-family residential units from 0 units per acre (not an allowed use in Recreation) to 4 units per acre (per TSC-MU District limitation added to Table 4 for APN 029-441-024).
No changes are proposed that would affect the existing Design Standards in the TCAP.
Maximum building heights (56 feet with applicable findings) for Town Center areas are in accordance with the adopted TCAP and the height allowed by TRPA Code of Ordinances Section 37.7.16 and with Table
13.5.3-1 (Minimum Development Standards for Area Plans) of the Code of Ordinances, which allows structures up to 56 feet within Town Centers if findings can be made. With the requirement to meet the additional height findings for maximum building height, no adverse impact to scenic vistas is anticipated. 577
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 32 TRPA requires structures of up to 56 feet in Town Centers to meet height findings 1, 3, 5, and 9 as indicated in Section 37.7 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances. These findings ensure the additional height does not dominate views, particularly within the shoreline, is appropriately screened from public views, minimizes interference with existing views, and does not reduce the scenic threshold travel route rating. If the finding can’t be made, the additional height would not be permitted. This ensures no significant impact would result from the increased height allowance within the amendment area.
37.7.1 Finding 1: When viewed from major arterials, scenic turnouts, public recreation areas, or the waters of Lake Tahoe, from a distance of 300 feet, the additional height will not cause a building to extend above the forest canopy, when present, or a ridgeline. For height greater than that set forth in Table 37.4.1-1 for a 5:12 roof pitch, the additional height shall not increase the visual magnitude beyond that permitted for structures in the shoreland as set forth in subsection
66.3.7, Additional Visual Magnitude, or Appendix H, Visual Assessment Tool, of the Design Review Guidelines.
The amendment area is not visible from major roadways, scenic turnouts, public recreation areas on TRPA list, or Lake Tahoe.
37.7.3. Finding 3: With respect to that portion of the building that is permitted the additional height, the building has been designed to minimize interference with existing views within the area to the extent practicable.
The 56-foot height limit within the amendment area would apply to any development so as to not exceed the height of trees within the surrounding forested areas and would blend in with background vegetation based on proposed building materials and colors.
37.7.5. Finding 5: The portion of the building that is permitted additional building height is adequately screened, as seen from major arterials, the waters of lakes, and other public areas from which the building is frequently viewed. In determining the adequacy of screening, consideration shall be given to the degree to which a combination of the following features causes the building to blend or merge with the background: a) the horizontal distance from which the building is viewed; b) the extent of screening; and c) proposed exterior colors and building materials.
The amendment area is not visible from major roadways, scenic turnouts, public recreation areas on TRPA list, or Lake Tahoe. Building design uses colors and building materials compatible with nearby forested areas and most of the residential buildings are set back from the public roadway so that proposed landscaping will offer screening of the structures.
37.7.9. Finding 9: When viewed from a TRPA scenic threshold travel route, the additional building height granted a building or structure shall not result in the net loss of views to a scenic resource identified in the 1982 Lake Tahoe Basin Scenic Resource Inventory. TRPA shall specify the method used to evaluate potential view loss.
The amendment area is not visible from TRPA scenic threshold travel routes or scenic resources.
The 2013 TCAP IS/IEC found that impacts from the TCAP Design Standards on scenic vistas were less than significant. The amendment would allow an additional 20 feet of height for development on the subject parcel; however, this is already allowed in the adjacent TCAP TSC-MU, and the application of this standard on the parcel would not result in a substantial impact due to the eventual project-level findings required, as noted above. Potential buildout under the proposed amendment would limit building height to 56 feet (4 578
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 33 stories) on the current recreation parcel. The subsequent Project proposed for the combined parcels will consist of ten 3-story buildings at a maximum height of 42.5 feet. Implementation of the TCAP Design Standards to avoid and minimize impacts to scenic vistas by prohibiting buildings to protrude above the forest canopy and ridgeline would ensure no significant impact to scenic vistas would occur.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.3-2. Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (CEQA Ib) The amendment area is not located on any state scenic highways. US Highway 50 is proposed to be realigned through the City of South Lake Tahoe commercial core area. If that project is eventually constructed, the project site would be located adjacent to a state highway, though the current “scenic highway” designation through the urban core is considered “eligible” and not officially designated. Other than distant views of the ridgelines and tree canopy outside the area proposed for amendment, the area footprint does not contain other unique visual resources such as rock outcroppings, scenic trees, or historical buildings. Therefore, the Project has no impact on state designated scenic highways.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.3-3. Would the Project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (CEQA Ic)
As discussed above in Question 5.4.3-1, the existing visual character of the project area consists of partially cleared, partially wooded land surrounded by existing roads, residences, utilities, recreation, and commercial uses. The project area is not located within a scenic corridor. The existing visual character of the area is urban, with little uniformity.
The existing TCAP includes detailed design standards that are intended to ensure that the built environment complements the natural appearing landscape in the Tahoe Region while improving the quality of life and promoting livability, sustainability and walkability. The TCAP specifically regulates building form, materials and colors and includes the following: buildings shall provide adequate articulation and detail to avoid a bulky box-like appearance; a unified palette of quality materials shall be used; colors shall be used to help delineate windows are architectural features of interest; a variety of natural-appearing materials should be used on building facades to create contrast; colors should blend with the setting, with limits on bright colors, and roofs and roof-mounted equipment shall have a non-glare, earth tone finish.
The amendment does not include specific Design Standards other than what is provided generally by the City and TRPA for new development.
A substantial change in the scale of development possible on the current recreation parcel is not anticipated as a result of the amendment due to land use limitations proposed for the combined parcel, which would limit uses to multi-family residential and a density of no more than 4 units/acre. As discussed under Impact
5.4.3-1, development has the potential to be visually beneficial to the amendment area. The multi-family structures will be new development, but they would be compatible with TCAP design standards and therefore improve the built environment compared to nearby existing development (e.g., the commercial center to the north). The character and quality are expected to improve as a result of development that would 579
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 34 incorporate the TCAP design standards discussed above, as well as the additional height design requirements established by the TRPA and City should additional height be requested. Increases in the coverage allowance (with transfer) would occur on the parcel under proposed development, however this would be consistent with the mixed-use, urban setting of the area. Finally, changes to allowable building height for the parcels will not impact existing viewsheds due to the required findings for additional height which includes screening of the additional height or limits height to below the tree canopy when viewed from major roadways, the waters of the lake or public viewpoints, and requires no net loss of views along a scenic travel route, among other findings.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.3-4. Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? (CEQA Id)
The parcel to be amended and multi-family project area currently includes no light sources. Proposed multifamily development of the parcels include new sources of exterior lighting that follow adopted TCAP design standards regarding light and glare (TCAP Appendix C Development and Design Standards).
Furthermore, the proposed development would be subject to City and TRPA review. The existing lighting standards are found in Section H of the Substitute Design Standards and address exterior, pedestrian zone, street, and safety/security lighting. The standards are designed to reduce light pollution, protect nighttime views, and reduce light splay onto adjoining parcels by requiring all lighting to be directed downward and fitted with cutoff shields.
The TCAP requires the use of a variety of natural-appearing material and colors that blend in with the natural setting and prohibits the use of flood lighting, reflective materials, or lighting strips, including neon/fluorescent tubing to minimize reflectivity and glare. The TCAP contains standards for different types of lighting (e.g., buildings, landscaping). Lighting must be directed downward, include cut off shields, and the light source must be shielded from view. The proposed lighting specifications are consistent with the required lighting standards. Therefore, glare or reflectivity from a project proposed under the TCAP will not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. No significant impact is anticipated.
Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.3-5. Would the Project be visible from any state or federal highway, Pioneer Trail or from Lake Tahoe? (TRPA 18a)
The amendment area is not visible from any state or federal highway, Pioneer Trail, or from Lake Tahoe.
Views of the amendment area from US Highway 50 are screened by intervening vegetation and existing structures, but rooftops of a future development project may be visible from US Highway 50 views looking through the Raley’s Center. The 56-foot height limit within the amendment area would apply to a future Project so as to not exceed the height of trees within the surrounding forested areas and compliance with TCAP design standards for building materials and color would ensure that future structures blend in with background vegetation. If adopted, the proposed amendments would be followed by application for multifamily residential structures of three stories and heights up to 42.5 feet. Because the addition of multifamily residential rooftops would not be a noticeable change to existing US Highway views in the commercial corridor, there would be no impact to US Highway 50 scenic scores. 580
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 35 US Highway 50 is proposed to be realigned through the City’s commercial core area. If that project is constructed, the realigned highway would pass adjacent to the project area. The analysis of scenic impacts associated with that roadway realignment project were addressed in the US 50/South Shore Community Revitalization Project EIR/EIS and are addressed in Section 5.4.23 (specifically question 5.4.23-2 cumulative impacts) of this IS/IEC.
As discussed in Question 5.4.3-1, viewshed 32-1 on Scenic Roadway Unit 32 (Casino Area) on Highway 50 faces the project area. However, because of intervening development and vegetation, the amendment area is not visible from the viewpoint. Therefore, changes to the project area would not adversely affect the scenic quality ratings. Thus, implementation of the amendment will not result in adverse impacts on views from any state or federal highway, Pioneer Trail or from Lake Tahoe.
Environmental Analysis: Visible from US Highway 50, Not Visible from Pioneer Trail or from Lake Tahoe/No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.3-6. Would the Project be visible from any public recreation area or TRPA designated bicycle trail? (TRPA 18b)
The amendment area is partially visible from the Van Sickle Bi-State Park public recreation area entrance driveway, though the Park is not on TRPA’s official public recreation site list. The amendment area is not visible from the Park’s trailhead/parking area or trail network located 0.5 mile from Montreal Road because of intervening vegetation/forest canopy. The entrance to Van Sickle Bi-State Park is located within an easement on a privately owned parcel (APN 029-441-003) immediately north of the combined parcels (APN 029-441-024). This adjacent parcel was originally proposed to be included in this TCAP amendment and subsequent development project, but was removed following completion of the public scoping process (see Section 1.7) and concerns raised by the California Tahoe Conservancy on potential impacts to the Park entrance and visitor experience. As shown in Figure 5-1, the amendment area would be effectively screened from viewpoints along the Van Sickle entrance roadway by intervening vegetation and therefore would not adversely impact scenic views of Park visitors. A grove of conifer trees parallels the Park entrance road and offers screening of views to the south of the proposed amendment parcel. In addition, SEZ vegetation south of the open meadow provides additional screening of views towards the amendment parcel. This SEZ vegetation is protected and will not be removed under the amendment or subsequent multi-family residential development. Proposed tree removal for the development of multi-family residential housing units and access/driveways/parking would be located on the south end of the amendment parcel and would not be discernable to visitors on the Park entrance roadway or informal dirt trail because of the vegetation to remain and distance (approximately 450 feet) between the viewpoints and the proposed development.
The parcel southeast of the project area, APN 029-240-010, is state-owned land. While not part of Van Sickle Bi-State Park, this parcel is part of the former US Highway 50 Bypass acquisition and proposed for eventual use as the South Tahoe Greenway shared-use trail alignment, that would connect to the Park. The amendment area is not visible from any TRPA recognized recreation sites or bike trail corridors, but would be visible at the southeast corner of the parcel from the proposed South Tahoe Greenway shared-use trail (TCAP Figure 6-1) once constructed. If approved, the visibility of residential structures from the shareduse trail corridor would be similar to views of residential homes for most of the shared-use trail corridor through South Lake Tahoe. TCAP design standards for building materials/colors, setbacks and site landscaping ensure that visible structures do not detract from viewsheds offered from the public trail corridor. As such, while the amendment area and future multi-family development would be visible from the South Tahoe Greenway shared-use trail once constructed, the TCAP design standards and adjacent topography and vegetation would ensure that impacts are less than significant. 581
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 36 Environmental Analysis: Visible from future TRPA designated bicycle trail/No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
Figure 5-1 View to Amendment Area from Van Sickle Bi-State Park Entrance
5.4.3-7. Would the Project block or modify an existing view of Lake Tahoe or other scenic vista seen from a public road or other public area? (TRPA 18c)
As discussed above in Questions 5.4.3-1 (CEQA Checklist 1a) one scenic viewshed on US Highway 50 within Roadway Unit 32 faces the amendment area, but the amendment area is not visible from the US Highway 50 scenic viewpoint, the lake or shoreline. As such, neither the amendment or subsequent project would block or modify an existing view of Lake Tahoe or other scenic vista as seen from a public road or recreation area.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
Amendment
Area
View towards Amendment Area
Project Site Plan
582
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 37
5.4.3-8. Would the Project be inconsistent with the height and design standards required by the applicable ordinance, Community Plan, or Area Plan? (TRPA 18d) The TCAP includes design standards with which the development in the amendment area would be required to comply. Current TRPA and City design standards are reflected in the TCAP and are also applicable. The proposed amendment would not alter the adopted design standards but proposes to change the maximum height for the Recreation parcel from 36 feet (up to three stories) to 56 feet (up to four stories). The project complies with TCAP Design Standards listed in Appendix C of the TCAP.
Pursuant to Chapter 13 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances, the TCAP incorporates the height standards permitted in Table 13.5.3-1: Minimum Development Standards for Area Plans (TRPA Code, page 13-3).
Table 13.5.3-1 permits up to a maximum of 56 feet (four stories) in areas designated as Town Centers. The amendment would allow for the maximum 56-foot height allowance of the TCAP TSC-MU on the amended parcel, if the additional height findings can be met. Therefore, the height allowance would remain in compliance with TRPA height limits. All proposed multi-family residential development in the project area would be compliant with the maximum 56-foot height allowance.
As discussed in the Regional Plan Update EIS, there are benefits to increased height and density within Town Centers. This incentivizes redevelopment, and by concentrating development in the Town Center, creating a more compact development pattern to decrease use intensity outside of the area. Combined with the other design standards, and protective measures incorporated into the adopted TCAP Design Standards including the requirement to setback all portions of a structure above 25 feet in height, the visual quality and character of the affected area would be protected; therefore, no significant impact would result from implementing the height standards within the amendment area.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.3-9. Would the Project be inconsistent with the TRPA Scenic Quality Improvement Program (SQIP) or Design Review Guidelines? (TRPA 18e)
The project area is not in a Scenic Resource Area protected and included in the SQIP. Furthermore, the roadway segments located within the TCAP are designated by TRPA as an Urban Scenic Corridor, which recognizes that development can be the dominant visual features provided that the development complements the natural environment.
The evaluation presented above for Questions 5.4.3-1 through 5.4.3-7 (CEQA Checklist 1a through 1d) concludes that redevelopment within the amendment area would be subject to TCAP Design Standards, as well as TRPA and City standards and ordinances. The project would not be inconsistent with TRPA Design Review Guidelines as the TCAP provides substitute development and design standards that supersede the Design Review Guidelines. Therefore, development activity would not result in significant impacts when the design standards and protective measures of the TCAP are implemented.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.3-10. Would the Project include new or modified sources of exterior lighting? (TRPA 7a) See discussion and analysis for Question 5.4.3-4, which concludes no significant impact. 583
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 38 Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.3-11. Would the Project create new illumination, which is more substantial than other lighting, if any, within the surrounding area? (TRPA 7b)
See discussions and analysis and for Question 5.4.3-4, which concludes no significant impact.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.3-12. Would the Project cause light from exterior sources to be cast off-site or onto public lands? (TRPA 7c)
See discussions and analysis for Question 5.4.3-4, which concludes no significant impact.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.3-13 Would the Project create new sources of glare through the siting of the improvements or through the use of reflective materials? (TRPA 7d)
See discussion and analysis for Question 5.4.3-4, which concludes no significant impact.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
584
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 39
5.4.4 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
This section presents the analyses for potential impacts to agriculture and forestry resources. Some TRPA checklist items concern impacts to vegetation, which are addressed in Section 5.4.6, Biological Resources.
Table 5-3 identifies the applicable impacts, anticipated level of impact, and whether mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Table 5-3: Agriculture and Forestry Resources
CEQA Environmental
Checklist Item
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Measures
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
5.4.4-1. Convert Prime Farmland,
Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance, as shown on
the maps prepared pursuant to the
Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the CA Resources
Agency, to a non-agricultural use?
(CEQA IIa)
X
5.4.4-2. Conflict with existing
zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract? (CEQA
IIb)
X
5.4.4-3. Conflict with existing
zoning for, or cause rezoning of,
forest land (as defined in Public
Resource Code section 12220(g),
timberland (as defined by Public
Resource Code section 4526) or
timberland zoned Timberland
Production (as defined by
Government Code section
51104(g))? (CEQA IIc)
X
5.4.4-4. Result in the loss of forest
land or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use? (CEQA IId)
X
5.4.4-5. Involve other changes in
the existing environment which,
due to their location or nature,
could result in conversion of
Farmland, to non-agricultural use
or conversion of forest land to nonforest use? (CEQA IIe) X
585
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 40
5.4.4-1. Would the Project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to a non-agricultural use? (CEQA IIa)
5.4.4-2. Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (CEQA IIb)
5.4.4-3. Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resource Code section 12220(g), timberland (as defined by Public Resource Code section 4526) or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? (CEQA IIc)
5.4.4-4. Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? (CEQA IId)
5.4.4-5. Would the Project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? (CEQA IIe)
The amendment and project area are not located in an area identified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, and therefore pose no impact to such lands.
Public Resources Code section 12220(g) defines forest land as, “land that can support 10-percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits.” The amendment will rezone part of the project area from recreation to mixed-use. The land on the former Colony Inn site is previously developed and lightly forested. It is not forest land and is zoned in the City General Plan for urban tourist development. Furthermore, the parcel is located in a TCAP Town Center, which is characterized by urban land uses. While the amendment parcel is currently zoned for recreation, no recreation use exists. Therefore, the amendment conflicts with no zoning of and causes no rezoning of forest land, timberland or timberland zoned Timberland Production.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
586
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 41
5.4.5 Air Quality
This section presents the analyses for potential impacts to air quality. Table 5-4 identifies the applicable impacts, anticipated level of impact, and whether mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Table 5-4: Air Quality
CEQA Environmental
Checklist Item
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Measures
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
5.4.5-1. Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of the applicable
air quality plan? (CEQA IIIa)
X
5.4.5-2. Result in a cumulatively
considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment
under applicable federal or state
ambient air quality standards?
(CEQA IIIb)
X
5.4.5-3. Expose sensitive receptors
to substantial pollutant
concentrations? (CEQA IIIc)
X
5.4.5-4. Result in other emissions,
such as objectionable odors,
adversely affecting a substantial
number of people? (CEQA IIId)
X
TRPA Initial Environmental
Checklist Item Yes No, With Mitigation
Data
Insufficient No
5.4.5-5. Substantial air pollutant
emissions? (TRPA 2a) X
5.4.5-6. Deterioration of ambient
(existing) air quality? (TRPA 2b) X
5.4.5-7. Creation of objectionable
odors? (TRPA 2c) X
5.4.5-1. Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (CEQA IIIa)
The proposed zone change would not alter, revise, conflict or obstruct the regulations pertaining to air quality and proposes no changes to air quality policies. The area surrounding the parcel proposed for rezone is developed, formerly developed, or partially developed. The amendment would rezone a recreation parcel to mixed-use, but because of proposed policies added to Tables 1 and 4, land use and density would be limited so that the number of multi-family units available on the combined parcel (APN 029-441-024) would be less than could be developed on APN 029-441-004 by itself. Therefore, the maximum 587
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 42 development associated with the amendments (15 multi-family residential units) and subsequent Project (proposed at 10 multi-family residential units) would not conflict with implementation of an applicable air quality plan. The amendment parcel is within one-quarter mile of transit, commercial and public service uses, indicating that new development in this area is in the appropriate location to generate the shorter trip lengths and lower vehicle-miles traveled needed to meet the air quality goals of the Regional Plan and City’s General Plan.
TRPA’s 2020 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) includes an analysis of its conformity with the California State Implementation Plan to ensure that the RTP remains consistent with State and local air quality planning work to achieve and/or maintain the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). The proposed amendment does not propose substantial changes to land use assumptions for mixed-use assigned to the amendment area and the TCAP would continue to promote higher density residential uses within one-quarter mile of transit, commercial, and public service uses, and therefore would not change the conformity determination by state regulators.
The Lake Tahoe Region is in attainment or designated as unclassified for all National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and is designated a nonattainment/transitional area for ozone and nonattainment for the PM10 California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS). New development has the potential to produce air pollutant emissions during project construction and operation, as discussed below.
Short-Term Construction Emissions
Potential future development would involve tree removal, site excavation and foundation work, building construction and related construction emissions. Construction emissions are described as short-term or temporary in duration. Reactive Organic Gases (ROG), Carbon Monoxide (CO) and Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) (ozone precursors) emissions are primarily associated with gas and diesel equipment exhaust and the application of architectural coatings. Fugitive dust emissions (PM10 and PM2.5) are primarily associated with site preparation and vary as a function of such parameters as soil silt content, soil moisture, wind speed, acreage or disturbance area, and vehicle travel by construction vehicles on- and off-site.
As part of the TRPA RPU mitigation to reduce construction-generated emissions, TRPA adopted additional best construction practices policies. In Section 65.1.8.A. (Air Quality/Transportation, Idling Restrictions) of the TRPA Code of Ordinances, a new subsection was added that limits construction vehicle idling time to 15 minutes in Nevada and 5 minutes in California (previous restriction was 30 minutes). In addition to reduced idling time policies, the TRPA Standard Conditions of Approval for Grading Projects (TRPA Permit Attachment Q) and Standard Conditions of Approval for Residential Projects (TRPA Permit Attachment R) includes new construction provisions that call for the use of existing power sources (e.g. power poles) or clean-fuel generators rather than temporary diesel power generators wherever feasible, location of construction staging areas as far as feasible from sensitive air pollution receptors (e.g. schools or hospitals), closure of engine doors during operation except for engine maintenance, location of stationary equipment (e.g. generators or pumps) as far as feasible from noise-sensitive receptors and residential areas, installation of temporary sound barriers for stationary equipment, and use of sonic pile driving instead of impact pile driving, wherever feasible. Best management practices include, but are not limited to, the following, which are also included in TCAP Policy NCR-5.1, which states, “The City shall incorporate measures to reduce construction-generated emissions to the extent feasible on a project-specific basis. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Implement measures recommended by the El Dorado County Air Quality Management District. • Prohibit open burning of debris from site clearing unless involved with fuels reduction project. • Utilize low emission construction equipment and/or fuels and use existing power sources (e.g., power poles), wherever feasible.
