South Lake Tahoe City Council
June 18, 2024

Executive Order B-30-15
On April 20, 2015, EO B-30-15 established a California GHG reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. The EO aligns California’s GHG reduction targets with those of leading international governments such as the 28-nation European Union, which adopted the same target in October 2014.

California is on track to meet or exceed the target of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, as established in the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill 32, discussed above).

California’s new emission reduction target of 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030 sets the next interim step in the State’s continuing efforts to pursue the long-term target expressed under Executive Order S-3- 05 to reach the ultimate goal of reducing emissions 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. This is in line 1501
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 115

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E with the scientifically established levels needed in the U.S. to limit global warming below 2 degrees Celsius, the warming threshold at which major climate disruptions are projected, such as super droughts and rising sea levels.

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

Climate Change Scoping Plan and Updates
In December 2008, CARB adopted its first version of its Climate Change Scoping Plan, which contained the main strategies California will implement to achieve the mandate of AB 32 (2006) to reduce statewide GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. In May 2014, CARB released and subsequently adopted the First Update to the Climate Change Scoping Plan to identify the next steps in reaching the goals of AB 32 (2006) and evaluate the progress made between 2000 and 2012 (CARB 2014). After releasing multiple versions of proposed updates in 2017, CARB adopted the next version titled California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan (2017 Scoping Plan) in December of that same year (CARB 2017b). The 2017 Scoping Plan indicates that California is on track to achieve the 2020 statewide GHG target mandated by AB 32 of 2006 (CARB 2017b:9). It also lays out the framework for achieving the mandate of SB 32 of 2016 to reduce statewide GHG emissions to at least 40 percent below 1990 levels by the end of 2030 (CARB 2017b). The 2017 Scoping Plan identifies the GHG reductions needed by each emissions sector.

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

Senate Bill X1-2, the California Renewable Energy Resources Act of 2011 and Senate Bill 350, the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of 2015
SB X1-2 of 2011 requires all California utilities to generate 33 percent of their electricity from renewables by 2020. SB X1-2 sets a three-stage compliance period requiring all California utilities, including independently owned utilities, energy service providers, and community choice aggregators, to generate 20 percent of their electricity from renewables by December 31, 2013; 25 percent by December 31, 2016; and 33 percent by December 31, 2020. SB X1-2 also requires the renewable electricity standard to be met increasingly with renewable energy that is supplied to the California grid from sources within, or directly proximate to, California. SB X1-2 mandates that renewables from these sources make up at least 50 percent of the total renewable energy for the 2011-2013 compliance period, at least 65 percent for the 2014–2016 compliance period, and at least 75 percent for 2016 and beyond. In October 2015, SB 350 was signed into law, which requires retail sellers and publicly owned utilities to procure 50 percent of their electricity from renewable resources by 2030.
1502
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 116

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

City of South Lake Tahoe Climate Action Plan
In 2017, the City passed Resolution 2017-26, Establishing Renewable Energy and Carbon Emissions Reduction Goals. These goals include achieving 50 percent of municipal energy sources from renewable energy by 2025, 100 percent of municipal energy sources from renewable energy by 2032, and 100 percent of community energy sources from renewable electricity by 2032. The resolution additionally outlines the emissions reduction targets of a 50 percent reduction in community-wide emissions by 2030 and an 80 percent reduction in community-wide emissions by 2040. After establishing these reduction targets, the City completed a community-wide GHG emissions inventory to identify the emissions-generating sources in the community. This inventory was used as the foundation for developing the City’s first Climate Action Plan, and City Council adopted it on October 20, 2020. It serves as a long-term plan to reduce GHG emissions from community activities and prepare for the impacts of climate change.

68. Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? (CEQA VIIa) This potential effect is the same as those analyzed in the City General Plan Update EIR. (Cite 4.5-47 to 4.5-

56.) Also see discussion and analysis for Question 27 above.