588
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 43 • Restriction of idling of construction equipment and vehicles. • Apply water to control dust as needed to prevent dust impacts offsite.” Implementation of these standard TCAP mandated measures will address short-term construction-related emissions for potential buildout on the amendment parcel.
Long-Term Operational Emissions
Future development within the project area has limited potential to affect regional air quality and create localized exposure to CO emissions because the proposed amendments ultimately reduce development potential on the combined parcel by limiting residential density to 4 units per acre. Secondly, the project area is small and supports a small amount of growth compared to the nearby commercial core area and is within a mixed-use area served by transit and bicycle transportation facilities to reduce dependence on individual vehicle trips. Likewise, the range of uses and density that would be allowed within combined parcel project area is the same as the range of uses allowed on the former Colony Inn parcel by itself.
Consistent with the TRPA Regional Plan and the General Plan, the TCAP accommodates potential growth to improve traffic flow and resident mobility to reduce localized traffic congestion and related CO concentrations. As discussed in the 2013 TCAP IS/ND/IEC/FONSE, because the TCAP seeks to implement and is within the scope of what was envisioned in the General Plan and the Regional Plan, it would not result in congestion at intersections that would result in a violation of a CO air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
To ensure that impacts are less than significant, the project is required to pay TRPA air quality mitigation fees for new trips, now calculated as vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Air quality mitigation fees contribute the project’s fair share of cost towards the construction or operation of transportation projects in the Regional Transportation Plan that reduce air quality emissions. Therefore, the potential for future emissions is the same with or without the amendment. Using the TRPA Project Assessment online tool, the amendment (that would allow up to 15 multi-family residential units) is calculated to generate no more than 279 VMT and the 10 unit multi-family residential Project is anticipated to generate 186 VMT which means the proposed amendment and any subsequent multi-family residential housing project is screened out from a detailed VMT evaluation. The air quality mitigation fee for the 10 unit Project will be $9,280.66 (based on approximately $49.90 per VMT). At present, the City does not have a jurisdictional VMT tool developed, so they are using the TRPA tool for VMT evaluation.
Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.5-2. Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under applicable federal or state ambient air quality standards (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (CEQA IIIb)
The amendment if approved, proposes to permit multi-family residential land use within the TCAP recreation district on 1.29 acres formerly identified as APN 029-240-011. However, under the proposed TCAP amendment, specifically the policies for the combined parcel that limit land use to multi-family residential (prohibiting tourist and commercial uses) and density to no more than 4 units per acre, the number of potential residential units would decrease as a result of the amendment. Based on the available 589
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 44 residential density for the portion of the combined parcel located within the Tourist Center Mixed Use zone, up to 62 residential units (2.49 acres times 25 units/acre) could be proposed for a portion of the combined parcel. However, given that the 2.5 acre portion of the combined parcel only contains approximately 1 acre of high capability land, maximum development potential would likely be much lower, perhaps no more than 25 residential units. Consistent with the proposed policies in the amendments, if adopted the amendments would permit no more than 15 multi-family residential units on the combined parcel. The subsequent Project under consideration in this environmental document is proposing 10 multi-family residential units on the 3.79 acre combined parcel that contains approximately
1.67 acres of high capability land. Limits on overall growth in the Region through the TRPA’s regional growth management system remain in place, so the overall regional development potential remains the same with and without the proposed amendment. The proposed multi-family development is within onequarter mile of transit, commercial and public service uses, and will include trails and pedestrian walkways to connect to services, indicating that new development in this area is in the appropriate location to generate the shorter trip lengths and lower vehicle-miles traveled needed to meet the air quality goals of the Regional Plan and City’s General Plan.
The Region is designated by the state of California as non-attainment for PM10, as presented in Table 5-5.
A significant cumulative impact results if the Project causes a considerable increase in PM10. Given the reduction in potential residential development that would occur with adoption of the proposed TCAP amendments, this impact is considered less than significant.
Table 5-5: Federal and State Attainment Status for the Lake Tahoe Air Basin Pollutant CA Status Federal Status
1-Hour Ozone Attainment --
8-Hour Ozone Attainment Attainment/Unclassified
PM10 Nonattainment Attainment/Unclassified
PM2.5 Attainment Attainment/Unclassified
CO Attainment Maintenance
NO2 Attainment Attainment/Unclassified
SO2 Attainment Attainment/Unclassified
All Others Attainment (Sulfates, Lead)/Unclassified
(Hydrogen Sulfide and Visibility
Reducing Particles)
--
Source: RB 2019 (https://ww2.arb.ca.gov/resources/documents/maps-state-and-federal-area-designations) and US EPA 2020 (https://www.epa.gov/green-book)
Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.5-3. Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (CEQA IIIc)
Typical sensitive receptors include residences, hospitals, and schools. The area proposed for amendment is currently undeveloped. No new uses are proposed as allowed or special uses under the amendment that are not presently allowed in the project area. As discussed in Questions 5.4.5-1 and 2 above, the potential increase in pollutant concentrations would not be substantial even if the project area was developed at the 590
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 45 highest density (up to 15 multi-family residential units). Please refer to the analysis for Question 5.4.5-1, above.
Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.5-4. Would the Project result in other emissions, such as objectionable odors, adversely affecting a substantial number of people? (CEQA IIId)
The occurrence and severity of odor effects depend on the nature, frequency, and intensity of the odor source, wind speed and direction, and the presence of sensitive receptors. Offensive odors rarely cause physical harm, but odors can be unpleasant and generate citizen complaints to regulatory agencies and local governments. Typical sensitive receptors include residences, hospitals, and schools. There are no hospitals or schools located within the TCAP; however, residences are within the vicinity of the TCAP amendment parcels.
As a general matter, the types of land use development that pose potential odor problems include wastewater treatment plants, refineries, landfills, composting facilities and transfer stations, none of which are allowed in the TCAP TSC-MU. No such uses currently occupy the amendment area. The land uses in the TCAP TSC-MU are not characteristic of the types of uses that would result in the development of a major source of objectionable odor.
In the short-term, odor impacts occur from the use of diesel engines and asphalt concrete paving during construction. These odors are both temporary and localized, affecting only the area immediately adjacent to the active construction area. Diesel exhaust emissions and asphalt concrete paving odors dissipate rapidly away from the source and cease upon completion of construction activities and would be addressed by the Chapter 65 (Air Quality/Transportation) of the TRPA Code of Ordinances idling restrictions.
Implementation of the TCAP amendment does not result in substantial direct or indirect exposure of sensitive receptors to offensive odors.
Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.5-5. Would the Project result in substantial air pollutant emissions? (TRPA 2a) See analysis for Question 5.4.5-1.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.5-6. Would the Project result in deterioration of ambient (existing) air quality? (TRPA 2b) See analyses for Question 5.4.5-1, which conclude a less than significant impact.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
591
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 46
5.4.5-7. Would the Project result in creation of objectionable odors? (TRPA 2c) See discussion and analysis for Question 5.4.5-3, which addresses the creation of objectionable odors and concludes a less than significant odor impact to short-term and long-term effects to sensitive receptors.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
592
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 47
5.4.6 Biological Resources (Stream Environment Zones, Wetlands, Wildlife and Vegetation)
This section presents the analyses for potential impacts to biological resources, including impacts to SEZs, wetlands, wildlife and vegetation. Table 5-6 identifies the applicable impacts, anticipated level of impact, and whether mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Table 5-6: Biological Resources
CEQA Environmental
Checklist Item
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant with
Mitigation
Measures
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
5.4.6-1. Have a substantial
adverse effect, either directly or
through habitat modifications, on
any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special
status species in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or
by the California Department of
Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service? (CEQA IVa)
X
5.4.6-2. Have a substantial
adverse effect on any riparian
habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or
regional plans, policies,
regulations or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or
US Fish and Wildlife Service?
(CEQA IVb)
X
5.4.6-3. Have a substantial
adverse effect on federally
protected (including, but not
limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct
removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
(CEQA IVc)
X
5.4.6-4. Interfere substantially
with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with
established native resident or
migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife
nursery sites? (CEQA IVd)
X
5.4.6-5. Conflict with any local
policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as tree
X
593
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 48 preservation policy or ordinance?
(CEQA IVe)
5.4.6-6. Conflict with the
provisions of an adopted Habitat
Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan,
or other approved local, regional,
or state habitat conservation
plan? (CEQA IVf)
X
TRPA Initial Environmental
Checklist Item Yes No, With Mitigation
Data
Insufficient No
5.4.6-7. Removal of native
vegetation in excess of the area
utilized for the actual
development permitted by the
land capability/IPES system?
(TRPA 4a)
X
5.4.6-8. Removal of riparian
vegetation or other vegetation
associated with critical wildlife
habitat, either through direct
removal or indirect lowering of
the groundwater table? (TRPA
4b)
X
5.4.6-9. Introduction of new
vegetation that will require
excessive fertilizer or water, or
will provide a barrier to the
normal replenishment of existing
species? (TRPA 4c)
X
5.4.6-10. Change in the diversity
or distribution of species, or
number of any species of plants
(including trees, shrubs, grass,
crops, micro flora and aquatic
plants)? (TRPA 4d)
X
5.4.6-11. Reduction of the
numbers of any unique, rare or
endangered species of plants?
(TRPA 4e)
X
5.4.6-12. Removal of streambank
and/or backshore vegetation,
including woody vegetation such
as willows? (TRPA 4f)
X
5.4.6-13. Removal of any native
live, dead or dying trees 30
inches or greater in diameter at
breast height (dbh) within
TRPA’s Conservation or
Recreation land use
classifications? (TRPA 4g)
X
594
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 49
5.4.6-14. A change in the natural
functioning of an old growth
ecosystem? (TRPA 4h)
X
5.4.6-15. Change in the diversity
or distribution of species, or
numbers of any species of
animals (birds, land animals
including reptiles, fish and
shellfish, benthic organisms,
insects, mammals, amphibians or
microfauna)? (TRPA 5a)
X
5.4.6-16. Reduction of the
number of any unique, rare or
endangered species of animals?
(TRPA 5b)
X
5.4.6-17. Introduction of new
species of animals into an area, or
result in a barrier to the migration
or movement of animals? (TRPA
5c)
X
5.4.6-18. Deterioration of
existing fish or wildlife habitat
quantity or quality? (TRPA 5d)
X
5.4.6-1. Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service? (CEQA IVa)
The boundary of the proposed amendment area was reviewed against 1) the California Department of Fish and Wildlife’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), and 2) the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s online Planning and Conservation System (IPaC) database to identify potential habitat for candidate, sensitive, or special status species.
The IPaC database identified the following species as potentially affected by activities within the project area: Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog (Rana sierrae) (federal endangered) and Lahontan cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii henshawi) (threatened). Nine migratory birds were also listed in the IPaC database:
bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), Cassin’s finch (Carpodacus cassinii), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), olive-sided flycatcher (Contopus cooperi), black-throated gray warbler (Dendroica nigrescens), Clark’s grebe (Aechmophorus clarkii), evening grossbeak (Coccothraustes vespertinus), longeared owl (asio otus), and willet (Tringa semipalmata). However, suitable habitat for these species is not present, and the database identified no known critical habitat in the project area. The project area was previously developed and about half of the surrounding parcels to the north, south, and west are developed with urban land uses (public service, commercial, park entrance).
The CNDDB database identified the following species within the South Lake Tahoe quadrangle: Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog (Rana sierrae) (state threatened), willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii) (state endangered), Tahoe yellow cress (Rorippa subumbellata) (state endangered), and great grey owl (Strix nebulosa) (state endangered). Suitable habitat for Tahoe yellow cress is not present in the TCAP amendment area. Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and willow flycatcher have not been observed in the 595
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 50 area according to the CNDDB records and do not have suitable habitat within the proposed amendment parcels.
Therefore, implementation of the amendments and development would not result in the reduction in the number of any unique, rare, or endangered species of animals, including waterfowl.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.6-2. Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (CEQA IVb) The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s IPaC database identifies SEZ riparian habitat within the amendment/project area and TRPA has verified approximately 2.12 acres of land capability district 1b (SEZs) land. However, much of the SEZ located on the former Colony Inn site was previously disturbed/covered and has just recently been restored. The restoration of the SEZ and riparian habitat has been compromised by an incision in the drainage channel which has reduced water runoff to the restored SEZ vegetation. Though unrelated to the proposed amendment or subsequent project, the applicant has plans to work with conservation groups to improve the functionality of the SEZ/riparian portions of the combined parcel. The amendments would rezone a current Recreation parcel to mixed-use, but the subsequent multi-family residential development project proposes no building or development within the mapped SEZ or setbacks on either parcel. All future development would be located within the high capability portions of the project area. Therefore, implementation of the amendments and project would not result in the deterioration of riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or US Fish and Wildlife.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.6-3. Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (CEQA IVc)
There are no federally protected wetlands on the two parcels in the amendment or project area.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None
5.4.6-4. Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (CEQA IVd) The proposed amendment and project would not alter or revise the regulations pertaining to the migration or movement of animals. Due to the prior development of the project area, the area provides poor habitat for wildlife migration or nursery sites. The project is compliant with all federal, state, and TRPA regulations in Chapter 62 and 63 (Wildlife Resources and Fish Resources, respectively) of the TRPA Code of 596
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 51 Ordinances. Therefore, the project will not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident species.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.6-5. Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? (CEQA IVe) The amendment does not alter or conflict with existing local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. The project is compliant with all federal, state, and TRPA regulations in Chapter 62 and 63 (Wildlife Resources and Fish Resources, respectively) of the TRPA Code of Ordinances.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.6-6. Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (CEQA IVf)
The proposed amendment and project do not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan because no such plans exist for the project area.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.6-7. Would the Project result in removal of native vegetation in excess of the area utilized for the actual development permitted by the land capability/IPES system? (TRPA 4a) The project area includes banked land coverage resulting from the removal and restoration of the former Colony Inn and native vegetation on the back portions of the two parcels. Proposed project development is consistent with all applicable land capability limitations and all land coverage is proposed for high capability lands. Removal of native vegetation is in compliance with land development capabilities.
The proposed amendment would not alter or revise the regulations pertaining to native vegetation protection during construction. Consistent with existing conditions, vegetation surrounding the construction site of a project is required to comply with Section 33.6, Vegetation Protection During Construction, of the TRPA Code of Ordinances. Protective requirements include installation of temporary construction fencing, standards for tree removal and tree protection, standards for soil and vegetation protection, and revegetation of disturbed areas.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
597
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 52
5.4.6-8. Would the Project result in removal of riparian vegetation or other vegetation associated with critical wildlife habitat, either through direct removal or indirect lowering of the groundwater table? (TRPA 4b)
The proposed amendment and project would not alter or revise the regulations pertaining to vegetation removal and groundwater management. Water supply within the area is primarily obtained from groundwater sources through the South Tahoe Public Utility District. Consistent with existing conditions, the project meets TRPA requirements for water supply. TRPA regulations prohibit the approval of any development requiring water unless there is adequate water supply within an existing water right (Section
32.4.1 of the TRPA Code). Additionally, Section 33.3.6 (Excavation Limitations) of the TRPA Code of Ordinances prohibits excavation that intercepts or interferes with groundwater except under specific circumstances and with prior approval by TRPA (Section 33.3.6.A.2). For these reasons, consistent with existing conditions, the project would not directly or indirectly lower the groundwater table.
Further, vegetation removal would be required to comply with existing TRPA, federal, and state regulations, permitting requirements, and environmental review procedures that protect habitat that supports riparian vegetation and critical wildlife. Specifically, wildlife habitats are protected by Sections
61.1.6 (Management Standards for Tree Removal), and Chapter 62 (Wildlife Resources) of the TRPA Code of Ordinances. While the project area contains SEZ habitat, the proposed development conserves this land.
The mapped SEZ and any riparian vegetation within the project area will be avoided and further protected via a 10-foot setback.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.6-9. Would the Project result in introduction of new vegetation that will require excessive fertilizer or water, or will provide a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? (TRPA 4c)
The proposed amendment would not alter or revise the regulations pertaining to new vegetation and do not change requirements to comply with the State of California Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance.
Consistent with existing conditions, the project is compliant with the TRPA Code provisions (e.g., Section
61.4, Revegetation) and Goals and Policies that prohibit the release of non-native species in the Tahoe Region. Generally, native species require less fertilizer and water than non-native species. Provisions for fertilizer management and preparation of fertilizer management plans that address the type, quantity, and frequency of use of fertilizers are included in Section 60.1.8 of the TRPA Code. The project vegetation plan proposes the use of Quaking Aspen deciduous trees, Incense Cedar and Jeffrey Pine coniferous trees, various deciduous and evergreen shrubs, and various perennial and ornamental grasses. Furthermore, these will be planted in a revegetation mix of soil (Landscape Plan, sheet L2-01).
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.6-10. Would the Project result in change in the diversity or distribution of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, micro flora and aquatic plants)? (TRPA 4d)
See discussion and analyses in Questions 5.4.6-7 through 5.4.6-9, and 5.4.6-11 through 5.4.6-14. 598
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 53 Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.6-11. Would the Project result in reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? (TRPA 4e)
See discussion and analysis for Question 5.4.6-1 above.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None
5.4.6-12. Would the Project result in removal of streambank and/or backshore vegetation, including woody vegetation such as willows? (TRPA 4f)
The proposed amendment would not alter or revise the regulations pertaining to removal of streambank and backshore vegetation. See discussion and analysis for Question 5.4.6-8 above.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.6-13. Would the Project result in removal of any native live, dead or dying trees 30 inches or greater in diameter at breast height (dbh) within TRPA’s Conservation or Recreation land use classifications? (TRPA 4g)
The portion of the project area that is currently zoned for mixed-use would require the removal of 22 trees that are 30 inches or greater in diameter at breast height. The proposed amendment parcel that is currently within the Recreation zone, would require the removal of 3 trees that are 30 inches or greater in diameter at breast height (Temporary BMP Plan sheet C 3.0). The removal of trees larger than 30 inches in diameter within Recreation zones requires findings for the protection of public health or public service use. With adoption of the proposed TCAP amendment to change the Recreation parcel to a mixed-use zone, the removal of any native, live, dead or dying trees would be consistent with Chapter 61, Vegetation and Forest Health, of the TRPA Code of Ordinances.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None
5.4.6-14. Would the Project result in a change in the natural functioning of an old growth ecosystem? (TRPA 4h)
See discussion and analysis for Question 5.4.6-13 above.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
599
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 54
5.4.6-15. Would the Project result in change in the diversity or distribution of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects, mammals, amphibians or microfauna)? (TRPA 5a)
See discussion and analyses for Questions 5.4.6-1 and 5.4.6-3 above.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.6-16. Would the Project result in reduction of the number of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? (TRPA 5b)
See discussion and analyses for Question 5.4.6-1.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.6-17. Would the Project result in introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? (TRPA 5c) See discussion and analysis for Question 5.4.6-4 above.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.6-18. Would the Project result in deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat quantity or quality? (TRPA 5d)
See discussion and analyses for Questions 5.4.6-1, 2, and 4 above.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
600
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 55
5.4.7 Cultural Resources (CEQA) and Archaeological/Historical (TRPA) This section presents the analyses for potential impacts to cultural, archaeological and historical resources, discussing the Project impacts on cultural resources related to the disturbance of archaeological, historical, architectural, and Native American/traditional heritage resources. The section also addresses disturbance of unknown archaeological resources, as well as paleontological resources (fossils). Table 5-7 identifies the applicable impacts, anticipated level of impact, and whether mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Table 5-7: Cultural Resources and Archaeological/Historical CEQA Environmental
Checklist Item
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Measures
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
5.4.7-1. Cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance
of a historical resource as defined
in §15064.5? (CEQA Va)
X
5.4.7-2. Cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance
of an archaeological resource
pursuant to §15064.5? (CEQA
Vb)
X
5.4.7-3. Disturb any human
remains, including those interred
outside of formal cemeteries?
(CEQA Vc)
X
TRPA Initial Environmental
Checklist Item Yes No, With Mitigation
Data
Insufficient No
5.4.7-4. Will the proposal result in
an alteration of or adverse
physical or aesthetic effect to a
significant archaeological or
historical site, structure, object or
building? (TRPA 20a)
X
5.4.7-5. Is the proposed project
located on a property with any
known cultural, historical, and/or
archaeological resources,
including resources on TRPA or
other regulatory official maps or
records? (TRPA 20b)
X
5.4.7-6. Is the property associated
with any historically significant
events and/or sites or persons?
(TRPA 20c)
X
601
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 56
5.4.7-1. Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in §15064.5? (CEQA Va)
5.4.7-2. Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? (CEQA Vb)
5.4.7-3. Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (CEQA Vc)
5.4.7-4. Will the Project result in an alteration of or adverse physical or aesthetic effect to a significant archaeological or historical site, structure, object or building? (TRPA 20a)
5.4.7-5.Is the Project located on a property with any known cultural, historical, and/or archaeological resources, including resources on TRPA or other regulatory official maps or records? (TRPA 20b)
5.4.7-6.Is the Project associated with any historically significant events and/or sites or persons? (TRPA 20c)
There are no historical resources evident within the project area, listed on TRPA historic resources lists, or identified in the Natural Resources and Conservation Section of the TCAP (page 3-12). The project area is the site of the former Colony Inn and currently consists of restored SEZ lands and a lightly wooded forest area. The former Colony Inn portion of the project area was subject to a SEZ restoration in 2009. In addition to the lack of any man-modifications, previous development, removal of buildings, and conservation efforts have revealed no archaeological deposits, including those of human remains.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
602
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 57
5.4.8 Energy (CEQA/TRPA)
This section presents the analyses for potential impacts to energy. Table 5-8 identifies the applicable impacts, anticipated level of impact, and whether mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Table 5-8: Energy
CEQA Environmental
Checklist Item
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Measures
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
5.4.8-1. Result in potentially
significant environmental impact
due to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of
energy resources, during project
construction or operation? (CEQA
VIa)
X
5.4.8-2. Conflict with or obstruct a
state or local plan for renewable
energy or energy efficiency?
(CEQA VIb)
X
TRPA Initial Environmental
Checklist Item Yes No, With Mitigation
Data
Insufficient No
5.4.8-3. Use of substantial
amounts of fuel or energy? (TRPA
15a)
X
5.4.8-4. Substantial increase in
demand upon existing sources of
energy, or require the
development of new sources of
energy? (TRPA 15b)
X
5.4.8-1. Would the Project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation? (CEQA VIa)
5.4.8-2. Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency? (CEQA VIb)
5.4.8-3. Would the Project use substantial amounts of fuel or energy? (TRPA 15a)
5.4.8-4. Will the Project substantially increase the demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? (TRPA 15b)
The City of South Lake Tahoe has committed to a goal of 100 percent renewable energy by 2032 and is working with the local electricity provider to reach that goal and invest in greater renewable energy sources.
The City Code includes requirements for water conservation devices in new or replacement facilities and 603
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 58 requires energy efficient outdoor lighting, which conserves energy consumption and are incorporated into the Development and Design Standards of the TCAP Amendment (TCAP Appendix C). The City has also adopted the 2016 California Energy Code within the City’s building regulations, and has a Green Building Program with recommended energy efficiency measures for residential projects. TRPA Regional Plan Land Use Element AQ-1.5 encourages the construction of energy efficient buildings, replacement of energy inefficient buildings, and improvements to the efficiency of existing buildings.
Development permitted within the parameters of the proposed TCAP amendments and subsequent project would comply with energy efficiency goals and policies of the Regional Plan, City Code, and TCAP Design Standards. While any new construction would require electric and natural gas service as part of the basic services (Chapter 32, Basic Services of the TRPA Code of Ordinances) the entire area within the TCAP amendment area is currently served by existing electric and gas infrastructure. The utility companies project that, based on their forecasting and recent growth trends, the available capacity would far exceed the demand generated at build-out of the Regional Plan (TRPA 2012a, page 3.13-20); therefore, demand created by the project would not exceed available capacity, or require the development of new sources of energy.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
604
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 59
5.4.9 Geology and Soils (CEQA) and Land (TRPA)
This section presents the analyses for potential impacts to geology, soils, and land. Table 5-9 identifies the applicable impacts, anticipated level of impact, and whether mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Table 5-9: Geology and Soils and Land
CEQA Environmental
Checklist Item
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Measures
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
5.4.9-1. Directly or indirectly
cause potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial
evidence of a known fault? Refer
to Division of Mines and Geology
Special Publication 42?
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
iii) Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction?
iv) Landslides? (CEQA VIIa)
X
5.4.9-2. Result in substantial soil
erosion or the loss of topsoil?
(CEQA VIIb)
X
5.4.9-3. Be located on a geologic
unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result
of the project, and potentially
result in on- or off-site landslide,
lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse? (CEQA
VIIc)
X
5.4.9-4. Be located on expansive
soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of
the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks
to life or property? (CEQA VIId)
X
605
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 60
5.4.9-5. Have soils incapable of
adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste
water disposal systems where
sewers are not available for the
disposal of waste water? (CEQA
VIIe)
X
5.4.9-6. Directly or indirectly
destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic
feature? (CEQA VIIf)
X
TRPA Initial Environmental
Checklist Item Yes No, With Mitigation
Data
Insufficient No
5.4.9-7. Compaction or covering
of the soil beyond the limits
allowed in the land capability or
Individual Parcel Evaluation
System (IPES)? (TRPA 1a)
X
5.4.9-8. A change in the
topography or ground surface
relief features of site inconsistent
with the natural surrounding
conditions? (TRPA 1b)
X
5.4.9-9. Unstable soil conditions
during or after completion of the
proposal? (TRPA 1c)
X
5.4.9-10. Changes in the
undisturbed soil or native geologic
substructures or grading in excess
of 5 feet? (TRPA 1d)
X
5.4.9-11. The continuation of or
increase in wind or water erosion
of soils, either on or off the site?
(TRPA 1e)
X
5.4.9-12. Changes in deposition or
erosion of beach sand, or changes
in siltation, deposition or erosion,
including natural littoral
processes, which may modify the
channel of a river or stream or the
bed of a lake? (TRPA 1f)
X
5.4.9-13. Exposure of people or
property to geologic hazards such
as earthquakes, landslides,
backshore erosion, avalanches,
mud slides, ground failure, or
similar hazards? (TRPA 1g)
X
606
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 61
5.4.9-1. Would the Project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
5.4.9-1.i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42? (CEQA VIIa).
5.4.9-1.ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
5.4.9-1.iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
5.4.9-1.iv) Landslides?
5.4.9-2. Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? (CEQA VIIb)
5.4.9-3. Would the Project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? (CEQA VIIc)
Based on the Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42 and the Index to Official Maps of Earthquake Fault Zones (Hart and Bryant 1997), the project area is not located in the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. There are four known faults that run through the City. One of these is located in the TCAP in the general vicinity of Ski Run Boulevard. These are approximately located fault traces, some associated with the Tahoe Valley Fault Zone, and are not known to be active. The relatively minor and inactive faults have shown no history of fault ruptures and do not meet the criteria for building restrictions under the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone Act. The risk of fault rapture is considered relatively low (CSLT 2011, pages 4.8-13 and 4.8-28).
According to the California Building Code (CBC), the amendment area is located in Seismic Zone D, a region of relatively high seismicity, and has the potential to experience strong ground shaking from earthquakes. As such, all structures are designed to meet the regulations and standards associated with Zone D hazards as set forth in the CBC. Compliance with these existing regulations ensures that all new or redeveloped structures would be capable of withstanding anticipated ground shaking in the Region and would not create significant public safety risks or property damage in the event of an earthquake.
The City has adopted California Building Code within Title 6 of the City Code. All structures associated with development in the amendment area would be designed and constructed in accordance with design requirements of the Seismic Zone D which would minimize risks associated with seismic ground shaking and seismic related ground failure. The risk of fault rupture and ground shaking is a less than significant impact.
The potential for seismic-related ground shaking in the Region could also contribute to public safety risks and property damage associated with ground failure including liquefaction, lateral spreading, collapse, and settlement. Relatively high ground water levels in the area can contribute to the potential for ground failure, particularly during excavation and construction of below-grade structures (CSLT 2011, page 4.8-29).
Hazards associated with seismic-related ground failure are regulated by the California Building Standards Code adopted by the City in Title 6 of the City’s Code to ensure that structures are properly designed and constructed to withstand anticipated ground failure. The risk of injury or property damage from strong ground shaking or resulting ground failure would not increase as a result of the proposed boundary amendment and this is a less than significant impact.
607
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 62 The varied topography within the Lake Tahoe Region makes many areas susceptible to landslide hazards.
The main hazards are associated with rock falls on steep slopes of massive granite and erosion of decomposed granite on both gentle and steep slopes. The amendment area includes gentle slopes of 10 percent or less. The TRPA Land Use Element Natural Hazards Subelement, Goal 1, Policy 1 of the TRPA Regional Plan restricts construction, reconstruction, or replacement of structures in identified avalanche or mass instability hazard areas. There is little risk of exposing people or structures to potential landslides in the amendment area and it is a less than a significant impact.
According to the California Geological Survey (CGS), the project area is not in any known fault, liquefaction, or landslide zones. The Project site is relatively flat, and development does not propose substantial excavation or fill slopes. A BMP plan includes measures to protect disturbed soils and adjacent drainage facilities during construction.
Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.9-4. Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (CEQA VIId) According to the Swelling Clays Map of The Coterminous United States, the Tahoe Basin Region falls within an area that is underlain with little to no clays with swelling potential (USGS 1989). However, soil units mapped within the Tahoe Basin Region contain soils with low to high shrink/swell potential (NRCS 2007).
Proposed project development is on a very slight slope (0-5%) and will not be significantly graded. The project includes 1.5 acres of grading and clearing. A Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan is required as well as a valid State Waste Discharge Identification Number prior to any soil disturbance. The project is compliant with TRPA Code of Ordinances Section 33.4, Special Information Reports and Plans and City Code Chapter 7.20, and used the code to determine the design, grading, and construction practices required to avoid or reduce geologic hazards including those associated with unstable, expansive soils and slope failure. Adherence to existing regulations would ensure impacts would be less than significant.
Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.9-5. Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? (CEQA VIIe)
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act requires all sewage and wastewater to be disposed of outside the Lake Tahoe Basin. Therefore, use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal are prohibited in the Lake Tahoe Region.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
608
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 63
5.4.9-6. Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (CEQA VIIf)
It is possible but unlikely that unknown paleontological resources may be located in the area.
Paleontological remains are found in sedimentary rock formations. El Dorado County’s geology is predominantly igneous (volcanic) in nature, and the type of sedimentary deposits where such remains might be present, are virtually nonexistent (GP DEIR, page 5.13-1). As stated in the 2013 IS/IEC for the TCAP and the City’s General Plan EIR, “A search of the University of California Museum of Paleontology collections database identified 22 paleontological resource finds in El Dorado County; however, none were identified in the City of South Lake Tahoe” (CSLT 2011 and CSLT 2013). Furthermore, previous disturbances in the project area make it even less likely that any paleontological resource would be discovered. To ensure the protection of paleontological resources that may be discovered during construction, the City adopted General Plan Policy NCR-4.4 that requires a paleontological resource evaluation be prepared and measures to mitigate impacts to paleontological resources be identified when fossils are discovered during ground-disturbing activities (CSLT 2011b, page NCR-7).
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.9-7. Would the Project result in compaction or covering of the soil beyond the limits allowed in the land capability or Individual Parcel Evaluation System (IPES)? (TRPA 1a) This potential impact was previously analyzed as part of the TRPA Regional Plan Update, and therefore this analysis incorporates by reference the RPU EIS. The amendment would not alter or revise the regulations pertaining to land capability and IPES. The land coverage limitations of the adopted Regional Plan (Chapter 30 of the TRPA Code) and existing TCAP, which allows up to 70 percent land coverage on high capability lands (Class 4 through 7), and limit development to 1 percent land coverage on Class 1b land, remain in effect. Since the amendment area contains Class 5/7 and 1b lands and is located further than 300 feet from Lake Tahoe, maximum land coverage limits shall be 70 percent of high capability lands within the amendment area. The potential effects of these changes were analyzed in the RPU EIS (TRPA 2012, page 3.7-40) and were found to be less than significant. “The additional coverage allowed in higher capability lands within Town Centers, the Regional Center, and the High Density Tourist District would be directly offset by coverage transferred from sensitive land or more than offset on an acre-by-acre basis by transfers from higher capability land, resulting in an overall reduction in coverage for the Region and, importantly, reduction in coverage from SEZs and other sensitive lands.” The amendment does not propose an alternative comprehensive land coverage management system as defined in Section 13.5.3B of the TRPA Code of Ordinances. As such, the amendments have no affect on land capability or land coverage within the amendment area.
Development projects in the amendment area are subject to permitting by the City and/or TRPA and Project plans demonstrate that proposed compaction and land coverage are within the limits allowed in Chapters 30 and 53 of the Code. Land coverage calculations prepared for the Project (Coverage Plan, sheet L0-03 dated 10/15/21) demonstrate that proposed land coverage would total 23,615 square feet in Class 5 lands and 14,008 square feet in Class 7 lands, for a total of 37,623 square feet. No land coverage is proposed on the Class 1b lands. Using the Bailey land capability system limits, allowable land coverage for Class 5 would be 11,563 square feet (25 percent) and 7,980 square feet for Class 7 (30 percent). Based on the Project’s location within the TCAP, maximum allowable land coverage would equal 50,998 square feet (70 percent of high capability lands). Based on the location of the former Colony Inn (former APN 029-441- 609
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 64 004) within the amendment area (APN 029-441-024), there is banked land coverage available for the Project to utilize. Banked land coverage includes 32,247 square feet within Class 1b lands and 32,563 square feet within Class 5 lands. The Project proposes to utilize all 32,563 square feet of banked Class 5 land coverage for the proposed Class 5 and 7 land coverage, and 5,060 square feet of the banked Class 1b land coverage for the proposed Class 7 land coverage.
The banking of land capability Class 1b (SEZ) land coverage involved restoration on the former Colony Inn parcel (former APN 029-441-004) and not the recreation zoned parcel (former APN 029-240-011).
When the Colony Inn was torn down, 104 TAUs and 1 RUU were banked on the site. Of the 104 TAUs, 84 were banked in Class 1b (SEZ) lands and 20 were banked in Class 5 lands. The previous owner completed the Class 1b restoration to obtain bonus development rights for transferring the banked units of use out of the SEZ (a one to one match). The Class 1b land was restored pursuant to a plan approved by both TRPA and Lahontan. Several years of monitoring occurred and the restoration passed final TRPA inspection on October 16, 2015 (TRPA File No. ERSP2009-3560). TRPA released the restoration project security on November 20, 2015. Unfortunately, erosion and other activities that occurred in years following the successful restoration have caused an incision in the restored Class 1b area such that water is no longer retained and leaves the site. The functioning of the restored SEZ has suffered as a result. However, neither the proposed amendment nor subsequent multi-family residential project application will have an impact on Class 1b (SEZ) lands located within the combined parcel (APN 029-441-024). The banked Class 1b land coverage is available for use on the higher capability lands within the amendment area.
Because the Project exceeds allowable land coverage limits outlined in the Bailey Land Capability System, excess land coverage mitigation is required as outlined in TRPA Code Chapter 30. Excess land coverage mitigation is calculated as follows:
64,810 square feet of banked land coverage on former APN 029-441-004 compared to 20,465 square feet of allowable land coverage for the combined parcel used for the Project Area (12,189 square feet of allowable land coverage on former APN 029-441-004 and 8,276 square feet of allowable land coverage on former APN 029-240-011) equals 44,345 square feet of excess land coverage. The excess land coverage mitigation shall be accomplished by one of the following options:
Option 1: [(Construction cost estimate x .350)/8] x $8.50 = required excess land coverage mitigation fee
($527,016.33 X .350)/8 X $8.50 = $195,984
or
Option 2: [(Construction cost estimate x .350)/8] = required excess land coverage reduction (permanent retirement of Class 1b banked land coverage) ($527,016.33 X .350)/8 = 23,057 square feet retired
Based upon the collection of TRPA mandated excess land coverage mitigation fees or permanent retirement of banked land coverage, no impact occurs.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
610
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 65
5.4.9-8. Will the Project result in a change in the topography or ground surface relief features of site inconsistent with the natural surrounding conditions? (TRPA 1b) The proposed amendments would not alter or revise the regulations pertaining to grading. Consistent with existing requirements, grading and construction activities would be required to comply with the provisions of Chapter 33, “Grading and Construction,” of the TRPA Code and Chapter 7.20 of the City Code. Chapter 33 includes specific provisions for timing of grading, winterization of construction sites, specifications for cut and fills areas, protection of vegetation during construction, and preparation of a Slope Stabilization Plan for projects at the request of TRPA. The City Code (Chapter 7.20) requires all projects to implement temporary best management practices (BMPs) in accordance with the Handbook of Best Management Practices. The BMPs must be maintained throughout the construction period until winterization and installation of permanent BMPS occurs at construction finalization.
The Project site is relatively flat, and development does not propose substantial excavation or fill slopes.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.9-9. Will the Project result in unstable soil conditions during or after completion of the proposal? (TRPA 1c)
The amendment would not alter or revise the regulations pertaining to BMPs for soil erosion. Consistent with existing requirements, soil disturbance associated with the project in the amendment area would be required to comply with Chapters 33 (Grading and Construction) and 60 through 68 (Various Resource Management Chapters) of the TRPA Code of Ordinances and Chapter 7.20 of the City Code. The Project site is relatively flat, and development does not propose substantial excavation or fill slopes. A BMP plan includes measures to protect disturbed soils and adjacent drainage facilities during construction. See discussion under Question 5.4.9-8 above.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.9-10. Will the Project result in changes in the undisturbed soil or native geologic substructures or grading in excess of 5 feet? (TRPA 1d)
The amendment does not alter or revise the regulations pertaining to grading, excavation, and new disturbance. The project is compliant with the provisions of Chapter 30 (Land Coverage) of the TRPA Code of Ordinances and Chapter 7.20 of the City Code regarding permanent disturbance and Section 33.3.6 of the TRPA Code regarding protection of subsurface groundwater. The Evaluation of Seasonal High Groundwater (Welsh Hagen Associates) reports that soil mottling indicative of the seasonal high groundwater level was encountered at a depth of 8 feet to the depth explored, 9 feet. No groundwater was encountered to the depth explored of 9 feet. Excavation depths for buildings and other physical project facilities will not exceed 5 feet and therefore no groundwater interception will occur.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
611
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 66
5.4.9-11. Will the Project result in the continuation of or increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? (TRPA 1e)
See discussion and analysis for Question 5.4.9-8 above.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.9-12. Will the Project result in changes in deposition or erosion of beach sand, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion, including natural littoral processes, which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of a lake? (TRPA 1f)
The project area includes mapped SEZ lands, but no SEZ disturbance because project development conserves these lands. The project area does not include any beaches, river or stream channels or lakes.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.9-13. Will the Project result in exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, backshore erosion, avalanches, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? (TRPA 1g)
This potential effect is the same as those analyzed in the TRPA Regional Plan Update, and therefore this analysis incorporates by reference the RPU EIS.
The amendment would not alter or revise the regulations pertaining to geologic hazards. Chapter 35, Natural Hazard Standards, of the TRPA Code includes provisions addressing avalanche, floodplains, and wildfire and Chapter 6.15 of the City Code, addresses CBC and IBC building standards that include protections for persons and property from seismic and geologic hazards. The Project is required to meet applicable building codes and standards and has undergone site-specific geotechnical analysis as specified by Section 33.4 (Special Information Reports and Plans) of the TRPA Code of Ordinances and Chapter 7.20 of the City Code. As such, the Project would not expose people or property to geologic hazards.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
612
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 67
5.4.10 Greenhouse Gas Emissions (CEQA) and Air Quality (TRPA) This section presents the analyses for potential impacts to greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Table 5-10 identifies the applicable impacts, anticipated level of impact, and whether mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Table 5-10: Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Air Quality
CEQA Environmental
Checklist Item
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Measures
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
5.4.10-1. Greenhouse gas
emissions, either directly or
indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the
environment? (CEQA VIIIa)
X
5.4.10-2. Conflict with an
applicable plan, policy or
regulation adopted for the purpose
of reducing the emissions of
greenhouse gases? (CEQA VIIIb)
X
TRPA Initial Environmental
Checklist Item Yes No, With Mitigation
Data
Insufficient No
5.4.10-3. Alteration of air
movement, moisture or
temperature, or any change in
climate, either locally or
regionally? (TRPA 2d)
X
5.4.10-4. Increased use of diesel
fuel? (TRPA 2e) X
5.4.10-1. Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (CEQA VIIIa) Because implementation of the Regional Plan, General Plan, and existing TCAP policies would not change under the amendment, and because the allowable land-uses and associated densities that would be allowed in the amendment area would generate VMT within TRPA Thresholds, the proposed multi-family residential development that is requested subsequent to approval of the proposed amendments would not result in a measurable increase in predicted Regional Plan GHG emissions. Using TRPA’s online VMT calculation tool for the potential buildout for 15 multi-family residential units (the maximum density allowed by the proposed amendment), VMT is estimated to equal 279. As such, the level of VMT generation associated with the amendments would be screened out from further analysis under TRPA’s 2021 project impact assessment and air quality mitigation fee framework (e.g., less than 1,300 VMT for projects within a Town Center).
Given the proposed TCAP amendment policy language that would limit land use to multi-family residential uses and cap multi-family residential density to no more than 4 units per acre within the combined parcels 613
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 68 described in Section 2.1, implementation of the proposed zoning amendment and subsequent project approval would result in a reduction in potential TCAP development density. Therefore, the proposed TCAP amendments would not result in a measurable increase in greenhouse gas emissions compared to existing TCAP zoning. Thus, this impact is considered less than significant.
Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.10-2. Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (CEQA VIIIb) The amendment and project do not alter adopted TCAP policies regarding GHG, and the existing TCAP is consistent with applicable plans, policies and regulations adopted in the TRPA Regional Plan, Sustainable Communities Strategy, and City General Plan to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. As discussed in Question 5.4.10-1 above, the City and TRPA would continue to implement existing practices described in Mitigation Measure 3.5-1 of the RPU EIS, General Plan Policy NCR-5.10, and TCAP Policy NCR-5.1 which includes developing GHG reduction measures on a project-specific basis within the TCAP. The TCAP would continue to implement policies of the TRPA Regional Plan which calls for concentrating development in town centers in a pedestrian- and transit-oriented environment that focuses on enhancing non-auto modes such as walking, biking, and transit as a strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.10-3. Would the Project result in alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? (TRPA 2d) As discussed in Question 5.4.10-1 above, the Project would not result in any adverse alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature or change in climate.
Since the TCAP amendment does not alter existing policies related to GHG emissions, and the existing policies and regulations addressing GHG emissions such as those in the Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy and City General Plan would remain in effect, the potential to increase GHG emissions as a result of the TCAP amendment is insignificant. The existing measures adopted by the TRPA, City, and EDCAQMD would remain applicable and no new impact would occur.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.10-4. Would the Project result in increased use of diesel fuel? (TRPA 2e) Project construction requires the use of diesel fuel for the operation of construction equipment. From an air quality perspective, one of the primary concerns related to diesel fuel consumption is the resultant exposure of sensitive receptors to emissions of toxic air contaminants (TACs) that can occur during both the construction and operational phases of a project. The Project would not include the construction or operation of any major sources of TAC emissions such as power-generating plants or other heavy industrial uses.
614
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 69 The construction of multi-family residential units within the amendment area could result in short-term increase in the use of diesel fuel and associated short-term diesel exhaust emissions, including diesel particulate matter (PM), from the use of off-road diesel equipment required for site grading and excavation, paving, and other construction activities. However, the proposed multi-family residential units would be limited to no more than 4 units per acre, a lower density than currently allowed on mixed-use parcels.