Implementation of the Tahoe Valley Area Plan amendment would result in some level of development and population growth anticipated during the plan horizon. In addition, the amendments would permit restaurants to add up to 20 seats of outdoor dining with no requirement for obtaining additional CFA. This amendment is considered to have a less than significant impact on greenhouse gas emissions given STPUD and TRPA determinations that this level of restaurant expansion would not require a change to sewer allocations or require new CFA for the business. Although many of the sustainability- and conservationoriented land use and transportation policies of the Regional Plan and General Plan would reduce VMT, increase opportunities for transit and non-motor vehicle travel, and allow or encourage redevelopment that would improve energy efficiency, the combined influence of development and population growth occurring during the planning horizon of the City General Plan and the TRPA Regional Plan would result in an increase in overall greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions that would make a cumulative contribution to global climate change.

Increases of GHG emissions attributable to the General Plan and the Tahoe Valley Area Plan amendment would consist primarily of CO2. To a lesser extent, emissions of CH4 and N2O would also contribute to overall increases in GHG emissions. Mobile-source emissions account for a majority of the increase in GHG emissions, representing roughly 85 percent of the total GHG emissions increase. To a lesser extent, 1503
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 117

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E electricity and natural gas consumption and use of wood-burning hearth devices also contribute to increased GHG emissions, accounting for a majority of the remaining GHG emissions. While substantial increases in total GHG emissions are anticipated, the General Plan would have substantially reduced GHG emissions per new service population (i.e., total number of new residents and employees in the Planning Area) as compared to development under the existing General Plan and 1987 TRPA Regional Plan (13.54 versus

23.57 MTCO2e per year) (CSLT 2010, pp. 4.85-47 through 4.5-56).

An increase in greenhouse gas emissions would be considered significant if the project would obstruct implementation of any applicable plan, policy, or regulation of an agency adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. This standard of significance approach for analysis of climate change impacts is generally supported by the California Air Resources Control Board (Preliminary Draft Staff Proposal - Recommended Approaches for Setting Interim Significance Thresholds for Greenhouse Gases under the California Environmental Quality Act, October 2008). As previously discussed, AB 32 requires total statewide GHG emissions to be reduced to 1990 emissions level by year 2020, which represents an approximate 15 percent reduction, in comparison to current GHG emissions.

As discussed in Question 27 above, TRPA is requiring each local jurisdiction to develop a GHG reduction strategy, using the Lake Tahoe Sustainability Action Plan as a guide in order to attain a 15 percent reduction below the existing emissions inventory for Area Plans. As shown in Table 16 above in the air quality analysis, accounting for the GHG emissions reduction associated with the removal of existing lodging units for operation would result in a 71 percent reduction under the Tahoe Valley Area Plan. Therefore, anticipated buildout of the Tahoe Valley Area Plan, as amended would offset the contribution of GHG emissions greater than 15 percent.

In addition, the proposed Area Plan would be considered to have a significant impact from global climate change if it would result in the exposure of residents to hazards associated with climate change.

The General Plan Update contains numerous policies that include specific, enforceable requirements and/or restrictions and corresponding performance standards that would apply in the Tahoe Valley Area Plan and would reduce VMT and air quality emissions, including construction-related and operational- related GHG emissions. These policies include actions that would promote the use of alternative fuels, alternative means of transportation, energy conservation, integrating land use and transportation strategies to reduce travel demand, and promoting sustainable development (CSLT 2010, pp. 4.5-49 through.4.5- 55).

The following mitigation measure from the General Plan EIR are also adopted as goals and policies in the General Plan to reduce GHG emission:

Goal NCR-5: To incorporate air quality improvements and emission reductions directly with land use and transportation planning.
 Policy NCR-5.12: Support local, TRPA, and statewide efforts to reduce emission of greenhouse gases linked to climate change.
 Policy NCR-5.13: Develop a citywide greenhouse gas emission inventory and establish regular time frames for updating the inventory.
 Policy NCR-5.14: Establish a greenhouse gas emission reduction target consistent with AB 32 and SB 375 reduction efforts.
 Policy NCR-5.15Analyze and mitigate significant increases in carbon emissions during project review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. 1504
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 118

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E Goal NCR-6: To encourage energy conservation in new and existing development in order to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, limit their effect on global warming, and to create a more sustainable environment.
 Policy NCR-6.1: Shift away from reliance on non-renewable sources, should emerging research show net environmental benefits in the use of biofuels.  Policy NCR-6.2: Develop a comprehensive strategy to reduce GHG emissions and climate impacts.
 Policy NCR-6.20: Develop strategies to protect the City from the impacts of climate change, such as reduced snowpack, lower lake levels, and natural disasters.