Therefore, the overall exposure of sensitive receptors to TACs or potential for exposure would not increase as a result of the amendments and project.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
615
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 70
5.4.11 Hazards and Hazardous Materials (CEQA) and Risk of Upset and Human Health (TRPA)
This section presents the analyses for potential impacts to hazards and hazardous materials and risk of upset and human health. Table 5-11 identifies the applicable impacts, anticipated level of impact, and whether mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Table 5-11: Hazards and Hazardous Materials and Risk of Upset and Human Health CEQA Environmental
Checklist Item
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Measures
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
5.4.11-1. Create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials? (CEQA IXa)
X
5.4.11-2. Create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment through reasonably
foreseeable upset and accident
conditions involving the release of
hazardous materials into the
environment? (CEQA IXb)
X
5.4.11-3. Emit hazardous
emissions or handle hazardous or
acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within onequarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (CEQA IXc)
X
5.4.11-4. Be located on a site
which is included on a list of
hazardous materials sites compiled
pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result,
would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the
environment? (CEQA IXd)
X
5.4.11-5. For a Project located
within an airport land use plan or,
where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use
airport, would the project result in
a safety hazard or excessive noise
for people residing or working in
the project area? (CEQA IXe)
X
616
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 71
5.4.11-6. Impair implementation
of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
(CEQA VIIIf)
X
5.4.11-7. Expose people or
structures, either directly or
indirectly, to a significant risk of
loss, injury or death involving
wildland fires? (CEQA IXg)
X
TRPA Initial Environmental
Checklist Item Yes No, With Mitigation
Data
Insufficient No
5.4.11-8. Involve a risk of an
explosion or the release of
hazardous substances including,
but not limited to, oil, pesticides,
chemicals, or radiation in the
event of an accident or upset
conditions? (TRPA 10a)
X
5.4.11-9. Involve possible
interference with an emergency
evacuation plan? (TRPA 10b)
X
5.4.11-10. Creation of any health
hazard or potential health hazard
(excluding mental health)? (TRPA
17a)
X
5.4.11-11. Exposure of people to
potential health hazards? (TRPA
17b)
X
5.4.11-1. Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (CEQA IXa) Development as a result of implementation of the proposed zoning amendments would be limited to residential uses, resulting in little to no potential for increasing the transport, storage, use and/or disposal of hazardous materials as a result of normal construction and operation of land uses and improvement.
However, all development would be required to adhere to federal, state, and local regulations regarding the handling, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials.
Construction would involve the storage, use, and transport of hazardous materials typical of construction and operation of multi-family residential land uses projects. Commonly used hazardous materials expected to be used during construction and operation of the Project include asphalt, gasoline, diesel, lubricants, paints, and solvents. CHP and Caltrans regulate transportation of hazardous materials on area roadways, and the use of these materials is regulated by the DTSC as outlined in CCR 22.
The Project Applicant, builders, contractors, business owners, and others would be required to use, store, and transport hazardous materials in compliance with local, State, and federal regulations during construction and operation. Compliance with mandatory State and federal standards for the transport and use of hazardous materials will reduce potential hazardous materials impacts to less than significant. 617
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 72 Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.11-2. Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (CEQA IXb)
Construction would involve the storage, use, and transport of hazardous materials typical of construction and operation of multi-family residential land uses projects. Policy HS-6.2 requires that all construction activity cease if contamination is discovered on construction projects. Remediation is required to the satisfaction of the appropriate responsible agency (i.e., El Dorado County Department of Environmental Management, Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board, Department of Toxic Substances Control, or the City of South Lake Tahoe) (CSLT 2011b, page HS-7). All development is required to implement and is consistent with regional, federal, state, and local regulations regarding the release of hazardous materials into the environment due to reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.11-3. Would the Project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (CEQA IXc)
The nearest school is Bijou Community School, located approximately 1.8 miles from the amendment and project area. The use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials are required to be in compliance with local, state, and federal regulations during project construction and operation. Facilities that use hazardous materials are required to obtain permits and comply with appropriate regulatory agency standards and the discovery of contamination requires construction sites to cease operations. Since all development in the amendment area is required to comply with regional, federal, state, and local regulations addressing safety from hazards, including hazardous materials, the impacts of this impact are anticipated to be less than significant impact.
Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.11-4. Would the Project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (CEQA IXd) No hazardous waste facilities or contaminated sites are identified within the amendment area (EnviroStor and GeoTracker, 2019).
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
618
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 73
5.4.11-5. For a Project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? (CEQA IXe) The TCAP and project area is located within the City’s Airport Comprehensive Land Use Overlay district overflight notification area, which requires notification to residential land uses. Although the amendment area is not restricted by policies affecting the development of projects within Airport noise contours, safety zones, or airspace surfaces, the subject parcels are subject to ALUCP Policy OP-2 – Overflight Notification (ALUCP September 2019). While there is a requirement for residential notification based on the project’s location within the airport influence area, it is located outside of regulatory restricted area and therefore has a less than significant impact on public safety in the vicinity of a public-use airport or FAA safety regulations.
Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.11-6. Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (CEQA IXf) The City is responsible for emergency operations within the city limits, which includes the amendment and project area. The City’s Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan was approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and included as a local appendix to the El Dorado County Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan. This plan provides guidance for the development of pre-mitigation and post- mitigation recovery for disasters in all hazard classification. Title 1 of the City Code addresses plans for the protection of persons and property within the City in the event of an emergency and the coordination of the emergency functions of the City with all other public agencies, corporations, organizations, and affected private persons. The City’s Disaster Council is responsible for reviewing and recommending emergency operation plans for adoption by the City Council, and is also responsible for the review and potential amendments to the Emergency Management Plan. Moreover, the City’s adopted General Plan policies in the Health and Safety Element include: Policy HS-1.1 requires the City to periodically review and update the City’s Local Emergency Operations Plan; Policy HS-1.3 requires the City to maintain a reverse 911 system; and HS- 1.4 requires the City to identify pre-planned areas for disaster staging and evacuations (CSLT 2011b, page HS2).
Neither the amendment nor project would alter or revise the existing regulations or amend the City’s Local Emergency Operations Plan or Emergency Management Plan. The amendment and project would not impair the implementation of or physically interfere with the City Natural Hazard Management Plan or Emergency Management Plan and therefore results in no impact.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.11-7. Would the Project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? (CEQA IXg) The portion of the project area (former Colony Inn site) was previously developed but has since been restored. Development previously located within the SEZ has been removed and the site partially restored to pre-development conditions. Land coverage that was removed and restored has been banked. There are trees located within the project area, as the majority of the area is undeveloped, and the area is in close 619
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 74 proximity to a fire station. The amendment would not increase the risk of exposing people and structures to hazards involving wildland fires in wildland-urban interface areas. Because the amendment area is within a very high wildfire severity zone, planned development on the site will be consistent with and implement state (e.g., Title 24 California Code of Regulations, California Building Code, Part 2, Chapter 7A), regional, and local regulations designed to reduce the risk of wildfire. All new structures are required to comply with the California Fire Code, which establishes minimum standards for materials and material assemblies to provide a reasonable level of exterior wildfire exposure protection for buildings in wildland-urban interface areas. Chapter 5.05 of the City Code, which is currently applicable to the project area, contains fire regulations adopted to safeguard life and property from fire and explosion hazards. City General Plan policies require the use of fire resistant materials, installation and maintenance of defensible space, and meeting fire flow requirements in new or rehabilitated structures. Implementation of these policies, in conjunction with the existing California Fire Code and City Code requirements would reduce impacts associated with wildland fires to a less than significant level.
Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.11-8. Will the Project involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation in the event of an accident or upset conditions? (TRPA 10a)
Construction activities could involve the storage, use, and transport of hazardous materials. However, use of hazardous materials would be typical of urban development projects in the Tahoe Region and would occur in compliance with all local, state, and federal regulations. Further, the types of uses that would be permissible within the area (residential) are not of the nature that would involve storage, use, and transport of large quantities of hazardous substances that would increase the risk of incident. Therefore, the amendments would not result in a risk of explosion or the release of hazardous substances.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.11-9. Will the Project involve possible interference with an emergency evacuation plan? (TRPA 10b)
See discussion and analysis for Question 5.4.11-6 above that concludes that implementation of the proposed amendments will not impact existing emergency evacuation plans.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.11-10. Will the Project result in creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? (TRPA 17a)
See discussions and analyses for Questions 5.4.11-1 through 5.4.11-4 above.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
620
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 75
5.4.11-11. Will the Project result in exposure of people to potential health hazards? (TRPA 17b) See discussions and analyses for Questions 5.4.11-1 through 5.4.11-4 above.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
621
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 76
5.4.12 Hydrology and Water Quality
This section presents the analyses for potential impacts to hydrology and water quality. Table 5-12 identifies the applicable impacts, anticipated level of impact, and whether mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Table 5-12: Hydrology and Water Quality
CEQA Environmental
Checklist Item
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Measures
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
5.4.12-1. Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise
substantially degrade surface or
groundwater quality? (CEQA Xa)
X
5.4.12-2. Substantially decrease
groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater
recharge such that the project may
impede sustainable groundwater
management of the basin? (CEQA
Xb)
X
5.4.12-3. Substantially alter the
existing drainage pattern of the
site or area, including through the
alteration of the course of a stream
or river or through the addition of
impervious surfaces, in a manner
which would
i) Result in substantial erosion or
siltation on- or off-site;
ii) Substantially increase the rate
or amount of surface runoff in a
manner which would result in
flooding on- or off-site;
iii) Create or contribute runoff
water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff; or
iv) Impede or redirect flood
flows? (CEQA Xc)
X
5.4.12-4. In flood hazard, tsunami,
or seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project
inundation? (CEQA Xd)
X
622
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 77
5.4.12-5. Conflict with or obstruct
implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan?
(CEQA Xe)
X
TRPA Initial Environmental
Checklist Item Yes No, With Mitigation
Data
Insufficient No
5.4.12-6. Changes in currents, or
the course or direction of water
movements? (TRPA 3a)
X
5.4.12-7. Changes in absorption
rates, drainage patterns, or the rate
and amount of surface water
runoff so that a 20 yr. 1 hr. storm
runoff (approximately 1 inch per
hour) cannot be contained on the
site? (TRPA 3b)
X
5.4.12-8. Alterations to the course
or flow of 100-year flood waters?
(TRPA 3c)
X
5.4.12-9. Change in the amount of
surface water in any water body?
(TRPA 3d)
X
5.4.12-10. Discharge into surface
waters, or in any alteration of
surface water quality, including
but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
(TRPA 3e)
X
5.4.12-11. Alteration of the
direction or rate of flow of ground
water? (TRPA 3f)
X
5.4.12-12. Change in the quantity
of groundwater, either through
direct additions or withdrawals, or
through interception of an aquifer
by cuts or excavations? (TRPA
3g)
X
5.4.12-13. Substantial reduction in
the amount of water otherwise
available for public water
supplies? (TRPA 3h)
X
5.4.12-14. Exposure of people or
property to water related hazards
such as flooding and/or wave
action from 100-year storm
occurrence or seiches? (TRPA 3i)
X
5.4.12-15. The potential discharge
of contaminants to the X
623
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 78 groundwater or any alteration of
groundwater quality? (TRPA 3j)
5.4.12-16. Is the Project located
within 600 feet of a drinking water
source? (TRPA 3k)
X
5.4.12-1. Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality? (CEQA Xa) The proposed boundary amendment would not alter or revise the regulations pertaining to discharge into groundwater or surface waters and groundwater and surface water quality applicable to the amendment area. Chapter 60 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances (Water Quality) includes standards for discharge limits to surface and ground waters. Chapter 7.15 of the City Code regulates urban runoff and stormwater quality.
The amendment does not alter these requirements and no change in the application of these requirements and standards would occur. Since all existing state and local protections for surface water would remain in place and would not be altered by the amendment, and water quality BMPs (in accordance with Chapter 60 of the TRPA Code) would continue to be required for all development, the amendments would not result in adverse discharges to surface waters or alteration of surface water quality.
All development and infrastructure improvements within the amendment area would be required to meet the discharge standards of the Lahontan Regional Water Control Board. Projects that would create more than one acre of disturbance are required to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
The Project has been designed to meet the discharge standards of the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (collect and treat the 20 year, 1 hour storm event) and applicable stormwater discharge permits (Overall Site Grading Plan, sheet C 5.0). The Project does not propose facilities to withdraw groundwater, nor does it propose underground facilities that would intercept an aquifer. The Project includes stormwater treatment facilities that are designed to collect and infiltrate stormwater runoff from paved parking, buildings and other hardscape areas. The proposed stormwater treatment plan will be reviewed during the TRPA and the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board permitting process to ensure that collected runoff does not result in an adverse change to groundwater levels or groundwater quality.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.12-2. Would the Project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? (CEQA Xb)
The implementation of the amendment and project would not increase development density that would significantly deplete groundwater or interfere with recharge. Because TRPA Code of Ordinances Section
32.4 (Water Service) requires demonstration of adequate available water supply within an existing water right prior to permit approval, implementation of the amendment would not result in a substantial reduction in the amount of surface water or the water available for public water supplies.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
624
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 79 Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.12-3. Would the Project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would (CEQA Xc):
5.4.12-3.i) Result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? The proposed rezoning amendment and residential development project would not alter or revise the regulations pertaining to the course or direction of water movements. Project stormwater treatment plans are documented on project design sheet C 5.0 and treat the contributing drainage areas including building/roofs, roadways and parking lots. Treatment is proposed for storm water management throughout the project with infiltration trenches for collection of building runoff. Inlets are distributed throughout the site as a Best Management Practice (BMP) to collect stormwater runoff from paved driveway/parking lot areas. Stormwater is routed to the treatment vault in the western corner of the project area that is designed to capture a minimum of the 20-year, 1 hour storm runoff event.
Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.12-3.ii) Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site?
See discussions and analyses for Question 5.4.12-3.i.
Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.12-3.iii) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? See discussions and analyses for Question 5.4.12-3.i.
Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.12-3.iv) Impede or redirect flood flows?
The proposed amendment would not alter or revise the regulations pertaining to floodplains in Section 35.4 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances (Floodplains) or Chapter 6.65 of the City Code. The amendment area is not located within the FEMA-mapped flood hazard area (FIRM Map 06017C0380F dated April 3, 2012).
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
625
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 80
5.4.12-4. In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, would the project risk release of pollutants due to project inundation? (CEQA Xd)
The proposed boundary amendments would not alter or revise the regulations pertaining to water-related hazards. The project meets the requirements of Chapter 35 (Natural Hazard Standards) of the TRPA Code of Ordinances and Chapter 6.65 of the City Code related to floodwater management.
There are active faults in the Lake Tahoe Basin, which could be sources of ground shaking at locations within the amendment area boundaries during a seismic event. Seismic events could also result in tsunami or seiche within Lake Tahoe, potentially affecting low-lying areas. The amendment area is approximately one mile from the lake. The project’s structures are designed and will be constructed in accordance with the current design requirements of the California Building Code and International Building Code Seismic Zone D. Therefore, there would be no substantial increased risk of loss, injury or death or property damage from ground shaking. Based on studies by Ichinose et al. (2000), a potential exists for tsunami and seicherelated waves between 10 and 30 feet in height to occur along the shore of Lake Tahoe, potentially threatening low-lying lakeside communities; however, the amendment area exceeds this 10 to 30-foot elevation range. While experts have characterized the risk as far less than the risk of an approaching wildfire in the Tahoe Region, they have called for the risk of inundation to be factored into emergency plans for the region (Kaye 2011).
The zoning amendment would continue to implement the policies of the Regional Plan (TRPA 2012d) which provides for increased density of development in Town Centers and the Regional Center. The City has prepared and adopted a Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan which provides guidance to the City for the development of pre-mitigation and post-mitigation recovery for disasters in all hazard classifications.
Emergency procedures in the City are guided by South Lake Tahoe’s Emergency Management Plan (EMP) and the South Lake Tahoe Fire Department’s Fire Planning Process. The EMP provides a framework to guide the City’s efforts to mitigate and prepare for, respond to, and recover from major emergencies or disasters.
Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.12-5. Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? (CEQA Xe)
The proposed zoning amendment would not alter or revise the regulations pertaining to water quality control plans or sustainable groundwater management plans applicable to the amendment area. Chapter 60 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances (Water Quality) includes standards for discharge limits to surface and ground waters. Chapter 7.15 of the City Code regulates urban runoff and stormwater quality. The TRPA Lake Tahoe Water Quality Management Plan (208 Plan) and City of South Lake Tahoe Pollutant Load Reduction Plan would continue to apply to the area and the amendment propose no changes to this plan. The TCAP recognizes these plans and TRPA Water Quality Improvement Projects, none of which are altered by the amendments.
Project development meets the discharge standards of the Lahontan Regional Water Control Board. Projects that would create more than one acre of disturbance are required to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). The TCAP amendment does not alter these requirements and no change in the application of these requirements and standards would occur. 626
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 81 South Tahoe Public Utility District implements the Tahoe Valley South Basin Groundwater Management Plan, which includes the entire STPUD service area in which the amendment area is located. The boundary amendments do not propose to change groundwater management and do not propose new uses that would affect the groundwater management plan.
Since all existing state and local protections for surface water and groundwater would remain in place and would not be altered by the amendments, and water quality BMPs (in accordance with Chapter 60 of the TRPA Code) would continue to be required for all development (existing and proposed), the amendment and project would not result in adverse discharges to surface or groundwaters or alteration of surface or groundwater quality, and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of plans protecting surface water and groundwater resources.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.12-6. Will the Project result in changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (TRPA 3a)
The proposed amendment would not alter or revise the regulations pertaining to the course or direction of water movements. There are no surface waters in the amendment area. The project is subject to permitting and environmental review, and TRPA Code sections described above as well as all other federal, state, and local regulations pertaining to the course or direction of water movements.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.12-7. Will the Project result in changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff so that a 20 yr. 1 hr. storm runoff (approximately 1 inch per hour) cannot be contained on the site? (TRPA 3b)
See discussions and analyses for Question 5.4.12-3.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.12-8. Will the Project result in alterations to the course or flow of 100-year floodwaters? (TRPA 3c)
See discussions and analyses for Question 5.4.12-3.iv.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
627
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 82
5.4.12-9. Will the Project result in change in the amount of surface water in any water body? (TRPA 3d)
The proposed amendment would not alter or revise the regulations pertaining to surface water management.
Surface water and water rights in California are managed by the California State Water Resources Control Board. The development project is required to comply with Chapters 32 (Basic Services) and 60 (Water Quality) of the TRPA Code of Ordinances, which address the provision of basic services to projects and the protection of source water.
The potential impact of development within the Tahoe Region on the availability of public water supplies was analyzed in the RPU EIS (TRPA 2012a, page 3.13-11). Because the regional water demand at buildout would be less than the regional surface water allocation, and because TRPA Code of Ordinances Section
32.4 requires demonstration of adequate available water supply within an existing water right prior to permit approval, implementation of the amendments would not result in a substantial reduction in the amount of surface water or the water available for public water supplies.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.12-10. Will the Project result in discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? (TRPA 3e) See discussions and analyses for Question 5.4.12-1 above. There are no surface waters within the amendment/project area.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.12-11. Will the Project result in alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground water? (TRPA 3f)
See discussions and analyses for Questions 5.4.12-1 and 2 above.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.12-12. Will the Project result in change in the quantity of groundwater, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? (TRPA 3g) See discussions and analyses for Questions 5.4.12-1, 5.4.12-2 and 5.4.12-9 through 5.4.12-10 above.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
628
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 83
5.4.12-13. Will the Project result in substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? (TRPA 3h)
See discussion and analysis in Question 5.4.12-9 above and analyses in Questions 5.4.21-1 and 5.4.21-2 below which conclude that potential impact of development on the availability of public water supplies would not have an impact.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.12-14. Will the Project result in exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding and/or wave action from 100-year storm occurrence or seiches? (TRPA 3i) See discussions and analyses for Questions 5.4.12-3.iv, 5.4.12-4, and 5.4.12-8 above.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.12-15. Will the Project result in potential discharge of contaminants to the groundwater or any alteration of groundwater quality? (TRPA 3j)
See discussions and analyses for Questions 5.4.12-1 and 5.4.12-2 above.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.12-16. Is the Project located within 600 feet of a drinking water source? (TRPA 3k) The amendment area is not located within 600 feet of drinking water sources and is outside the mapped source water protection zones for existing wells near Ski Run Blvd. and US Hightway 50 (TRPA, 2000).
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
629
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 84
5.4.13 Land Use and Planning
This section presents the analyses for potential impacts to land use and planning. Table 5-13 identifies the applicable impacts, anticipated level of impact, and whether mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Table 5-13: Land Use and Planning
CEQA Environmental
Checklist Item
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Measures
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
5.4.13-1. Physically divide an
established community? (CEQA
XIa)
X
5.4.13-2. Cause a significant
environmental impact due to a
conflict with any land use plan,
policy, or regulation adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental
effect? (CEQA XIb)
X
TRPA Initial Environmental
Checklist Item Yes No, With Mitigation
Data
Insufficient No
5.4.13-3. Include uses which are
not listed as permissible uses in
the applicable Plan Area
Statement, adopted Community
Plan, or Master Plan? (TRPA 8a)
X
5.4.13-4. Expand or intensify an
existing non-conforming use?
(TRPA 8b)
X
5.4.13-1. Would the Project physically divide an established community? (CEQA XIa) The amendment modifies the zoning of one parcel (former APN 029-240-011) from Recreation to TSCMU and proposes policies that limit land uses to residential development (prohibiting commercial and tourist uses) and a maximum density of 4 units per acre on the subject parcels.
The area is surrounded by existing development and rezoning the recreation parcel to mixed-use would not physically divide the community. There are no plans to divide the area with roads, trenches, railroads, fences or other divisive features. The project proposes driveways that would connect the residential development to an established community, and said development is compliant with all TRPA and City policies and regulations.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
630
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 85
5.4.13-2. Would the Project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (CEQA XIb)
See discussion and analysis for 5.4.13-4 below.
5.4.13-3. Will the Project include uses which are not listed as permissible uses in the applicable Plan Area Statement, adopted Community Plan, or Master Plan? (TRPA 8a) See discussion and analysis for 5.4.13-4 below.
5.4.13-4. Will the Project expand or intensify an existing non-conforming use? (TRPA 8b) The proposed amendments would not alter or conflict with the policies in the TRPA Regional Plan or City General Plan, nor would they amend policies in the adopted TCAP.
However, the amendment would result in changes to the land use designation within the amendment area.
The City’s General Plan designates the project area as a “Tourist Center.” The Tourist Center land use designation is intended for the most intensive land uses, including major commercial/visitor centers and mixed-use residential. This General Plan land use designation is used for areas in the City that are currently developed as commercial/visitor centers, have excess land coverage, where vertical mixed-use projects are appropriate, and are near commercial, employment, transit, and public services. Therefore, the proposed rezoning amendment and development project are compatible with Land Use and Community Design Policies, LU-3.3, LU-3.6, and LU-4.3.
While the TCAP currently assigns a Recreation zone to the proposed amendment parcel, the parcel is also included in the TCAP Town Center Overlay and included in the Transfer of Development Rights Receiving Area. The TRPA Conceptual Regional Land Use Map (https://www.trpa.gov/wpcontent/uploads/documents/archive/2/FinalAdoptedRegionalPlanMaps_amended1-2-2018.pdf) identifies the amendment area as “Tourist” land use and within a “Town Center” district. Town centers are targeted for redevelopment in a manner that improves environmental conditions, creates a more sustainable and less auto-dependent development pattern and provides economic opportunities in the Region. The amendment is therefore consistent with aspects of both the TRPA Regional Plan and TCAP. Specifically, the rezoning amendment and development project are compatible with TRPA Land Use Policies LU-1.1 and LU-1.2 as well as Community Design Policy LU-2.1.
Recreation zoning does not allow for residential uses, while mixed-use zoning allows for residential, among a variety of other uses, increasing the potential density and development intensity of the amendment area.
Since the proposed policies included in the amendments will prohibit tourist and commercial uses otherwise available in the TSC-MU district and cap residential density at no more than 4 units per acre, the total number of multiple-family units within the combined parcel (APN 029-441-024) would actually be reduced compared to the number allowed under TSC-MU for the former Colony Inn parcel itself (from 62 to 15 potential multi-family residential units).
Although the list of uses changes, the changes in allowed land uses do not significantly alter the land use direction of the area or conflict with goals and implementation measures in the Regional Plan or General Plan for Town Centers. In fact, both the amendment and development project support transit-oriented development goals and policies of the TRPA Regional Plan, TCAP, and City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan. Amending the subject parcel to the TCAP TSC-MU supports the goal of delivering higher density housing in Town Centers and protection of mapped SEZ areas, which are proposed for conservation in the Project.
631
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 86 The amendment and project more accurately reflect adjacent land uses, support land use goals in relation to residential uses and the provision of housing and are consistent with and do not obstruct implementation of the Regional Plan and General Plan policies.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
632
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 87
5.4.14 Mineral Resources (CEQA) and Natural Resources (TRPA) This section presents the analyses for potential impacts to mineral resources and natural resources. Table 5-14 identifies the applicable impacts, anticipated level of impact, and whether mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Table 5-14: Mineral Resources and Natural Resources
CEQA Environmental
Checklist Item
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Measures
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
5.4.14-1. Result in the loss of
availability of a known mineral
resource that would be of value to
the region and the residents of the
state? (CEQA XIIa)
X
5.4.14-2. Result in the loss of
availability of a locally-important
mineral resource recovery site
delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use
plan? (CEQA XIIb)
X
TRPA Initial Environmental
Checklist Item Yes No, With Mitigation
Data
Insufficient No
5.4.14-3. A substantial increase in
the rate of use of any natural
resources? (TRPA 9a)
X
5.4.14-4. Substantial depletion of
any non-renewable natural
resource? (TRPA 9b)
X
5.4.14-1. Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (CEQA XIIa)
5.4.14-2. Would the Project result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (CEQA XIIb) There are no mapped mineral resources within the TCAP, nor does any specific plan or other applicable plan identify any sites within the amendment area as an important mineral recovery site.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
633
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 88
5.4.14-3. Will the Project result in a substantial increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? (TRPA 9a)
5.4.14-4. Will the Project result in a substantial depletion of any non-renewable natural resource? (TRPA 9b)
The use of natural resources, such as construction wood or metals, or gasoline will occur incrementally with project development. The use of natural resources, such as construction materials (e.g., concrete, wood or metals) and fuel (e.g., diesel, natural gas and gasoline) would occur during project construction and to some extent, long-term operation of the Project (fuel and public utilities). The RPU EIS (TRPA 2012a, page 5-3) acknowledged the potential increase in the use of natural resources resulting from development within the Tahoe Region. The Project is consistent with development density and goals for the project area.
Therefore, the use of natural resources is consistent with assumptions used in the RPU EIS and would not be in quantities that would result in a significant effect.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
634
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 89
5.4.15 Noise
This section presents the analyses for potential impacts related to noise. Table 5-15 identifies the applicable impacts, anticipated level of impact, and whether mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Table 5-15: Noise
CEQA Environmental Checklist
Item
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Measures
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
5.4.15-1. Generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the
Project in excess of standards established
in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or other applicable local,
state, or federal standards? (CEQA
XIIIa)
X
5.4.15-2. Generation of excessive
groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels? (CEQA XIIIb)
X
5.4.15-3. For a Project located within the
vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport
land use plan or, where such a plan has
not been adopted, within two miles of a
public airport or public use airport,
would the Project expose people residing
or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels? (CEQA XIIIc)
X
TRPA Initial Environmental
Checklist Item Yes No, With Mitigation
Data
Insufficient No
5.4.15-4. Increases in existing
Community Noise Equivalency Levels
(CNEL) beyond those permitted in the
applicable Plan Area Statement,
Community Plan or Master Plan? (TRPA
6a)
X
5.4.15-5. Exposure of people to severe
noise levels? (TRPA 6b) X
5.4.15-6. Single event noise levels
greater than those set forth in the TRPA
Noise Environmental Threshold? (TRPA
6c)
X
5.4.15-7. The placement of residential or
tourist accommodation uses in areas
where the existing CNEL exceeds 60
X
635
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 90 dBA or is otherwise incompatible?
(TRPA 6d)
5.4.15-8. The placement of uses that
would generate an incompatible noise
level in close proximity to existing
residential or tourist accommodation
uses? (TRPA 6e)
X
5.4.15-9. Exposure of existing structures
to levels of ground vibration that could
result in structural damage? (TRPA 6f)
X
5.4.15-1. Would the Project generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the Project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or other applicable local, state, or federal standards? (CEQA XIIIa) The proposed zoning amendment does not alter the CNEL standards set forth in the TCAP for the overall TSC-MUD district. The noise standard in Recreation land use is 55 CNEL as compared to 60 CNEL in the TCAP TSC-MU. However, because the proposed amendment would exclude commercial and tourist uses on the combined parcel and cap multi-family residential density at no more than 4 units/acre, anticipated noise levels would be less than allowed for the TSC-MU district.
Noise/Land Use Compatibility
Policy LU7-2 of the TCAP requires an acoustical analysis as part of the environmental review process when noise-sensitive land uses are proposed in areas exposed to existing or project exterior noise levels exceeding the levels shown in Table HS-1 and HS-2 of the City General Plan, so noise mitigation may be included in the project design. The City and/or TRPA would only approve projects that can demonstrate compliance with the applicable noise standards. The Project site is not located adjacent to land uses with high ambient noise levels. However, the US Highway 50 South Shore Community Revitalization Project plans to relocate US Highway 50 to a new alignment located adjacent to the project area. Existing Ordinance and General Plan policies will guide the development of the new highway corridor as described below. As such, proposed land uses would be compatible with the future US Highway 50 transportation corridor.
Traffic-Related Noise
Code of Ordinances Section 68.8.3 requires all substantial transportation projects in transportation corridors that are not in attainment of adopted CNEL standards incorporate mitigating design features to achieve adopted standards. As documented in Appendix A, the project will result in a small increase in vehicle travel (up to 80 daily vehicle trips) and traffic volumes on roadways; however, the potential increase in traffic would not result in a noticeable increase in traffic noise, particularly given the size of the amendment area and the presence of existing transit services, which would reduce individual vehicle trips associated with new development. A noticeable increase in traffic noise (e.g., 3 dB) requires a doubling of traffic in the measurement area and the potential increase in vehicle trips would be a very small percentage of the existing baseline; therefore, no noticeable increase in traffic-related noise would occur as a result of the amendment.
To ensure that the generation of noise levels in excess of standards established for the TCAP is not exceeded, the TCAP incorporates a noise policy which is designed toward reducing traffic-related noise.
Policy LU7-1 requires the mitigation of new transportation noise sources to the levels shown in Table HS636
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 91 2 of the City General Plan (CSLT 2011b, page HS-10) at all outdoor activity areas and interior spaces of existing noise-sensitive land uses. Further, the City and/or TRPA would continue to evaluate individual projects within the TCAP amendment area at a project level and would enforce CNEL standards on a project-by-project basis pursuant to the noise limitations in Chapter 68 (Noise Limitations) of the TRPA Code of Ordinances.
Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.15-2. Would the Project generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (CEQA XIIIb)
The amendment would not alter existing noise policies and do propose new development. Construction activities associated with projects could potentially expose noise-sensitive receptors to levels that exceed TRPA noise standards and/or expose noise-sensitive receptors to excessive noise levels. Construction activities would include site preparation (e.g., demolition, clearing, excavation, grading), foundation work, paving, building construction, utility connections, finishing, and cleanup. These activities typically involve the use of noise-generating equipment such as cranes, excavators, dozers, graders, dump trucks, generators, backhoes, compactors, and loaders. Noise levels associated with these types of equipment are typically between 70 and 85 dBA Lmax at 50 feet.
The TRPA Standard Conditions of Approval for Grading Projects (TRPA Permit Attachment Q) and Standard Conditions of Approval for Residential Projects (TRPA Permit Attachment R) include construction provisions that call for the location of construction staging areas as far as feasible from sensitive air pollution receptors (e.g. schools or hospitals), closure of engine doors during operation except for engine maintenance, location of stationary equipment (e.g. generators or pumps) as far as feasible from noise-sensitive receptors and residential areas, installation of temporary sound barriers for stationary equipment, and use of sonic pile driving instead of impact pile driving, wherever feasible. As required by TRPA Code Chapter 3, any project with potentially significant impacts would require mitigation.
The TCAP incorporates the City’s General Plan noise policies and provides expanded protection from groundborne vibration and groundborne noise levels. Policy LU7-3 requires an analysis of a vibration impact be conducted for all construction activities that include impact equipment and activities such as pile driving, soil compaction, or vibratory hammers that occur within 200 feet of existing structures. These policies ensure that construction operations are designed to avoid or mitigate for vibrations above 0.02 inches/second (0.5 mm/second). At present, construction plans do not call for the use of these types of vibration emitting equipment.
With implementation of policies and regulations already applicable to the project area, the amendment and development project would not result in significant groundborne vibration or noise levels.
Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
637
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 92
5.4.15-3. For a Project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (CEQA XIIIc)
The TCAP and amendment area are located within the City’s Airport Comprehensive Land Use Overlay district overflight notification area, which requires notification to residential land uses. Although the amendment area is not restricted by policies affecting the development of projects within Airport noise contours, safety zones, or airspace surfaces, the subject parcels are subject to ALUCP Policy OP-2 – Overflight Notification (ALUCP September 2019). While there is a requirement for residential notification based on the project’s location within the airport influence area, it is located outside of regulatory restricted area and therefore would not expose people to excessive noise levels.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.15-4. Would the Project result in increases in existing Community Noise Equivalency Levels (CNEL) beyond those permitted in the applicable Plan Area Statement, Community Plan or Master Plan? (TRPA 6a)
See the response to Question 5.4.15-1, above. While the maximum allowable CNEL for the amendment area would increase with the proposed zoning amendment, neither the amendment nor subsequent development project proposes new land uses that would increase noise levels that are inconsistent with plan guidance.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.15-5. Would the Project result in exposure of people to severe noise levels? (TRPA 6b) See the response to Questions 5.4.15-1 and 5.4.15-2, above. No land use changes allowed by the amendment would expose persons to severe noise above existing conditions.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.15-6. Will the Project result in single event noise levels greater than those set forth in the TRPA Noise Environmental Threshold? (TRPA 6c)
Single-event noise standards are set forth in Section 68.3.1 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances for aircraft, water craft, motor vehicles, motorcycles, off-road vehicles, and over-snow vehicles. The project’s limitation to residential use would not create single event noise levels in excess of TRPA standards. The zoning amendment proposes changes in land use, but only a small increase in allowable CNEL (an increase of 5) and no significant noise increase is expected.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
638
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 93
5.4.15-7. Will the Project result in the placement of residential or tourist accommodation uses in areas where the existing CNEL exceeds 60 dBA or is otherwise incompatible? (TRPA 6d) The TCAP amendments and Project propose residential buildings on the combined parcel that was once home to the Colony Inn and includes the adjacent recreational zoned parcel. While adjacent land uses include a public service yard (electrical substation) and commercial retail center, the existing CNEL levels do not exceed 60 dBA. TRPA noise monitoring efforts completed for the most recent threshold evaluation (TRPA, 2019) document average noise levels across monitored hotel/motel and commercial areas are well within the 60 dBA threshold standard (https://thresholds.laketahoeinfo.org/ThresholdIndicator/Detail/34).
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.15-8. Will the Project result in the placement of uses that would generate an incompatible noise level in close proximity to existing residential or tourist accommodation uses? (TRPA 6e) The zoning amendment rezones one parcel from Recreation to TSC-MU. Land uses allowed in the TCAP TSC-MU would be applied to the amendment area, but proposed policies will prohibit tourist and commercial uses within the amendment area. The project in the amendment area will be compliant with TRPA and City noise standards. Since it is currently adjacent to a mixed-use area, continuation of the uses and types of allowed uses through the TCAP amendment would not result in incompatible uses.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.15-9. Will the Project expose existing structures to levels of ground vibration that could result in structural damage? (TRPA 6f)
See the response to Question 5.4.15-2, above.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
639
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 94
5.4.16 Population and Housing
This section presents the analyses for potential impacts to population and housing. Table 5-16 identifies the applicable impacts, anticipated level of impact, and whether mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Table 5-16: Population and Housing
CEQA Environmental
Checklist Item
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Measures
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
5.4.16-1. Induce substantial
unplanned population growth in
an area, either directly (for
example, by proposing new homes
and businesses) or indirectly (for
example, through extension of
roads or other infrastructure)?
(CEQA XIVa)
X
5.4.16-2. Displace substantial
numbers of existing people or
housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement
housing elsewhere? (CEQA
XIVb)
X
TRPA Initial Environmental
Checklist Item Yes No, With Mitigation
Data
Insufficient No
5.4.16-3. Alter the location,
distribution, density, or growth
rate of the human population
planned for the Region? (TRPA
11a)
X
5.4.16-4. Include or result in the
temporary or permanent
displacement of residents? (TRPA
11b)
X
TRPA Initial Environmental
Checklist Item Yes No, With Mitigation
Data
Insufficient No
5.4.16-5. Affect existing housing,
or create a demand for additional
housing?
Will the proposal decrease the
amount of housing in the Tahoe
Region? (TRPA 12a-1)
X
5.4.16-6. Will the proposal
decrease the amount of housing in
the Tahoe Region historically or
currently being rented at rates
X
640
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 95 affordable by lower and very-lowincome households? (TRPA 12a2)
5.4.16-1. Would the Project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? (CEQA XIVa)
5.4.16-2. Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (CEQA XIVb)
5.4.16-3. Will the Project alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population planned for the Region? (TRPA 11a)
5.4.16-4. Will the Project include or result in the temporary or permanent displacement of residents? (TRPA 11b)
5.4.16-5. Will the Project affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? Will the proposal decrease the amount of housing in the Tahoe Region? (TRPA 12a-1)
5.4.16-6. Will the Project affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? Will the proposal decrease the amount of housing in the Tahoe Region historically or currently being rented at rates affordable by lower and very-low-income households? (TRPA 12a-2) The proposed TCAP amendments and subsequent residential development project are intended to facilitate construction of multi-family residential units on the combined parcel that once included the former Colony Inn. No existing housing will be removed for the Project. Project construction would increase future population in the TCAP area; however, this growth is consistent with the Regional Plan, TCAP, and City General Plan. While currently zoned as Recreation, the amendment area is identified by TRPA Regional Plan land uses maps as Tourist within a Town Center District and is within an area marked for Transfer of Development Rights Receiving Area for existing development and multi-residential units. The purpose of the receiving District (TCAP TSC-MU) is to provide a mix of uses, including residential uses within a transit-oriented area. However, the amendment would maintain the permissible use of employee housing that Recreation zoning allows and limit residential density of no more than 4 units/acre. This is substantially less than the 25 units/acre allowed for TSC-MU parcels. While the project proposes construction of new multi-family residential units, the anticipated population growth associated with the planned density is consistent with TCAP goals and policies. Therefore, there is no impact.
Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact/No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
641
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 96
5.4.17 Public Services
This section presents the analyses for potential impacts to public services. Table 5-17 identifies the applicable impacts, anticipated level of impact, and whether mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Table 5-17: Public Services
CEQA Environmental
Checklist Item
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Measures
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
5.4.17-1. Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection? X
Police protection? X
Schools? X
Parks? X
Other public facilities? (CEQA
XVa) X
TRPA Initial Environmental
Checklist Item Yes No, With Mitigation
Data
Insufficient No
Will the proposal have an unplanned effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas?
5.4.17-2. Fire protection? (TRPA
14a) X
5.4.17-3. Police protection?
(TRPA 14b) X
5.4.17-4. Schools? (TRPA 14c) X
5.4.17-5. Parks or other
recreational facilities? (TRPA
14d)
X
5.4.17-6. Maintenance of public
facilities, including roads? (TRPA
14e)
X
5.4.17-7. Other governmental
services? (TRPA 14f) X
642
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 97
5.4.17-1. Would the Project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? (CEQA XVa)
See discussion and analysis for Questions 5.4.17-4 and 5.4.17-5 below.
5.4.17-2. Will the Project have an unplanned effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services: fire protection? (TRPA 14a)
See discussion and analysis for Question 5.4.17-4 below.
5.4.17-3. Will the Project have an unplanned effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services: police protection? (TRPA 14b)
See discussion and analysis for Question 5.4.17-4 below.
5.4.17-4. Will the Project have an unplanned effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services: schools? (TRPA 14c)
The proposed amendment and project would facilitate multi-family residential development within the amendment area. These changes would result in localized population increases that create an additional demand for police, fire protection, emergency services and to a lesser degree, schools. However the existing TCAP TSC-MU District on the former Colony Inn site would allow this same level of residential development without the proposed amendment, so the amendment does not create an increased change to the number of overall residential units or population increases that the TCAP currently allows.
With respect to police protection services, the South Lake Tahoe Police Department provides law enforcement services within the area. The California Highway Patrol (CHP) Valley Division, which includes the greater Sacramento area and the Sierra Nevada foothills to the west, is responsible for all traffic related incidents and assists the Police Department when necessary. The CHP area office is located at 2063 Hopi Avenue in Meyers. The Valley Division oversees four major highways and miles of county roads in the Region including US 50 and SR 89. Jail facilities are managed by the El Dorado County Sheriff’s Department and are located at 1051 Al Tahoe Boulevard. The jail is a Type II facility and may house both pre-sentenced and post-sentenced male and female defendants. The jail has a capacity of 158 beds.
South Lake Tahoe Fire Rescue (SLTFR) is a municipal fire department that is primarily organized, equipped, and trained to perform fire suppression duties in structural firefighting, initial attack wildland firefighting, vehicular fires, traffic collisions and any other call for service. Additionally, SLTFR provides Advanced Life Support (ALS) paramedic level medical care and responds to all medical aid calls within the city as well as outside of the city when requested through mutual aid. ALS transport is not handled by the fire department--it is run by Cal Tahoe Ambulance through the Cal Tahoe Joint Powers Authority which operates out of private facilities in the City. The department currently operates three staffed fire stations including Fire Station One (the nearest station is at Ski Run Blvd and Pioneer Trail), Fire Station Two (2951 Lake Tahoe Blvd), and Fire Station Three (2101 Lake Tahoe Blvd). The Fire Department currently serves the amendment area, and the amendment would not affect current service or demand. The amendment would increase the area that permits residential development, but would not substantially increase the total number of residential units given the proposed policies that would limit density to no more than 4 units per acre on the combined parcel. In addition, the project would be required to ensure adequate fire protection 643
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 98 services per the City’s General Plan and permitting process. General Plan policies also require the installation of fire-resistant materials, and incorporation of fire safe landscaping and defensible space in all remodeled or new construction. Furthermore, new construction will follow current California Fire Code to prevent or minimize fires. The proposed amendment would allow structures of up to 56 feet (four stories) on the parcel currently zoned Recreation, as is currently allowed in the TCAP TSC-MU. Though the amendment would allow an additional story, the Project is proposing three-story multi-family structures, and therefore the amendments do not create impacts to public services that were not accounted for in the original TCAP analysis.
The Lake Tahoe Unified School District (LTUSD) serves a 10.1 square mile area that includes the TCAP area as well as the entire City of South Lake Tahoe. LTUSD operates eight schools but has had to close schools in the recent past due to declining enrollment. Given the current facilities and stagnant enrollment, LTUSD is not experiencing any capacity issues and does not expect any such issue to occur in the future.
With the limited growth allowed by the TRPA Regional Plan that results in a projected growth rate of 10.8% for the next twenty years or 0.58% a year (TRPA 2012a, page 3.12-12) the implementation of the zoning amendment is not expected to exceed the existing capacity or result in a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities. The amendment slightly increases the land area where multiple family residential units would be permitted, but given the small area of the amendment and the policies that limits density to no more than 4 units per acre, population increases would not adversely affect school enrollment. Estimated population of the maximum multi-family residential development permissible under the proposed amendments (15 units) would be approximately 37 to 45 residents (2.5 to 3 persons/units). Therefore, impacts associated with implementation of the TCAP amendment would be less than significant.
Within the TCAP, public facilities include Fire Station #1, the transit center, and Explore Tahoe Visitor Center at Heavenly Village, none of which are in the proposed amendment area. Implementation of the amendment is not expected to result in increased demand for community facilities and services or a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities as the amendment would not substantially create new population. Development would allow increased density of development for four multiple family units resulting in slightly additional people in the TCAP area. However, this is not expected to result in changes in demand to community services and facilities that would be significant or result in substantial effects to the physical environment.
Given current public service staffing levels, the proximity of services, implementation of City policies to minimize fire risk and reduce demand, declining school enrollment, and since the amendment area is already served by these services, it is not anticipated that implementation of the amendment and development project would create a need to construct new facilities that, in turn, could require new or improved facilities, the construction of which could result in adverse effects to the environment.