In addition to the measures described above, the Area Plan incorporates General Plan Policy NCR-5.10 (CSLT 2011, p. NCR-9) in Policy NCR-8.1 of the Area Plan to address short-term construction emissions (Tahoe Valley Area Plan, p. 71), which include incorporating measures to reduce construction-related GHG 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;  Restriction of idling of construction equipment and vehicles;  Apply water to control dust as needed to prevent dust impacts offsite; and  Utilize low emission construction equipment and/or fuels and use existing power sources (e.g., power poles), wherever feasible.

In May 2008, the California Office of the Attorney General issued a paper for use by local agencies in carrying out their duties under CEQA as they relate to global warming, which include the measures adopted in the General Plan Update. In addition, these measures are consistent with the recently adopted Climate Change Scoping Plan associated with emission reduction measures for energy efficiency, regional transportation-related greenhouse gas targets, and green building strategy (CARB, 2008). It i also important to note that the City has adopted a Climate Action Plan, which includes many of the same measures adopted in the General Plan Update. The City’s General Plan Update policies and the Climate Action Plan are consistent with efforts by the State of California. Reductions in VMT attributable to the proposed policies and action items would account for a reduction in mobile-source GHG emissions (higher density standards in town centers and multi-family zones). Additional reductions would also occur associated with implementation of proposed policies that would decrease emissions from area sources, such as measures that would promote green building, energy conservation, and sustainable development.

Moreover, the Tahoe Valley Area Plan Amendments would increase the density to 65 units per acre to incentivize residential development within town centers and multi-family zones, closer to employment and service centers, with better connections to transit, sidewalks, and bicycle trails. On average, there is 11 percent less MVT per capita in these town center and multi-family areas; thus, reducing VMTs and the associated GHG emissions compared to traditional residential districts farther from town centers.

Implementation of relevant policies from the General Plan, the City’s Climate Action Plan (which calls for 1505
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 119

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E development of a GHG inventory and reduction target), and associated mitigation measure MM 4.5.6 are anticipated to mitigate GHG emissions in a manner consistent with current state efforts to reduce GHG emissions under AB 32 and SB 375. Specifically implementation of IMP-8.6 (Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategy in the years 2013-2015) in combination with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.5.6 that would require coordination with future TRPA GHG reduction efforts, and the establishment of an emission reduction target consistent with AB 32 and SB 375 reduction efforts, would ensure that City GHG emissions are mitigated. Thus, this impact is considered less than significant (CSLT 2011a, p. 4.0-4 through 4.0-5). Because the Tahoe Valley Area Plan is consistent with and implements the General Plan and is consistent with the General Plan EIR, development and population growth anticipated during the Tahoe Valley Area Plan horizon is not expected to make a considerable contribution to global climate change. Thus this impact is considered less than significant.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

69. Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? (CEQA VIIb) The Tahoe Valley Area Plan Amendments is consistent with applicable plan, policies and regulations adopted in the TRPA Regional Plan, Sustainable Communities Strategy, and the City General Plan to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. As discussed in Question 68 above, the City and/or 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 Tahoe Valley Area Plan Policy NCR-8.1 which includes developing GHG reduction measures on a project-specific basis within the Tahoe Valley Area Plan. Moreover, the Tahoe Valley Area Plan would implement policies of the TRPA Regional Plan and the City General Plan which— among others—calls for concentrating development and redevelopment in town centers at higher densities (e.g., the TC-C, TC-G, TC-MUC, TC-G, TC-NP, and TC-HC zoning districts) in a pedestrian- and transitoriented environment that focuses on enhancing non-auto modes such as walking, biking, and transit as a strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Thus, this would be a less than significant impact.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

Refer to Question 27. Will the Project significantly alter climate, air movement, moisture, or temperature? (TRPA 2d)
See discussion and analysis for Question 27 above, concluding a less than significant impact.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
1506
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 120

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E

5.4.10 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 25 identifies the applicable impacts, anticipated level of impact, and whether mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Table 25
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

70. Create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment
through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous
materials? (CEQA VIIIa)
X

71. 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 VIIIb)
X

72. Emit hazardous emissions or
handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within
one-quarter mile of an existing
or proposed school? (CEQA
VIIIc)
X