No other public facilities are within the proposed development area. Implementation of the project is not expected to result in increased demand for community facilities and services or a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities as the amendment would not substantially create new populations.
See discussion and analysis in Question 5.4.17-5, below, for parks and recreation impacts.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
644
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 99
5.4.17-5. Will the Project have an unplanned effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services: parks or other recreational facilities? (TRPA 14d) The proposed amendments would rezone an existing portion of the combined parcel (former APN 029-240- 011) from Recreation to mixed-use, the zoning associated with the remainder of the newly combined parcel (former APN 029-441-004). The two parcels, now combined (APN 029-441-024), are privately-owned by the same owner. The associated Project proposal would construct multi-family residential units on the rezoned portion of the parcel. The residential development would effectively eliminate the parcels use for recreational land uses. However, at present, there are no recreational facilities in planning stages for the parcel.
Adjacent State-owned land located to the east, where the South Tahoe Greenway shared-use trail is proposed for future development, would still be available to serve recreational purpose should multi-family residential units be constructed on the re-zoned portion of the parcel. Access to the future South Tahoe Greenway for nearby residents and visitors to the South Tahoe tourist core would be provided by way of the Van Sickle Bi-State Park entrance located 200 feet north of the amendment area and not through the privately-owned APN 029-441-024. However, the California Tahoe Conservancy is concerned that residents of the proposed residential development may create informal user trails between the privatelyowned parcel and the state owned lands to access the future Greenway trail and the Park. The League to Save Lake Tahoe is concerned that residents may create informal trails within the SEZ portions of the combined parcel restored following the removal of the former Colony Inn hotel. Such actions could disturb vegetation, create erosion, and increase trash on public lands and within the privately-owned SEZ boundary.
The Conservancy is also concerned that residents could store personal belongings on the state owned land located directly behind and to the southeast of the proposed residential homes. To mitigate the potential impacts to public lands and the privately-owned SEZ, the proposed multi-family residential project (Phase 2) shall include a condition to construct fencing (6 foot tall rod iron design) along a portion of the perimeter of APN 029-441-024 and internally along the SEZ boundary to encircle the 10 multi-family residential structures. The new fencing will also connect to the existing fencing that encircles the adjacent electrical substation to the south. Inclusion of the proposed fencing will reduce the potential for significant impacts to adjacent Parks, public recreational lands and the restored privately-owned SEZ from misuse by future residents.
The amendments and subsequent project will generate recreation demand by increasing the number of residents in the project area, however, this increase is consistent with the development levels allowable under the current Regional Plan, TCAP and City General Plan. The amendments would not increase demand beyond what was previously analyzed in the TCAP because it decreases the maximum development potential by limiting future land use and density of the combined parcels. The potential localized increase of up to 45 residents (maximum of 15 total multi-family units at up to 3 persons/unit), or visitors if the homes are used as short-term rentals, would not cause a significant impact because the same number of residential units could be constructed today under existing zoning. If built out as smaller attached residential units, the former Colony Inn parcel could accommodate more than 15 units by itself. Therefore, the proposed amendments do not increase the number of residents or visitors that a subsequent project application would permit on the site.
Existing recreation opportunities are numerous and can meet the potential increase in resident or visitor population from the proposed multi-family residential project within and in the vicinity of the TCAP (i.e.
Timber Cove Marina, Connolley Beach, Ski Run Marina and Beach, Lakeside Marina, Heavenly Resort California Base, Heavenly Gondola, Van Sickle Bi-State Park, Bijou Golf Course [and public beach], the Nevada Stateline to Stateline Bikeway at Rabe Meadow, Nevada Beach, Round Hill Pines Beach and other bike paths, hiking and mountain bicycle trails, and other public parks). Many recreational facilities and bike routes are less than one mile from the area to be amended, and Van Sickle Bi-State Park is immediately 645
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 100 adjacent. The existing TCAP includes policies and implementing strategies to enhance public recreation facilities, as does the City’s General Plan. Because of the wide range of public recreation opportunities within and outside the boundary, visitor usage is spread out, avoiding demand that causes substantial deterioration of any one facility. In addition, the proposed TCAP amendment policies would reduce the number of potential multi-family housing units that could be constructed on the combined parcel compared to existing conditions. Therefore, the potential for increased use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities as a result of implementing the project is not expected to result in or accelerate a substantial physical deterioration of recreation facilities.
The zoning amendment and Project do not propose changes to existing recreation facilities or to the policies and implementation measures in the existing TCAP.
Environmental Analysis: No with Mitigation
Required Mitigation: PS-1 - Fencing: At the time of proposed Phase 2 multi-family residential building construction, fencing (6 foot tall rod iron design) shall be erected along a portion of the perimeter of APN 029-441-024 (that is adjacent to the Conservancy parcel) and the internal SEZ boundary to encircle the proposed multi-family residential structures (see Figure 2-2 for approximate location).
5.4.17-6. Will the Project have an unplanned effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in maintenance of public facilities, including roads? (TRPA 14e) The zoning amendment would not alter or revise policies and practices pertaining to public facility and roadway maintenance. The City’s existing policies in the Public/Quasi-Public Facilities and Services Element regarding public facility and road maintenance remain in effect (Goal PQP-1.1, Policy PQP-1.5, and Policy PQP-1.8).
The subsequent project plan for 10 multi-family residential homes includes one paved driveway for vehicle access, but does not result in a need for new or altered public roads or pedestrian facilities. The project area driveway will connect each approved multi-family residential home to Montreal Road. Residents can access nearby commercial and recreational land uses by way of existing pedestrian facilities located along Montreal Road and other nearby roadways. Driveway design meets the City and TRPA development and design codes.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.17-7. Will the Project have an unplanned effect upon, or result in a need for other new or altered governmental services? (TRPA 14f)
There are no other known governmental services that would be directly affected by the amendment or the project.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
646
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 101
5.4.18 Recreation
This section presents the analyses for potential impacts to recreation. Table 5-18 identifies the applicable impacts, anticipated level of impact, and whether mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Table 5-18: Recreation
CEQA Environmental
Checklist Item
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Measures
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
5.4.18-1. Increase the use of
existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration
of the facility would occur or be
accelerated? (CEQA XVIa)
X
5.4.18-2. Include recreational
facilities or require the
construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on
the environment? (CEQA XVIa)
X
TRPA Initial Environmental
Checklist Item Yes No, With Mitigation
Data
Insufficient No
5.4.18-3. Create additional
demand for recreation facilities?
(TRPA 19a)
X
5.4.18-4. Create additional
recreation capacity? TRPA 19b) X
5.4.18-5. Have the potential to
create conflicts between recreation
uses, either existing or proposed?
(TRPA 19c)
X X
5.4.18-6. Result in a decrease or
loss of public access to any lake,
waterway, or public lands? (TRPA
19d)
X
647
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 102
5.4.18-1. Would the Project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (CEQA XVIa)
5.4.18-2. Would the Project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (CEQA XVIb)
5.4.18-3. Will the Project create additional demand for recreation facilities? (TRPA 19a) See discussion and analysis in question 5.4.17-5 above.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.18-4. Will the Project create additional recreation capacity? (TRPA 19b) The proposed amendment and multi-family residential project do not create additional recreation capacity.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.18-5. Will the Project have the potential to create conflicts between recreation uses, either existing or proposed? (TRPA 19c)
The residential development project does not physically impact existing or planned recreational facilities.
The entrance to the Van Sickle Park is located nearby, approximately 200 (from property line) to 500 feet (from driveway) north of the proposed TCAP amendment area and multi-family residential development.
In November 2020, a previous application for amendment of the TCAP included a request to rezone a second privately-owned Recreation parcel (APN 029-441-003) located north of the Former Colony Inn parcel and the Recreation parcel included in this analysis. However, based on comments received from the League to Save Lake Tahoe (League) and the California Tahoe Conservancy (CTC)/Nevada Division of State Parks (NV State Parks) regarding the level of development proposed for the Recreation parcels (high density residential and tourist uses), pedestrian and vehicle safety, and potential Park management issues from increased use by adjacent residents/visitors, the project applicant revised the proposed TCAP amendment application. The revised application eliminates the Recreation parcel (APN 029-441-003) located north of the Former Colony Inn parcel that includes an easement for the Van Sickle Park entrance and now only includes the single privately-owned Recreation parcel (former APN 029-240-011) located east of the former Colony Inn parcel. The TCAP amendment application was also revised to add policies that would limit future development on the combined parcel (former Recreation parcel and former Colony Inn parcel) to multi-family residential development (specifically it excludes commercial and tourist uses) and at a density of no more than 4 units per acre. These changes to the proposed TCAP amendment largely address the concerns raised by the League and CTC/NV State Parks and eliminate the potential for direct impacts to the Park entrance roadway and intersection on Montreal Road. However, the California Tahoe Conservancy is concerned that residents of the proposed residential development may create informal user trails between the privately-owned multi-family residential parcel and the state owned lands to access the future Greenway trail and the Park. The League to Save Lake Tahoe is concerned that residents may create informal trails within the SEZ portions of the combined parcel restored following the removal of the former Colony Inn hotel. Such actions could disturb vegetation, create erosion, and increase trash on public lands 648
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 103 and within the privately-owned SEZ boundary. The Conservancy is also concerned that residents could store personal belongings on the state owned land located directly behind and to the southeast of the proposed residential homes. To mitigate the potential impacts to Parks and other public recreational lands, the proposed multi-family residential project (Phase 2) shall implement mitigation measure PS-1 (see discussion and analysis in question 5.4.17-5 above). Inclusion of the proposed fencing will reduce the potential for significant impacts to adjacent Parks and public recreational lands from misuse by future residents.
While the amendment would change the land use of the amendment area from recreation to tourist center mixed-use (residential), no recreational facilities or uses currently exist within the amendment area or combined parcel proposed for multi-family residential development. Nor does the combined parcel provide public access to publicly-owned lands located east of the amendment area, where the future South Tahoe Greenway shared-use trail is proposed.
As such, development of multi-family residential on the combined parcel would not impact existing access to existing or planned recreational uses.
Goal R-5 of the Regional Plan specifically addresses incompatibility of recreational uses and the associated system for regulating PAOTs (Section 50.9 of the TRPA Code), which would preclude any conflicts between existing or proposed recreational uses (TRPA 2012d, pages 5-7 and 5-8). Additionally, the potential for expanded land uses to create conflicts between existing land uses was analyzed in Impact 3.11- 2 of the RPU EIS (TRPA 2012a, page 3.11-21) and was found to be less than significant due to the existing protections in the goals and policies of the Regional Plan.
Environmental Analysis: No with Mitigation.
Required Mitigation: PS-1 - Fencing.
5.4.18-6. Will the Project result in a decrease or loss of public access to any lake, waterway, or public lands? (TRPA 19d)
Direct public access to Lake Tahoe and public lands is not located within the privately-owned amendment area. Public access to Van Sickle Bi-State Park and other state owned lands contiguous with the Park property and amendment parcel (including the Conservancy owned land proposed for the future South Tahoe Greenway) is located approximately 200-300 feet north of the amendment area on Montreal Road via the Van Sickle Park entrance roadway and informal dirt trail. Residents of the proposed multi-family residential development could access the Park and future Greenway trail by walking out to Montreal Road by way of the proposed driveway, then along Montreal Road on existing pedestrian facilities to the Park entrance. From there an existing dirt trail provides access to the Park facilities and the future Greenway trail connection. The Conservancy is concerned that the limited vehicle parking within the Park would be utilized by private users from the proposed multi-family residential project within the amendment area, thereby decreasing access to the Park by the public. This concern is unlikely to occur as the parking lot is located 0.6 mile away from the proposed entrance to the multi-family residential development. Further, each detached residential unit would include a two car garage plus two parking spaces within the driveway.
Four parking spaces per residential units exceeds the number of spaces required by the City. Therefore, the amendments and subsequent multi-family residential development would not decrease public access to public lands.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
649
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 104
5.4.19 Transportation (CEQA) and Traffic and Circulation (TRPA) This section presents the analyses for potential impacts to transportation, traffic and circulation. Table 5-19 identifies the applicable impacts, anticipated level of impact, and whether mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. A technical memorandum regarding transportation impacts of the proposed boundary amendment is attached (Appendix A).
Table 5-19: Transportation, Traffic and Circulation
CEQA Environmental
Checklist Item
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Measures
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
5.4.19-1. Conflict with a program,
plan, ordinance or policy
addressing the circulation system,
including transit, roadway,
bicycle, and pedestrian facilities?
(CEQA XVIIa)
X
5.4.19-2. Conflict with or be
inconsistent with CEQA
Guidelines section 15064.3,
subdivision (b)? (CEQA XVIIb)
X
5.4.19-3. Substantially increase
hazards due to a design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g., farm equipment)? (CEQA
XVIIc)
X
5.4.19-4. Result in inadequate
emergency access? (CEQA
XVIId)
X
TRPA Initial Environmental
Checklist Item Yes, No, With Mitigation
Data
Insufficient No
5.4.19-5. Generation of 650 or
more new average daily vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) (TRPA
13a)?
X
5.4.19-6. Changes to existing
parking facilities, or demand for
new parking? (TRPA 13b)
X
5.4.19-7. Substantial impact upon
existing transportation systems,
including highway, transit, bicycle
or pedestrian facilities? (TRPA
13c)
X
5.4.19-8. Alterations to present
patterns of circulation or
movement of people and/or
goods? (TRPA 13d)
X
650
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 105
5.4.19-9. Alterations to
waterborne, rail or air traffic?
(TRPA 13e)
X
5.4.19-10. Increase in traffic
hazards to motor vehicles,
bicyclists, or pedestrians? (TRPA
13f)
X
5.4.19-1. Would the Project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities? (CEQA XVIIa) The TCAP, City General Plan, City Code, TRPA Linking Tahoe Regional Transportation Plan, TRPA Regional Plan, and TRPA Code of Ordinances contain transportation goals, policies, implementation measures, and mitigation requirements applicable to the amendment area. Performance levels are established through level of service (LOS) criteria, which is set at LOS C for rural recreation roads, and D on rural and urban developed roads and signalized intersections, and may be LOS E during peak hours in urban hours of less than four hours per day (TRPA Regional Plan Transportation Element Policy 4.6).
Likewise, the standard in General Plan Policy TC-1.2 and TCAP Policy T-1.2 is LOS D on all streets and intersections, with up to 4 hours of LOS E acceptable during peak periods. Other policies seek to increase multi-modal and non-motorized travel, although there is no performance threshold for these policies.
The amendment does not propose to alter or revise, and would not conflict with, an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing the measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system.
Existing plans, ordinances, and policies would continue to be applicable and implemented in the project area. The amendment would not increase vehicle trips so as to conflict with LOS standards because the traffic impacts of the allowed uses, and small increase in multi-family density applicable to the amendment area are planned for in local and regional planning policies. As stated in the July 8, 2019 traffic memo prepared for a previous project application that included up to 17 residential units (Appendix A), multifamily development of the amendment area has the potential to result in an increase of approximately 80 daily vehicle trip ends and up to eight PM peak hour trips (calculated for 12 dwelling units though the Project now proposes just 10), which is considered an insignificant increase as described in Section 65.2.3.C of the TRPA Code of Ordinances and would not be expected to cause an exceedance of the traffic operational thresholds.
The proposed TCAP amendments would continue to implement policies of the adopted TRPA Regional Plan and City General Plan, which encourages a land use pattern that promotes the use of alternative modes of transportation. Any potential development within a mixed-use area already served by transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities would support existing transportation goals and policies and would increase the potential to replace individual vehicle trips with transit or non-motorized trips. The amendment area is near Transit Route 55 and 50 with bus stops located at Moss Rd., Park Ave., and Raley’s with daily service provide from 6:00 AM to 7:00 PM. There is also a Class I bike path (shared use path) along Ski Run Blvd. and US Highway 50 and a Class II bike lane on Pioneer Trail. CTC’s proposed South Tahoe Greenway, a proposed Class I Share Use Path in the TCAP (Figure 6-1, Proposed Transportation Network, September 2020), would bisect the publicly-owned parcel adjacent to the amendment area (APN 029-240-10). The TCAP policies regarding transit, bicycle and pedestrian facilities would apply to the amendment area. The existing TCAP goals include promoting the area as a pedestrian and transit-oriented center and seek to establish development and design standards that improve the pedestrian and transit environment through complete streets. No adverse change to the existing facilities is proposed.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
651
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 106 Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.19-2. Would the Project conflict with or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)? (CEQA XVIIb)
The proposed amendments would not alter, revise or conflict with an applicable congestion management program including but not limited to, level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the congestion management agency for designated roads or highways.
TRPA is the designated Regional Transportation Planning Agency in the Lake Tahoe Region and has established Level of Service (LOS) standards for roadways and intersections and Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) standards. TRPA and TMPO administer regional programs to reduce Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) and achieve regional VMT standards in the Tahoe Basin. VMT is dependent on the origin and destination of persons traveling to and from uses within the TCAP boundary and the net increase in region-wide trips after accounting for transferred development. VMT is a measure of automobile travel within the transportation system, and an indicator of the degree of integration between the transportation system and planned uses (i.e., a lower VMT indicates greater beneficial integration of transportation systems and land uses to reduce personal vehicle travel). VMT is also a proxy for regional traffic congestion, as well as for air quality. The recently adopted VMT threshold (“TSC1 – Reduce Annual Daily Average VMT Per Capita by 6.8% from 12.48, the 2018 baseline, to 11.63 in 2045) transitions from an air quality focus to a transportation and sustainable communities perspective.
The updated project impact assessment process implements the new VMT threshold at the project and plan level. The proposed TCAP amendments would expand the area available for multi-family residential development by rezoning the former recreation parcel to tourist center mixed-use. However, it also includes policies that limits the uses in the combined parcel to multi-family residential (prohibits commercial and tourist uses) and caps density at no more than 4 units per acre. As such, the amendments do not increase the overall development density or intensity of the combined parcels, as the western portion of the combined parcel (former APN 029-441-004; currently zoned as mixed-use) could be developed at densities of up to 25 units per acre without the proposed amendments.
As such, the amendments would not create a measurable VMT increase compared to existing conditions.
Increases in VMT do not exceed thresholds or conflict with applicable congestion management plans, as the potential maximum development of 15 multi-family residential units under the proposed amendments would create an additional 279 VMT, well below the 650 VMT screening limit for the project area (within the tourist core/town center). Therefore the amendment area is screened from additional analysis – only the mobility mitigation fee would be needed to mitigate the VMT of the subsequent 10 unit multi-family residential development project. Therefore, potential impacts related to the VMT standard are considered to be less than significant.
Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.19-3. Would the Project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (CEQA XVIIc) Consistent with the TRPA Regional Plan and City General Plan, implementation of the proposed amendment does not increase hazards. The proposed 10 unit multi-family residential project complies with appropriate federal state, and local roadway, sidewalk, and intersection design standards (e.g., AASHTO, 652
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 107 MUTCD, Caltrans Highway Design Manual, City Public Improvement and Engineering Standards, and TCAP Development and Design Standards) for public health and safety reasons.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.19-4. Would the Project result in inadequate emergency access? (CEQA XVIId) See discussion and analysis for Questions 5.4.11-6, 5.4.11-9, and 5.4.17-1 above that conclude that implementation of the amendment and subsequent Project will not impact emergency evacuation plans or access. The amendment and project do not include changes to roadways that would impair access and does not propose new public roadways. Likewise, the amendment does not propose new land uses or developments that would impair existing access. The proposed 10 unit multi-family residential project complies with state and/or local requirements for roadway design (e.g., South Lake Tahoe City Code Article VII. Parking, Driveway and Loading Spaces) to ensure emergency vehicles have appropriate access and turning radius for emergency response.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.19-5. Will the Project generate 650 or more new average daily vehicle miles travelled (VMT)? (TRPA 13a)
TRPA has replaced the DVTE standard with a new vehicle miles traveled (VMT) standard. As discussed in Question 5.4.19-2, adoption of the proposed amendments would permit a maximum potential residential buildout of 15 multi-family units, and the amendment area would generate up to 279 VMT. Ultimately, even with the change in zoning from recreation to tourist center mixed use, the amendments would decrease the maximum development potential on the combined parcels due to the cap in density and limitation on land uses. With adoption of the amendments, potential VMT impacts are consistent with those previously analyzed in the TCAP. Given that this is considered an insignificant impact as described in Section 65.2.3.C of the TRPA Code of Ordinances, the potential to exceed the threshold does not increase with implementation of the amendments.
Because the subsequent proposed multi-family development project proposes only ten units (five less units than is allowable based on the amendment’s policies that limit development density at four units per acre), the VMT of the housing project (estimated at 186 VMT) will be less than the potential impact evaluated for the amendments. Thus, there is no impact.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.19-6. Will the Project result in changes to existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? (TRPA 13b)
Neither the amendment nor subsequent Project will change any existing parking facilities. The multi-family residential project plan account for parking requirements in the TCAP, City parking ordinance (e.g., South Lake Tahoe City Code Article VII. Parking, Driveway and Loading Spaces), and TRPA Code. The Tourist Core Area Plan defers to City Code for off-street parking requirements. Multi-family residential 653
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 108 developments are required to have two spaces per unit. The proposed project will require 20 parking spaces and the plans depict 20 covered parking spaces (garage spaces) and 3 uncovered parking spaces for a total of 23 spaces in addition to spaces that are located in residential unit driveways. While the project creates demand for new parking, its supply exceeds the demonstrated need. Therefore, the impacts are less than significant.
Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.19-7. Will the Project result in substantial impact upon existing transportation systems, including highway, transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities? (TRPA 13c) See discussions and analyses for Questions 5.4.19-3, 5.4.19-5, 5.4.19-6, 5.4.19-8, 5.4.19-9 and 5.4.19-10.
The amendment will not impede the construction of the proposed South Tahoe Greenway Class I Share Use Path on the adjacent publicly-owned parcel (APN 029-240-010). Future residents of multi-family residential units constructed within the amendment area as a result of the proposed rezone would be required to access the shared-use trail like other residents in the City who reside on or near the trail corridor, using neighborhood connections, or other public access points (e.g., Van Sickle Bi-State Park).
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.19-8. Will the Project result in alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? (TRPA 13d)
See discussion and analysis for Question 5.4.19-2 and Appendix A.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.19-9. Will the Project result in alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? (TRPA 13e) No alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic are proposed.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.19-10. Will the Project result in increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? (TRPA 13f)
See discussion and analysis for Questions 5.4.19-1, 5.4.19-3, and 5.4.19-4. The driveway location for the proposed multi-family residential project has been reviewed and approved by the City as part of the Project’s Phase I approval. The driveway plan anticipates development of additional multi-family residential units on the existing recreation parcel. The amendments would allow for the project applicant to build 6 additional multi-family residential units, each of which would access Montreal Road using the approved but not constructed driveway location. No additional access to public roadways would be necessary.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None. ‘
654
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 109
5.4.20 Tribal Cultural Resources (CEQA) and Archaeological/Historical (TRPA) This section presents the analyses for potential impacts to tribal cultural, archaeological and historical resources, discussing the Project impacts on tribal cultural resources related to the disturbance of archaeological, historical, and Native American/traditional heritage resources. Table 5-20 identifies the applicable impacts, anticipated level of impact, and whether mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Table 5-20: Tribal Cultural Resources and Archaeological/Historical CEQA Environmental
Checklist Item
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Measures
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Has a California Native American Tribe requested consultation in accordance with Public Resources Code section 21080.3.1(b)? Yes: X No:
Would the project cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of a
tribal cultural resource, defined in
Public Resources Code section 21074
as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically
defined in terms of the size and scope
of the landscape, sacred place, or
object with cultural value to a
California Native American tribe, and
that is:
X
5.4.20-1. Listed or eligible for
listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a local
register of historical resources as
defined in Public Resources Code
section 5020.1(k)? (CEQA
XVIIIa)
X
5.4.20-2. A resource determined
by the lead agency, in its
discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be
significant pursuant to criteria set
forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1.
In applying the criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1,
the lead agency shall consider the
significance of the resource to a
California Native American tribe.
(CEQA XVIIIb)
X
TRPA Initial Environmental
Checklist Item Yes No, With Mitigation
Data
Insufficient No
5.4.20-3. Does the proposal have
the potential to cause a physical
change which would affect unique
X
655
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 110 ethnic cultural values? (TRPA
20d)
5.4.20-4. Will the proposal restrict
historic or pre-historic religious or
sacred uses within the potential
impact area? (TRPA 20e)
X
5.4.20-1. Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? (CEQA XVIIIa)?
5.4.20-2. Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. (CEQA XVIIIb)
5.4.20-3. Does the Project have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? (TRPA 20d)
5.4.20-4. Will the Project restrict historic or pre-historic religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? (TRPA 20e)
The proposed amendment does not alter regulations pertaining to cultural resources.
There is no evidence of intact, potentially significant Washoe cultural sites within the existing TCAP or proposed amendment area. Pursuant to AB 52, the City of South Lake Tahoe sent notification letters to the Ione Band of Miwok Indians, Washoe Tribe of California and Nevada, Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, and the United Auburn Indian Community on December 14, 2021. To date, no response has been received.
Federal and state regulations, the TRPA Code (Chapter 67) and City General Plan policies address protection of cultural resources and provide processes to avoid or minimize impacts to such resources.
Included in the existing Codes and policies are measures to identify cultural resources discovered during ground disturbing construction activities, and protect those deemed to be potentially eligible for the National Register or of unique ethnic value. Project development within the amendment area will be required compliant with federal and state regulations, TRPA Code and General Plan policies during project specific review, and therefore, would not alter or adversely affect tribal cultural resources.
See discussion and analysis for Questions 5.4.7-1, 5.4.7-4, and 5.4.7-5 above. Implementation of federal and state regulations, TRPA Code (Chapter 67), and General Plan policies address protection of historic, cultural, archaeological and paleontological resources and provide processes to avoid or mitigate impacts to these resources. Therefore, any development associated with the amendment would not result in a physical change that would affect unique ethnic cultural values.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
656
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 111
5.4.21 Utilities and Service Systems (CEQA) and Utilities (TRPA) This section presents the analysis for potential impacts to utilities and service systems. Table 5-21 identifies the applicable impacts, anticipated level of impact, and whether mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Table 5-21: Utilities and Service Systems
CEQA Environmental
Checklist Item
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Measures
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
5.4.21-1. Require or result in the
relocation or construction of new
or expanded water, wastewater
treatment or stormwater drainage,
electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunication facilities, the
construction or relocation of
which could cause significant
environmental effects? (CEQA
XIXa)
X
5.4.21-2. Have sufficient water
supplies available to serve the and
reasonably foreseeable future
development during normal, dry,
and multiple dry years? (CEQA
XIXb)
X
5.4.21-3. Result in a determination
by the wastewater treatment
provider that serves or may serve
the Project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the Project’s
projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing
commitments? (CEQA XIXc)
X
5.4.21-4. Generate solid waste in
excess of State or local standards,
or in excess of the capacity of
local infrastructure, or otherwise
impair the attainment of solid
waste reduction goals? (CEQA
XIXd)
X
5.4.21-5. Comply with federal,
state, and local management and
reduction statutes and regulations
related to solid waste? (CEQA
XIXe)
X
657
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 112 TRPA Initial Environmental
Checklist Item Yes No, With
Mitigation
Data
Insufficient No
Except for planned improvements,
will the proposal result in a need
for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following
utilities:
5.4.21-6. Power or natural gas?
(TRPA 16a) X
5.4.21-7. Communication
systems? (TRPA 16b) X
5.4.21-8. Utilize additional water
which amount will exceed the
maximum permitted capacity of
the service provider? (TRPA 16c)
X
5.4.21-9. Utilize additional
sewage treatment capacity which
amount will exceed the maximum
permitted capacity of the sewage
treatment provider? (TRPA 16d)
X
5.4.21-10. Storm water drainage?
(TRPA 16e) X
5.4.21-11. Solid waste and
disposal? (TRPA 16f) X
5.4.21-1. Would the Project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or stormwater drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunication facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? (CEQA XIXa)
Amendment of the project area would not require additional wastewater conveyance or treatment capacity.
In the South Tahoe Public Utility District, existing average wastewater flow rates are little more than half of the total export capacity (see Table 5-22 below). Additionally, the area to be amended is already adjacent to developed urban land uses and connected to/served by the wastewater treatment system. Although total area available for multi-family residential development would increase with approval of the proposed TCAP amendments, the development would not substantially increase wastewater flow rates, thus, it is reasonable to assume that sufficient capacity would be available.
Furthermore, all development permitted by the TCAP would be required to comply with Section 32.5 (Waste Water Treatment Service) of the TRPA Code of Ordinances, which requires that all projects be served by facilities that provide treatment and export of wastewater from the Tahoe Region. Section
50.5.1(C.4) of the TRPA Code of Ordinances prohibits distribution of allocations to jurisdictions with insufficient wastewater capacity to support residential development.
Additionally, the project is required to meet the Basic Services and Facilities Standards contained in the TRPA Code of Ordinances. Therefore, implementation of the amendments and project would not cause sewage treatment capacity to exceed the permitted capacity of the service provider. 658
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 113 Table 5-22: Average Flow Rates and Total Capacity
Export District Average Flow (mgd) Total Capacity (mgd) Average Remaining Capacity (mgd)
South Tahoe Public
Utility District 4.0 7.7 3.7
Source: STPUD 2015
All redevelopment permitted though the TCAP would be required to meet TRPA BMP standards to reduce runoff and pollutant loading from impervious cover. As specified in Section 60.4.6 (Standard BMP Requirements) of the TRPA Code of Ordinances, except where special conditions exist and are approved by TRPA, infiltration facilities designed to accommodate the volume of runoff generated by a 20-year, onehour storm are required for approval of all projects. Therefore, there would be no unplanned alterations or improvements to existing stormwater drainage systems associated with the amendment or development project.
See Questions 5.4.8-1-4 above that concludes that the available capacity would far exceed the demand generated at build-out of the TRPA Regional Plan; therefore, demand created by implementation of the amendments would not result in a need for new or altered power or natural gas systems.
The amendment area is currently served by telecommunications systems. The City Code requires any communication wires to be installed underground (Chapter 6.15 SLTCC). Project development is located within existing service areas for communication systems providers.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.21-2. Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry, and multiple dry years? (CEQA XIXb)
Implementation of the amendments and the subsequent residential development project could result in some increased demand for water supply resulting from increased population (up to 30 residents) in the amendment area. However, current surface water allocation to the Tahoe Region pursuant to the Truckee River Operating Agreement (TROA) is 34,000 acre feet/year (afy), and current Region-wide demand is approximately 28,079 afy (TRPA 2012, page 3.13.-11). Additional demand generated by the TRPA Regional Plan is approximately 1,725 afy which, given remaining water supply availability, could be accommodated with existing supplies. The increased density associated with this amendment is consistent with the Regional Plan. Thus, it is reasonable to assume that sufficient capacity would be available to accommodate development at the higher densities proposed for the amendment area.
Water service is provided by the South Tahoe Public Utility District. At present, the District provides service to 14,000 connections and has a 7 million gallon per day production capacity. Water is provided 100 percent from 13 groundwater wells. All drinking water is pumped from underground aquifers through an intricate system of wells and water booster stations interspersed through the service area. No water is taken from Lake Tahoe. To ensure that adequate amounts of water are delivered safely to homes and businesses, the system also maintains 23 tanks and 26 pressure-reducing underground valves. The District 659
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 114 provides water to over 13,000 homes and over 625 commercial and governmental sites, supplying more than 2.5 billion gallons of water annually.
Furthermore, project development permitted by the TCAP will be compliant with Section 32.4 (Water Service) of the TRPA Code of Ordinances, which requires that a project applicant demonstrate the availability of adequate water quantity and quality for both domestic consumption and fire protection prior to project approval. This is demonstrated at a project-level through the acquisition of a Will Serve Letter from the applicable water purveyor.
Additionally, the project structures will meet the Basic Services and Facilities Standards contained in the TRPA Code of Ordinances. Therefore, implementation of the TCAP amendment would not create water use in excess of the maximum permitted capacity of the service provider.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.21-3. Would the Project result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the Project that it has adequate capacity to serve the Project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? (CEQA XIXc) Development under the TCAP is required to comply with Section 32.5 (Waste Water Treatment Service) of the TRPA Code of Ordinances, which requires that all projects be served by facilities that provide treatment and export of wastewater from the Tahoe Region. Section 50.4.1(C) of the TRPA Code of Ordinances prohibits distribution of allocations to jurisdictions with insufficient wastewater capacity to support residential development, and Section 13.10.7 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances requires demonstration of adequate sewer capacity prior to occupancy of a transferred unit (TRPA 2012a, page 3.13- 16).
Wastewater would be collected and treated by the South Tahoe Public Utility District, who reports existing average wastewater flow rates are little more than half of the total export capacity (see Table 5-22 under question 5.4.21-1). The area surrounding the Project is already developed and connected to/served by the wastewater treatment system.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.21-4. Would the Project generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals? (CEQA XIXd)
As reported in the environmental documentation for the TCAP (2013), South Tahoe Refuse (STR) is under contract with the City to collect solid waste from area households and businesses as well as to process and transfer all solid waste for disposal or recycling. STR’s main facility, which consists of a transfer station and materials recovery facility located at the transfer station, has a total permitted capacity of 370 tons per day, but currently receives approximately 275 tons per day. The remaining capacity of 95 tons per day is sufficient to serve the potential growth within the area proposed for amendment. Any additional staffing or equipment required to increase service to the area would be funded through the additional service rates that would be collected by STR from the new development. Solid waste is disposed of at the Lockwood Regional Landfill in Sparks, Nevada. This landfill has a total capacity of approximately 302 million cubic yards as a 660
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 115 result of recent expansion, currently contains 32.8 million cubic yards of waste and is not expected to reach capacity for over 100 years, with implementation of approved expansions (NDEP, 2013 and Washoe County, 2016).
Both the STR main facility and the Lockwood Regional Landfill have sufficient capacity to manage additional growth. Therefore, this impact is less than significant.
Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.21-5. Would the Project comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (CEQA XIXe)
The Lockwood Regional Landfill receives solid waste generated within the City and has sufficient capacity to serve the needs as discussed in 5.4.21-4 above. Existing resource recovery operations provide recycling of various materials, including green waste and construction material, which further reduces the quantity of waste sent to the landfill pursuant to state law. All projects proposed within the TCAP are subject to TRPA Regional Plan Land Use Element Goal 5, Policy 1 Public Services Element Goal 3, Policy 2, requiring the transport of solid waste outside the Basin in compliance with California state laws and the City General Plan Policies PQP-3.3 and PQP-3.4 requiring determination of adequate public utilities and services, including solid waste capacity, prior to development approval. Thus, the proposed amendment complies with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.21-6. Except for planned improvements, will the Project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to power or natural gas? (TRPA 16a) See Question 5.4.8-3 above that concludes that the available capacity would far exceed the demand generated at build-out of the TRPA Regional Plan; therefore, demand created by implementation of the amendment would not result in a need for new or altered power or natural gas systems.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.21-7. Except for planned improvements, will the Project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to communication systems? (TRPA 16b) Communication systems are not listed as a required basic service by TRPA Code of Ordinances; however, the City Code requires any communication wires to be installed underground (Chapter 6.15 SLTCC).
Project connections would be located within existing right-of-way areas dedicated for communication systems providers.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
661
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 116
5.4.21-8. Except for planned improvements, will the Project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to utilize additional water which amount will exceed the maximum permitted capacity of the service provider? (TRPA 16c)
See Questions 5.4.21-1 and 5.4.21-2 above that conclude additional capacity exists in the Tahoe Region and therefore a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to utilize additional water would not occur.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.21-9. Except for planned improvements, will the Project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to utilize additional sewage treatment capacity which amount will exceed the maximum permitted capacity of the sewage treatment provider? (TRPA 16d) See Questions 5.4.21-1 and 5.4.21-3 above, which conclude additional sewage capacity exists in the Tahoe Region and therefore a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to utilize additional treatment capacity would not occur.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.21-10. Except for planned improvements, will the Project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to storm water drainage? (TRPA 16e) See discussion and analysis for Question 5.4.21-1 above.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.21-11. Except for planned improvements, will the Project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to solid waste and disposal? (TRPA 16f) See discussion and analysis for Question 5.4.21-4 above.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
662
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 117
5.4.22 Wildfire (CEQA)
This section presents the analysis for potential impacts related to wildfire. Table 5-23 identifies the applicable impacts, anticipated level of impact, and whether mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Table 5-23: Wildfire
CEQA Environmental
Checklist Item
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Measures
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
Is the Project located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as high fire hazard severity zones? Yes: X No:
If located in or near state
responsibility areas or lands
classified as very high fire hazard
severity zones, would the project:
5.4.22-1. Substantially impair an
adopted emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
(CEQA XXa)
X
5.4.22-2. Due to slope, prevailing
winds, and other factors,
exacerbate wildfire risks, and
thereby expose project occupants
to pollutant concentrations from a
wildfire or the uncontrolled spread
of a wildfire? (CEQA XXb)
X
5.4.22-3. Require the installation
of associated infrastructure (such
as roads, fuel breaks, emergency
water sources, power lines or
other utilities) that may exacerbate
fire risk or that may result in
temporary or ongoing impacts to
the environment? (CEQA XXc)
X
5.4.22-4. Expose people or
structures to significant risks,
including downslope or
downstream flooding or
landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or
drainage changes? (CEQA XXd)
X
663
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 118
5.4.22-1. Would the Project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (CEQA XXa)
The project area is located entirely within the very high fire hazard severity zone as mapped by CAL FIRE (https://osfm.fire.ca.gov/media/5788/south_lake_tahoe.pdf).
See discussion and analysis for Questions 5.4.11-6, 5.4.11-9, and 5.4.17-1 above that conclude that implementation of the amendment will not impact emergency evacuation plans or access. The amendment does not include changes to roadways that would impair access and does not propose new public roadways.
Likewise, the amendment does not propose new land uses or developments that would impair existing access. Redevelopment projects would be required to meet state and/or local requirements for roadway design to ensure emergency vehicles have appropriate access and turning radius for emergency response.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.22-2. Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, would the Project exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? (CEQA XXb)
The amendment area is currently undeveloped and contains trees, some shrubs, and forest debris, with some SEZ vegetation. Although amending the area to TSC-MU zoning would allow for residential use within a larger area, the amendment would not expand the existing urban boundary per TRPA Code of Ordinances and the subsequent multi-family residential project development would not increase the risk of exposing people and structures to hazards involving wildland fires in wildland-urban interface areas due to applicable regulatory standards. The project is required to be consistent with and will implement state, regional, and local regulations designed to reduce the risk of wildfire (e.g., defensible space, building materials, fire flow requirements). All new structures are required to comply with the California Fire Code, which establishes minimum standards for materials and material assemblies to provide a reasonable level of exterior wildfire exposure protection for buildings in wildland-urban interface areas. Chapter 5.05 of the City Code contains fire regulations adopted to safeguard life and property from fire and explosion hazards. City General Plan policies require the use of fire-resistant materials, installation and maintenance of defensible space, and meeting fire flow requirements in new or rehabilitated structures. Plans for the proposed multi-family residential development document a 10 foot non-combustible zone around each home. Aerials document sparse vegetation on state owned lands immediately east of the proposed amendment parcel (proposed multi-family residential homes) which is consistent with guidance for the lean, clean and green zone which contains no continuous fuels that would enable a fire to burn up to the proposed structures. Implementation of these policies, in conjunction with the existing California Fire Code and City Code requirements would reduce impacts associated with wildland fires to a less than significant level.
Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.22-3. Would the Project require the installation of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment? (CEQA XXc) See discussion and analysis for Question 5.4.22-2 above. The amendment area is surrounded by existing development, including public service infrastructure on the adjacent parcel. The proposed multi-family 664
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 119 residential development (6 units) is being proposed as Phase 2 of an already approved project (4 units) on the Former Colony Inn site (APN 029-441-004). Development includes extension of existing driveways, fuel breaks, utility lines, and water be constructed; however, such infrastructure would not be servicing new areas, but an extension to or connection to existing infrastructure. Utilities are required to be located below ground, and no increased fire risk would occur.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.22-4. Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? (CEQA XXd)
See discussion and analysis for Questions 5.4.9-1, 5.4.9-8, 5.4.9-11, 5.4.9-13, and 5.4.12-3 above. As discussed above, the amendment area has a mild slope within an urbanized area. Downstream flooding or landslides following a fire would not occur. The amendment would not affect wildfire risk.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
665
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 120
5.4.23 Mandatory Findings of Significance
This section presents the analyses for mandatory findings of significance. Table 5-24 identifies the applicable impacts, anticipated level of impact, and whether mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.
Table 5-24: Mandatory Findings of Significance
CEQA Environmental
Checklist Item
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Measures
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
5.4.23-1. Does the Project have
the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below
self-sustaining levels, threaten to
eliminate a plant or animal
community, substantially reduce
the number or restrict the range of
an endangered, rare or threatened
species, or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
(CEQA XXIa)
X
5.4.23-2. Does the Project have
impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively
considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable" means that the
incremental effects of a project are
considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other
current projects, and the effects of
probable future projects)? (CEQA
XXIb)
X
5.4.23-3. Does the Project have
environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly
or indirectly? (CEQA XXIc)
X
TRPA Initial Environmental
Checklist Item Yes No, With Mitigation
Data
Insufficient No
5.4.23-4. Does the Project have
the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment, substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish
X
666
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 121 population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of
the major periods of California or
Nevada history or prehistory?
(TRPA 21a)
5.4.23-5. Does the Project have
the potential to achieve short-term,
to the disadvantage of long-term,
environmental goals? (A shortterm impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively
brief, definitive period of time,
while long-term impacts will
endure well into the future.)
(TRPA 21b)
X
5.4.23-6. Does the Project have
impacts which are individually
limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (A project may
impact on two or more separate
resources where the impact on
each resource is relatively small,
but where the effect of the total of
those impacts on the
environmental is significant?)
(TRPA 21c)
X
5.4.23-7. Does the Project have
environmental impacts which will
cause substantial adverse effects
on human being, either directly or
indirectly? (TRPA 21d)
X
5.4.23-1. Does the Project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below selfsustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of an endangered, rare or threatened species, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (CEQA XXIa) Fish and Aquatic Habitat
The TCAP amendments would not affect, alter, or revise any TRPA Regional Plan or City General Plan policies pertaining to the Shorezone and Lakezone, management of aquatic resources, or permitting of projects affecting these habitats. The TCAP amendments would permit development and redevelopment only in accordance with the TRPA Regional Plan and City General Plan, and any projects proposed within the plan area that could affect aquatic habitats would be subject to TRPA’s existing regulations requiring 667
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 122 project-specific environmental review and development and implementation of project-specific measures for any significant effects on fish habitat as a condition of project approval. No such habitats exist within the project area for the multi-family residential development. This potential impact was analyzed in the RPU EIS and, with implementation of TRPA’s existing policies and code provisions, found to be less than significant (TRPA 2012a). Construction activities could result in temporary increases in sedimentation and the release and exposure of construction-related contaminants. As under existing conditions, these impacts would be minimized and mitigated through construction BMPs and compensatory mitigation requirements as specified in TRPA and City policies and code provisions, and other applicable federal and state regulations.
Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species and Communities The TCAP amendments would not affect, alter, or revise TRPA Regional Plan policies regarding the protection of rare, endangered, or sensitive plant and animal communities. Compliance with all provisions in Chapter 67 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances is still required for all project review. Future development or redevelopment could only occur in accordance with the TRPA Regional Plan, City General Plan, and the existing TCAP, and any projects proposed within the amendment area that could affect sensitive plant or animal communities would be subject to TRPA’s existing regulations requiring project-specific environmental review and development and implementation of project-specific measures for any significant effects on habitat as a condition of project approval. No such habitats exist within the project area for the multi-family residential development. This potential impact was analyzed in the RPU EIS and, with implementation of TRPA’s existing code provisions and requirements, found to be less than significant (TRPA 2012a, page 3.10-50).
Cultural, Historical, and Archeological Resources
The TCAP amendments would not affect, alter, or revise TRPA Regional Plan policies regarding the protection of cultural, historical, or archeological resources. Compliance with Chapter 67 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances is still required for all project review. In addition, federal and state regulations address protection of these resources and provide mechanisms to minimize impacts. The amendment area was previously partially developed, leaving some potential for resources to persist in the area. The TCAP amendments would permit development or redevelopment only in accordance with the TRPA Regional Plan and the City General Plan, some of which could occur on properties with unknown buried resources.