73. 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
VIIId)
X
1507
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 121

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E

74. 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 for
people residing or working in
the project area? (CEQA
VIIIe)
X

75. For a Project within the
vicinity of a private airstrip,
would the Project result in a
safety hazard for people
residing or working in the
project area? (CEQA VIIIf)
X

76. Impair implementation of or
physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response
plan or emergency evacuation
plan? (CEQA VIIIg)
X

77. Expose people or structures to
a significant risk of loss, injury
or death involving wildland
fires, including where
wildlands are adjacent to
urbanized areas or where
residences are intermixed with
wildlands? (CEQA VIIIh)
X
TRPA Initial Environmental
Checklist Item Yes No, With Mitigation
Data
Insufficient No

78. 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

79. Involve possible interference
with an emergency evacuation
plan? (TRPA 10b)
X

80. Creation of any health hazard
or potential health hazard
(excluding mental health)?
(TRPA 17a)
X

81. Exposure of people to
potential health hazards?
(TRPA 17b)
X
1508
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 122

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E

70. Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (CEQA VIIIa) This potential effect is the same as those analyzed in the City General Plan Update, and therefore this analysis tiers from the General Plan EIR. (CSLT 2010, pp. 4.3-36 to 4.3-38.) The primary source for the impact would occur as a direct result of demolition, update, or construction of land uses within the Tahoe Valley plan area. The Tahoe Valley Area Plan Amendments is expected to result in some increase in land uses within the project area. Increased density, development of new land uses, and updates of previously constructed land uses may result in the need for transportation, storage, use, and disposal of normal hazardous materials used during construction. However all development would be required to adhere to federal, state, and local regulations regarding the handling, transportation, and disposal of hazardous materials.

The Tahoe Valley Area Plan may result in 373 new dwelling units and 77,000 to 102,000 square feet of commercial floor area (CFA). Construction of new homes and commercial improvements would require the routine transportation and use of hazardous materials including paints, adhesives, solvents, fuel, lubricants, and other commonly used materials. The transportation of hazardous materials on area roadways is regulated by the California Highway Patrol (CHP), U.S. Department of Transportation (Hazardous Materials Transportation Act), and Caltrans. Use of these materials is regulated by the DTSC (22 Cal. Code Regs §§66001, et seq.). The use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials by developers, contractors, business owners, and others 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 regulations designed to avoid hazardous material releases. All existing and future development in the Tahoe Valley plan area would be required to comply with federal, state, and local regulations regarding the handling and transportation, disposal, and cleanup of hazardous materials.

The El Dorado County Department of Environmental Management is responsible for consolidating, coordinating and making consistent the administration requirements, permits, inspection, and enforcement activities of state standards regarding the transportation, use, and disposal of hazardous materials in the County and the Tahoe Valley plan area. The City has incorporated specific, enforceable requirements and/or restrictions and corresponding performance standards that address hazardous materials. General Plan Policy HS-6.4 would require private waste collectors to provide household hazardous waste collection programs and Policy HS-6.5 requires private waste collectors to transport hazardous waste during non-peak hours (CSLT 2011, p. HS-7).

All existing and new development in the Tahoe Valley plan area would be required to comply with federal, state, and local regulations regarding the handling and transportation, disposal, and cleanup of hazardous materials. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

71. 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 VIIIb)
This potential effect is the same as those analyzed in the City General Plan Update, and therefore this analysis tiers from the General Plan EIR. (CSLT 2010, pp. 4.3-38 to 4.3-39.) 1509
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 123

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E The General Plan EIR (2010) identified that development and redevelopment within the City limits could result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment under reasonably foreseeable upset or accident conditions. Exposure to such materials could occur either through routine use or due to accidental release and concluded that this was a potentially significant impact requiring mitigation (CSLT 2010, pp.

4.3-38-39). The General Plan EIR identified two mitigation measures that were incorporated into the final adopted General Plan (2011). Policy HS-6.1 requires existing and new commercial and industrial uses involving the use, handling, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials within the city to disclose their activities in accordance with El Dorado County guidelines and the requirements of state law. Policy HS6.2 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 2011, p. HS-7).

All existing and new development in the Tahoe Valley plan area is required to and will 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.

72. 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 VIIIc)
This potential effect is the same as those analyzed in the City General Plan Update, and therefore this analysis tiers from the General Plan EIR. (CSLT 2010, pp. 4.3-40 to 4.3-41.) Locations where existing or past hazardous material leaks may exist in the Tahoe Valley plan area are shown in Table 26 below as well as other undiscovered or unregistered locations. Several other sites were indicated in the database search but these other sites have been remediated and closed by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Table 26
Active Hazardous Materials Release Sites in the Tahoe Valley Area Plan Site/Facility Name Regulatory
Database
Status Address
Description
Former Swiss Mart Gas Station LUST Decommission wells associated with the subject site.

Open – Eligible for Closure
913 Emerald Bay
Road
Tahoe Suds Laundromat
(previously Lake Tahoe Laundry
Works)
SLIC PCE release to
groundwater. Open – Remediation
1024 Emerald Bay
Road
Former Big O Tires SLIC VOC and PCE released to
groundwater. Open
1961 Lake Tahoe
Boulevard
Former Norma’s Cleaners SLIC PCE released to groundwater.

Open -Site Assessment
961 Emerald Bay
Road
1510
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 124

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E Source: LRWQCB, online Geotracker Database, May 23, 2023, http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov; Environmental Protection Agency, Enviromapper, May 12, 2008, http://www.epa.gov/enviro/html/em/ Note: Portions of Lake Tahoe Boulevard and Emerald Bay Road coincide with US 50 and SR 89, respectively. Also, while the EPA Enviromapper is cited, no active toxic releases were indicated in the EPA’s databases.

Figure 8 displays all of the known hazardous material contaminating activities/sites within the Tahoe Valley plan area.

Due to the fact that much of the Tahoe Valley plan area was developed prior to the ban on polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), it is conceivable that electrical transformers and industrial products currently located within the area could contain PCBs and other heavy metals. Persistent residential chemicals may also be present in the form of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers used in typical landscaping efforts by property ownersin the past. Accidental release of these materials could occur as a result of demolition, development, or update of land uses within the Tahoe Valley plan area, further exposing people to toxic emissions.

Sensitive receptors such as children, the elderly, or hospital patients can be significantly affected by these emissions. As schools are located in close proximity and both a hospital and housing typically utilized by senior citizens are located within the Tahoe Valley plan area, this is a primary concern.

As discussed under Question 71 above, the transportation of hazardous materials is regulated by the CHP, U.S. Department of Transportation, and Caltrans. Use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials is regulated by DTSC as well as local, state, and federal regulations. This is true for both demolition/construction and operation of projects. Facilities that use hazardous materials are required to obtain permits and comply with appropriate regulatory agency standards designed to avoid hazardous waste releases.

In regard to schools, there are four public schools located within two miles of the Tahoe Valley plan area:

South Tahoe High School (which includes the Mount Tallac Continuation School and Transitional Learning Center on the campus), Tahoe Valley Elementary School, South Tahoe Middle School, and Sierra House Elementary School. All four schools are located outside the Tahoe Valley plan area, with South Tahoe High School and Tahoe Valley Elementary School being located closest to the Tahoe Valley plan area – approximately 0.16 miles and 0.13 miles, respectively.

In order to site and construct a state-funded school, a public school district must complete an extensive and independent statutory review process in accordance with the siting requirements of the California Department of Education. In addition to CEQA review and in order to ensure that each new school site is safe from toxic hazards, new school sites may be subject to review from the following agencies: DTSC, the State Allocation Board, which administers and allocates funding requests, and the Division of the State Architect, which reviews the design, plans, and construction of public-funded schools. These review processes are most typically done on a site-specific basis. The selection of new public school sites must comply with the California Education Code (including Section 17521, requiring the governing board of the school district to adopt a resolution in connection with consideration of a proposal for occupancy of a building to be constructed on its property, and to conduct a public meeting), and the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 5, Sections 14001 through 14012, which outlines the powers and duties and establishes standards with which the California Department of Education and all public school districts must comply in the selection of new school sites. Furthermore, no new schools are planned and the number of students located within the City has declined. Therefore, impacts resulting from the construction of new schools are expected to be less than significant.
1511
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 125

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E 1512
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 126

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E The proposed Tahoe Valley Area Plan would result in an additional 373 dwelling units and 77,000 to 102,000 square feet CFA. Construction of these additional uses is not expected to require the use of any unusual amounts of construction-based hazardous materials, such as gasoline fuels, demolition materials, asphalt, lubricants, toxic solvents, and other related materials. In addition, certain commercial uses store, use, and routinely transport hazardous material to and from their facilities which could pose a potential hazard to the environment and the public, such as the use of above and below ground storage tanks. All existing and future development in the Tahoe Valley Area Plan would be required to comply with federal, state, and local regulations regarding the handling, transportation, disposal, and cleanup of hazardous materials. However, subsequent development could expose construction workers and future residents to hazards associated with previous land uses and future land uses. This impact is potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures would apply to the proposed Tahoe Valley Area Plan:

Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 Require all subsequent projects that would be located on sites suspected or known to contain hazardous materials and/or are identified in a hazardous material/waste search to be reviewed, tested, and remediated for potential hazardous materials in accordance with all local, state, and federal regulations. The City and TRPA shall require written confirmation from applicable local, regional, state, and federal agencies that known contaminated sites have been deemed remediated to a level appropriate for land uses proposed prior to the City and TRPA approving site development or provide an approved remediation plan that demonstrates how contamination will be remediated prior to site occupancy.

This documentation will specify the extent of development allowed on the remediated site as well as any special conditions and/or restrictions on future land uses.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 Subsequent projects that meet the definition of a “Possible Contaminating Activity” under Section 60.3.5 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances shall demonstrate compliance with the findings and requirements under Section 60.3.3.D of the TRPA Code of Ordinances and demonstrate that adequate protections are in place to avoid soil and groundwater contamination and protect public health of area residents. This demonstration shall be required prior to subsequent project approvals and implemented as part of project design.

Implementation of the above mitigation measures would ensure that site-specific hazardous material contamination and potential exposure from previous, current, or future land uses are addressed prior to development in order to protect public health. Thus, implementation of these mitigation measures would mitigate this impact to less than significant.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact after Mitigation.

Required Mitigation: MM HAZ-1 and MM HAZ-2.

73. 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 VIIId)
This section addresses potentially adverse environmental, health, and safety hazards in the Tahoe Valley Area Plan associated with hazardous or regulated material/waste. The State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (also known as the “Cortese List”) is a planning document used by state and local agencies and developers to comply with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements for providing information about the location of hazardous materials sites. Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal-EPA) to annually update the Cortese List. 1513
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 127

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E The Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) is responsible for providing a portion of the information that comprises the Cortese List. Other state and local government agencies are required to provide additional hazardous material release information that is part of the complete list. The CAL-SITES Abandoned Sites Program Information System (ASPIS) Database is compiled by the California Environmental Protection Agency to identify and track potential hazardous waste sites. Searches of the above resources and records identified 30 hazardous material sites within the Tahoe Valley Area Plan known to handle and store hazardous materials and/or sites associated with a hazardous material-related release or occurrence. The terms “release” or “occurrence” include any means by which a substance could harm the environment by spilling, leaking, discharging, dumping, injecting, or escaping.

Material hazards indicated in the vicinity of the Tahoe Valley Area Plan primarily concern gasoline, diesel fuel oil, methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MBTE), and perchloroethylene (PCE). Both gasoline and diesel fuels by themselves can be inhalant and ingestion hazards to people and damaging to both animals and plants.

MBTE was a common gasoline additive, commonly added to fuel as an oxygenate. MBTE was developed as a replacement for lead additives used prior to 1979. MBTE has been shown to be a carcinogen when inhaled, but limited data is available concerning MBTE’s cancer-causing potential in groundwater.

Regardless, it is considered hazardous and several groundwater wells in the City have shown MBTE contamination. PCE is a common chlorofluorocarbon (CFC) used most often in dry cleaning operations.

Exposure to PCE usually occurs through inhalation. Depending on the length and severity of exposure, PCE can cause effects such as dizziness, fatigue, headaches, and sweating and in higher exposures can lead to unconsciousness. Contact with PCE can cause skin, eye, nose, and throat irritation. Long-term, low-dose exposure has been shown to cause kidney and liver damage and in some cases cancer in study animals.

Table 26 and Figure 8 display all of the known hazardous material contaminating activities/sites within the Tahoe Valley plan area. These known sites were identified through the California GeoTracker database as well as the Landfill Database, which lists active but not necessarily polluting landfills. Several records were listed in the Tahoe Valley plan area in the GeoTracker databases that are not included in this table as those records were closed and remediated. Table 26 only includes active records.

Future development or redevelopment within the Tahoe Valley Area Plan may 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, this impact is potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures would apply to the proposed Tahoe Valley Area Plan:

Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 as set forth in the discussion and analysis of Question 73 above.

Implementation of the above mitigation measures would ensure that site-specific hazardous material contamination and potential exposure from previous, current, or future land uses are addressed prior to development in order to protect public health. Thus, implementation of these mitigation measures would mitigate this impact to less than significant.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact after Mitigation.

Required Mitigation: MM HAZ-1 and MM HAZ-2.
1514
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 128

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E

74. 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 for people residing or working in the project area? (CEQA VIIIe) As stated above, the Tahoe Valley Area Plan Amendments would result in additional dwelling units and CFA. Additional structures and residents within the plan area could potentially expose those people and structures to typical hazards associated with general aviation aircraft overflights and approach to and departure from the Lake Tahoe Airport.

Hazards associated with airport operations are generally associated with aircraft accidents. Aircraft accidents of most concern occur during takeoff and landing operations during which aircraft are operated close to the ground and within close proximity to one another. Potential hazards around an airport can be increased due to many external factors such as incompatible land uses in the vicinity of the airport, installation of power transmission lines, wildlife hazards (i.e., bird strikes, migrating wildlife, etc.), and construction of tall structures.

Lake Tahoe Airport Land Use Comprehensive Plan
As part of the land use planning process mandated by the Division of Aeronautics and the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook, several Airport Land Use Commissions (ALUCs) have been formed throughout the state to prepare and administer Airport Land Use Compatibility Plans ALUCP) for each public-use airport in the state. El Dorado County has an operating ALUC that has prepared ALUCPs for many of the airports in the county. However, the City of South Lake Tahoe has been designated as the administrator of the Lake Tahoe Airport by Caltrans’ Division of Aeronautics. As such, the City operates as its own ALUC and the City has developed the Lake Tahoe Airport ALUCP.

The Lake Tahoe Airport ALUCP provides land use compatibility guidelines on which compatibility of land uses in the vicinity of the airport is determined. The primary action of the ALUCP is to establish three planning boundaries around the airport concerning height of ground structures, noise, and safety. The most recent Lake Tahoe Airport ALUCP was adopted by the ALUC 2019.

It is important to note that while ALUCP have been developed, ALUCs do not have the power to mandate land uses in the vicinity of the airport under state law. The Division of Aeronautics allows for nonconforming land uses within the ALUCP boundaries. For a jurisdiction to adopt such non-conforming uses, however, a specific process must be conducted that allows for full disclosure of the discrepancy to the public.

City of South Lake Tahoe Airport Ordinance
Section 6.55.200 of the South Lake Tahoe City Code is considered the Airport Ordinance. This ordinance is enacted to protect the health, safety, and peace and to promote the welfare and convenience of the general public making use of the Lake Tahoe Airport by providing regulations for the orderly flow of traffic of aircraft, motor vehicles, and persons and the orderly and safe conduct of business thereon.

The Overflight Zone of the Lake Tahoe Airport is located over the southern portion of the proposed Tahoe Valley Area Plan, generally the area south of US 50 as it travels eastward from the “Y” intersection. As such, certain land uses are not allowed within this area, including privately owned assembly and entertainment, collection stations, and sport assemblies. Development of these uses within the plan area could represent elevated hazards to people on the ground during use of these types of structures. The City’s General Plan includes Policy HS-7.1 which stipulates that land uses within the ALUCP boundaries adhere to the requirements of the ALUCP.
1515
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 129

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E Additional concern for flight safety, and thus the safety of people and structures on the ground, concerns tall structures that may impede flights over the plan area. The portions of the plan area within the ALUCP boundaries lie under the horizontal imaginary surface, located 6,414 feet above mean sea level (msl). The highest