No such resources have been discovered within the project area for the multi-family residential development. During project construction, if any on-site buried cultural, historical, and archeological resources would be identified, construction would halt so the significance of the find could be determined, and appropriate mitigation implemented in accordance with federal, state, City, and TRPA regulations.
The adopted TCAP is consistent with the TRPA Regional Plan and City General Plan, which achieve environmental improvement and maintain environmental threshold carrying capacities. Since no changes to existing policies regarding habitats, special status plant or animal communities, or to cultural, historical, and archeological resources are proposed by the amendment, and federal, state, and TRPA protections are already in place, implementation of the proposed amendment would not result in the degradation of these resources.
Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
668
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 123
5.4.23-2. Does the Project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? (CEQA XXIb) The adopted TCAP is a collection of both short- and long-term goals, policies, and measures designed to guide the development of the plan area and support the Region in attaining environmental thresholds and other important objectives. These goals, policies, and measures are inherently cumulative in nature as they are applied over a long-term basis, for the planning area as a whole, and in compliance with City and TRPA goals, policies, measures, and thresholds. The TCAP amendments do not propose new policies or alterations to existing policies that would be cumulatively considerable. The rezone amendment allows for multifamily residential development to be spread out at less density on the combined parcel owned by the applicant, but essentially maintains the existing range of land use intensity and density (because of the proposed policy that limits density to no more than 4 units per acre), thereby restricting the potential for cumulatively considerable impacts. The area was previously partially developed, resulting in little cumulative impact potential should redevelopment occur in the future. The amendment does not propose any changes to the overall growth allowed in the Basin by the Regional Plan, nor would it cumulatively contribute to changes to the overall growth allowed when other projects or Area Plan amendments are considered.
Cumulative projects contemplated in the RPU EIS (TRPA 2012a) include Environmental Enhancement, Land Management Plans, TTD/TMPO projects and programs, and other development projects. These projects and programs also apply to the TCAP, and therefore, the proposed amendment area. Other probable future projects in the south shore vicinity include the TCAP and B/ATCP amendments to amend the TCAP boundary to incorporate the Beach Retreat and Lakeshore Lodge properties, affordable housing near the intersection of Pioneer Trail and Ski Run Blvd., the US 50 South Shore Community Revitalization Project (e.g., Loop Road), and Tahoe Douglas Visitor’s Authority Tahoe South Events Center Project. If developed, the Beach Retreat and Lakeshore Lodge TCAP amendment would also increase potential density for multifamily housing as part of a future redevelopment of existing tourist land uses. Construction of the Loop Road project would reduce available housing supply and as such, the Tahoe Transportation District is actively looking for partners to implement housing development projects in the vicinity of the proposed Loop Road corridor. Construction of the South Tahoe Events Center would create new entertainment opportunities for residents, and visitors to the south shore but would not include any residential development.
Air Quality/GHG Emissions
As discussed in Questions 5.4.10-3 and 5.4.8-1, although multi-family development could occur on a parcel currently zoned Recreation, total development density would be unchanged from existing conditions because of the policy that limits density to no more than 4 units per acre. The multi-family residential development is a localized impact and would not contribute to any increase in overall growth or associated greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions beyond what was considered in the Regional Plan or City General Plan.
The location of the additional multi-family residential units in the amendment area is within close proximity to transit, jobs, and services is likely to result in reduced trips and trips lengths and lowered GHG compared to development occurring further from a Town Center Area. Therefore this development is consistent with the Regional Plan and City General Plan and is not anticipated to contribute to an increase in overall GHG emission that would cumulatively contribute to global climate change. The City General Plan EIR identified significant GHG emissions impacts and the City adopted mitigation measures to address this issue, which remain in effect. The TCAP amendments would not interfere with implementation of these measures, GHG reduction targets, or GHG emissions reduction strategies. Because development and potential population increases associated with this and other pending amendments (i.e., TCAP Beach Retreat) must be consistent 669
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 124 with the regional growth management system allowed by the Regional Plan and focus on bringing additional density to centers where GHG emissions will be lower compared to development allowed outside of centers, it is not anticipated to contribute considerably to global climate change and the impact is less than significant.
Traffic
The TCAP rezone amendment would not affect, alter, revise or conflict with applicable plans, ordinances or policies establishing the measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. Due to the existing development within and surrounding the amendment area, there is no potential for significant traffic increases, particularly with the presence of nearby transit stops. Redevelopment could increase land use density, and thereby increase vehicle trips however, the area is small and the number of units that could be developed is not substantial enough to result in a significant traffic increase. Increases in vehicle trips associated with redevelopment at the proposed density limits would not be significant. Consistent with the Regional Plan, individual redevelopment projects in the TCAP that would generate a net increase of 200 daily vehicle trips or more would be required to prepare a project-level traffic analyses in accordance with Sections 65.2.4.B and 65.2.5.B of the TRPA Code. The proposed 10 unit multi-family residential project would generate up to 80 new daily vehicle trips. For any new trips that are generated (regardless of whether a traffic analysis is completed), TRPA requires an applicant to offset the potential regional traffic and air quality effects of the new trips by requiring an applicant either to: (1) contribute to the Air Quality Mitigation Fund, or (2) implement regional and cumulative mitigation measures equivalent or greater in cost than the calculated Air Quality Mitigation Fee.
Water Quality
Redevelopment within the area would be required to meet existing BMP standards to control potential increases in stormwater runoff and pollutant loading onsite. Except where special conditions exist and are approved by TRPA, infiltration facilities designed to accommodate the volume of runoff generated by a 20-year 1-hour storm are required for approval of all projects within the Tahoe Basin (TRPA Code Ordinances, Section 60.4.6). The Project includes stormwater facilities to collect and treat the 20-year, 1- hour storm event. Therefore, the Project plus other new development within the TCAP is not expected to cumulatively create or contribute additional runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage system.
Cultural Resources
Because federal and state regulations, the TRPA Code of Ordinances (Chapter 67), and City General Plan policies address protection of these resources and provide processes to avoid or minimize impacts to historic and archaeological resources, the amendment area contains no known resources, and any redevelopment would be required to comply with federal and state regulations, TRPA Code of Ordinances and the City General Plan policies during project specific review, the amendments would not contribute to an adverse cumulative effect on archeological or historical resources.
Noise
The TCAP amendments would not alter noise policies and the existing maximum CNEL levels and Regional Plan and General Plan noise policies would continue to be applied. Given the small number of potential additional units and traffic from proposed multi-family residential development, no notable increase in noise would occur. Therefore, the amendment would not create a significant noise level increase.
For these reasons, the proposed rezone amendment would not contribute to an adverse cumulative increase in noise levels.
670
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 125 Geologic Hazards
The proposed amendments would not alter any policies regarding geologic resources or hazards. Because existing TRPA and City protections are in place, and project-specific environmental review is required for the multi-family residential development project, implementation of the proposed amendments would not result in increased exposure of people or property to geologic hazards. Project land coverage would use land coverage banked from the removal of the Former Colony Inn.
Scenic Resources
As discussed in the analysis, the amendment would alter the allowable maximum height standards and density limits for multi-family dwellings within parcels composing the amendment area; however, the proposal to construct three-story residential units and limit the density to no more than 4 units per acre would minimize impacts from urban development on the forested site. The Project area is not adjacent to any scenic threshold site, nor visible from offsite scenic resources. The existing TCAP scenic protections would not be altered, and all permitted projects would still be required to meet the TRPA scenic threshold non-degradation standard. Therefore, the TCAP amendment would not contribute to an adverse cumulative effect on scenic resources.
Recreation
The TCAP protects existing recreational resources and provides for the development of increased recreation opportunities through the construction of trailheads, bike paths and lanes, and the TCAP amendments would not alter these planned improvements. No restrictions to access on public lands or new limitations on recreational resources is proposed by the amendments.
Implementation of the proposed amendments would be consistent with policies contemplated and analyzed in the General Plan EIR, from which this analysis tiers, including their potential to contribute to cumulative environmental effects. The General Plan EIR identified resources with localized cumulative issues such as traffic, water quality, cultural resources, noise, geologic hazards, and scenic impacts, which were analyzed in the TCAP IS/IEC and this IS/IEC and were not found to have adverse cumulative effects. Therefore, implementation of the proposed amendments would not result in a considerable contribution to cumulative adverse conditions.
Public Services and Utilities
The same service and utility providers provide service to the two parcels regardless of whether they are currently zoned mixed-use or Recreation. Therefore, rezoning the parcel from the Recreation to Mixed-Use District within the existing TCAP Town Center boundary does not alter demand on services or capacity.
Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.23-3. Does the Project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (CEQA XIXc) As described above, projects permitted under the amendment would require project-level environmental review and would be required to comply with applicable TRPA, federal, state, and City regulations, including protections for human health and safety. The area is urbanized and already partially developed 671
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 126 and the potential for new impacts is low. Therefore, implementation of the amendments would not create a substantial direct or indirect adverse effect on human beings.
Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.23-4. Does the Project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California or Nevada history or prehistory? (TRPA 21a)
See analysis in Question 5.4.23-1 that concludes implementation of the proposed amendments would not degrade the quality of the environment, reduce habitat of a fish population, threaten or eliminate a plant or animal community or eliminate important examples of a major period of California or Nevada history or prehistory.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.23-5. Does the Project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (TRPA 21b)
The TCAP implements the TRPA Regional Plan’s policies, ordinances, and land use controls designed specifically to achieve long-term environmental goals, and the City’s policies, ordinances, and land use controls which are also designed to achieve long-term goals and guide City development over a period of decades. The TCAP implements these policies, which promote concentrating development and redevelopment in urban centers, such as the Mixed-Use District, combined with transfer of land coverage and development rights from sensitive lands and lands more distant from community center, and restoration of those areas (TRPA 2012a). The proposed amendments would not alter this long-term goal, nor does it propose changes to land use or design that would be substantially different from what is currently allowed or that achieve a short-term goal at the expense of long-range planning for the area. While short-term impacts could occur during redevelopment activities, redevelopment projects have the potential to achieve long-term goals, such as increased affordable housing units.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.4.23-6. Does the Project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environmental is significant?) (TRPA 21c)
See discussion and analysis for Question 5.4.23-2 above.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
672
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 127
5.4.23-7. Does the Project have environmental impacts which will cause substantial adverse effects on human being, either directly or indirectly? (TRPA 21d) See discussion and analysis for Question 5.4.23-3 above.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5.5 CERTIFICATION [TRPA ONLY]
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Date
673
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 128
5.6 REFERENCES
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act. 1972. (California PRC Division 2. Geology, Mine and Mining Chapter 7.5 Earthquake Fault Zoning)
Ascent. 2013. TRPA Regional Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Statement. October 24, 2013.
Stateline, Nevada.
Bailey, R.G. 1974. Land Capability Classification of the Lake Tahoe Basin, California - Nevada. U.S.
Forest Service, Department of Agriculture in cooperation with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 32 pages.
Bryant W.A., Hart E.W. 2007. Fault-Rupture Hazard Zone in California: Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act With Index to Earthquake Fault Zone Maps. Sacramento, California.
CARB. See California Air Resource Board
California Air Resource Board. 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan: A Framework for Change. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scoping/scoping.htm.
. 2014. First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan. http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/ document/updatedscopingplan2013.htm.
. 2019. Air Quality Standards and Area Designations. http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/desig.htm accessed on 10/20/2019.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2019. California Natural Diversity Data Base.
Accessed June 2019.
California, Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC). 2019. Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List. Accessed online at: www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public. December 2019.
California Water Resources Control Board. 2019. GeoTracker. http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov. Site accessed December 2019.
City of South Lake Tahoe. 2011. City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan Environmental Impact Report.
Certified May 17, 2011.
. 2011b. City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan Policy Document. Adopted May 17, 2011. https://cityofslt.us/575/General-Plan. Accessed December 2019. . 2013. Tourist Core Area Plan CEQA Initial Study/Negative Declaration and TRPA Initial Environmental Checklist/Finding of No Significant Effect. July 26, 2013. https://www.cityofslt.us/DocumentCenter/View/3247/FINAL-Tourist-Core-Area-Plan-InitialStudy-and-Initial-Environmental-Checklist-7262013. Accessed December 2019.
Environmental Protection Agency. 2013. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html accessed on 6/28/2012.
Ichinose, G.A., J.G. Anderson, K. Satake, R.A. Schweickert, and M.M. Lahren. 2000. The potential hazard from tsunami and seiche waves generated by large earthquakes within the Lake Tahoe, California-Nevada. Geophysical Research Letters 27(8): 1203-1206. 674
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDMENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJE CT PAGE 129 LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2019. Tourist Core Area Plan Amendment Pioneer Trail MultiFamily Housing Project– Transportation Analysis. December 2019.
Lake Tahoe Unified School District. 2015. Report Card. http://www.ltusd.org/UserFiles/Servers/ Server_2738240/File/Departments/Ed%20Services/2015_School_Accountability_Report_Card_( CDE)_Sierra_House_Elementary_School_20160106.pdf. Accessed 8/10/18.
Meston, Jeff. 2018. Personal Communication with Fire Chief Jeff Meston, South Lake Tahoe Fire Department. November 27, 2019.
Nevada Division of Environmental Protection. 2013. Solid Waste Disposal Site Permit – Lockwood Regional Landfill, Permit #SW214R03. https://ndep.nv.gov/uploads/land-waste-solid-permitdocs/lockwood-permit-rev03.pdf.
South Tahoe Public Utility District. 2018. District Information. http://www.stpud.us/districtinfo.html. accessed on 8/11/2018.
TRPA. See Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. 1993. Lake Tahoe Scenic Resources Evaluation. Stateline, Nevada. ______. 2000 (June). Lake Tahoe Source Water Protection Program. Stateline, Nevada ______. 2012a (April 25). Regional Plan Update, Draft EIS. Stateline, Nevada. ______. 2012b (October 24). Regional Plan Update Final EIS. Stateline, Nevada. ______. 2012c (December 12). Code of Ordinances. Stateline, Nevada. ______. 2012d (December 12) Regional Plan. Stateline, Nevada. ______. 2012e (April). 2011 Threshold Evaluation, Draft. Stateline, Nevada. ______. 2012f (October 24). Staff Summary to the TRPA/TMPO Governing Board and Advisory Planning Commission. Exhibit of Existing Development Statistics and Maps. Stateline, Nevada.
TMPO. See Tahoe Metropolitan Planning Organization.
Tahoe Metropolitan Planning Organization and Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. 2020 (April 2021). 2020 Linking Tahoe: Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy, IS/MND/IEC/FONSE. Stateline, Nevada.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2007. Soil survey of the Tahoe Basin Area, California and Nevada. Accessible online at:
http://soils.usda.gov/survey/printed_surveys/. Site accessed August, 2018.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2019. Information, Planning, and Conservation System. http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/. Site Accessed December 2019.
Washoe County. 2016. Solid Waste Management Plan of Washoe County. November 2016. (https://www.washoecounty.us/health/files/ehs/waste-management/solid-waste-plan-4.pdf) 675
INITIAL STUDY/INITIA L ENVIRONMENTAL CHEC KLIST
APRIL 2022 TCAP REC AREA AMENDM ENT AND MULTI- FAMILY HOUSING PROJECT PAGE A - 1
APPENDIX A LSC TECHNICAL TRAFFIC
MEMORANDUM
676
July 8, 2019
Michael Wischmeyer, CEO
HVR Acquisitions LLC
PO Box 803
Zephyr Cove, NV 89448
RE: Old Colony Inn Residential Development—
Trip Generation Analysis
Dear Mr. Wischmeyer:
Per your request, LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. has prepared a trip generation analysis for the potential housing development at the old Colony Inn site in South Lake Tahoe. The site is located on Montreal Road between Heavenly Village Way and Fern Road behind the Raley’s shopping area. As the project is under the TRPA’s 200 trips per day threshold, only a trip generation letter is needed, rather than a full traffic study.
The proposed project would consist of 4 duplex units, 12 single family units and 1 unit over the garage as shown in the attached site plan. This report provides the number of trips generated by the project based on standard rates and then a reduction for non-auto trips will be considered.
Trip Generation
Trip generation evaluates the number of vehicle trips that would be generated by the proposed project. Standard trip rate are provided in the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency’s (TRPA) Trip Table (TRPA, 2019) and in the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition (ITE, 2017). These standard rates are shown in Table 1 along with the proposed number of units.
Non-Auto Reduction
The project area has a significant volume of non-motorized transportation due to the nearby destinations, flat topography and presence of pedestrian and bicycle amenities. Available survey data was reviewed to identify non-auto travel mode reduction factors. Based on TPRA travel surveys conducted in the summer of 2018, the non-automotive trip percentage of similar land uses (permanent and second homes, and vacation rentals such as Airbnb) in the Stateline area is 37 percent. This data includes 59 surveys, which satisfies the TRPA’s minimum requirement for 677
Old Colony Inn Trip Generation Page 2 July 8, 2019
estimating non-auto reductions of 50 surveys. The majority of these non-auto trips are made by walking, as the site is within a convenient walking distance of Village Shopping Center, the Heavenly gondola area, bus stop, many restaurants, etc. Due to the lack of connection to the nearby pedestrian walkways and sidewalks and the large square footage of most of the proposed homes, the non-auto access is assumed to be slightly lower at 30 percent as shown in Table 1.
By applying the trip generation rates and the non-auto reduction, the resulting estimated trip generation at the site driveways is calculated to be 112 daily trips and 11 PM peak hour trips (7 inbound and 4 outbound), as shown in Table 1.
Please contact our office with any comments or questions pertaining to this analysis.
Respectfully Submitted,
LSC TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC.
By:
Leslie Suen, PE, Engineer
Enclosed: Site Plan, Table 1
678
Table 1: Old Colony Inn Trip Generation
Description Quantity Units In Out Total In Out Total
Single Family
Residence 12 DU Single-Family (ITE 210) 9.54 0.62 0.37 0.99 30% 80 5 3 8 Duplex 4 DU Single-Family
(ITE 210) 9.54 0.62 0.37 0.99 30% 27 2 1 3
Over Garage
Apartment
1 DU
Multi-Family (ITE
220) 7.32 0.35 0.21 0.56 30% 5 0 0 0
Total 17 DU 112 7 4 11
DU = Dwelling Unit
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc., Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), and Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation (10th Edition) ITE Land Use
Category
External Trip Generation
Reduction for at Site Driveways
Non-Auto
Daily Access
PM Peak Hour
Trip Generation Rates
Daily
PM Peak Hour
679
Resolution 2024-XX
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
City Council
April 23, 2024
DENYING THE TOURIST CORE AREA PLAN/SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS
BACKGROUND
A. The Tourist Core Area Plan/Specific Plan was adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on October 15, 2013 (Ordinance 2013-1060).
B. The City received an application from HVR Acquisitions to amend the Tourist Core Area Plan to rezone a portion of APN 029-441-024 to Tourist Center Mixed-Use District and limit uses to residential, liner public facilities, recreation, resource management, and open space uses.
C. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15070, the City of South Lake has prepared an Initial Study/Negative Declaration for the Tourist Core Area Plan/Specific Plan Amendments in compliance with CEQA.
D. In accordance with Government Code Section 65352, the City prepared a Notice of Availability and Notice of Intent to adopt an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Tourist Core Area Plan/Specific Plan Amendments and circulated the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for public comment between January 19, 2024, and February 26, 2024.
E. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65453, a specific plan may be prepared and adopted by resolution or by ordinance and may be amended as often as deemed necessary by the legislative body.
BASED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE BACKGROUND, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council:
1. Denies the proposed Tourist Core Area Plan/Specific Plan Amendments. 680
Resolution 2024-XX April 23, 2024 Page 2 of 2
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on April 23, 2024, by the following vote:
Yes:
No:
Absent:
Abstain:
________________________ Date:_________
Cody Bass, Mayor
Attest:
________________________
Susan Blankenship, Elected City Clerk
The presence of an electronic signature certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy as approved by the South Lake Tahoe City Council.
681
Resolution 2024-005 March 21, 2024 Page 1 of 2
Resolution 2024-005
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
Planning Commission
March 21, 2024
ADOPT THE TOURIST CORE AREA PLAN/ SPECIFIC PLAN AMENDMENTS INITIAL
STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
BACKGROUND
A. The Tourist Core Area Plan/Specific Plan was adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council on October 15, 2013 (Ordinance 2013-1060).
B. The City received an application from HVR Acquisitions to amend the Tourist Core Area Plan to rezone a portion of APN 029-441-024 to Tourist Center Mixed-Use District and limit uses to residential, liner public facilities, recreation, resource management, and open space uses.
C. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) Guidelines Section 15070, the City of South Lake Tahoe has prepared an Initial Study/ Negative Declaration for the Tourist Core Area Plan/Specific Plan Amendments in compliance with CEQA.
D. In accordance with Government Code Section 65352, the City prepared a Notice of Availability and Notice of Intent to adopt an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Tourist Core Area Plan/Specific Plan Amendments and circulated the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration for public comment between January 19, 2024, and February 26, 2024.
E. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65453, a specific plan may be prepared and adopted by resolution or by ordinance and may be amended as often as deemed necessary by the legislative body.
F. The City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission took public comments on the proposed amendments and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration at their February 22, 2024 meeting.
682
Resolution 2024-005 March 21, 2024 Page 2 of 2
G. The City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the Initial Studay/ Mitigated Negative Declaration at a duly noticed public hearing held on March 21, 2024.
BASED ON THE FACTS SET FORTH IN THE BACKGROUND, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission:
1. Finds the Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis.
2. Finds there is no substantial evidence that the proposed Tourist Core Area Plan/Specific Plan Amendments will have a significant effect on the environment with mitigation measure Mitigation Measure TRAN- 1 which requires the property owner to enter into an agreement for offsite parking or submit a parking analysis that supports a reduction in the parking demand ratio.
3. Finds the foregoing recitals are true and correct and are made part of this resolution.
4. Adopts the Tourist Core Area Plan/Specific Plan Amendments Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission on March 21, 2024, by the following vote:
Yes: Wieczorek, Howard, Lucksinger
Absent ( recused): Feiger, Realo
Date:_________
Natalia Wieczorek, Chair
Attest:
Susan Blankenship, Elected City Clerk
The presence of electronic signature certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy as approved by the South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission.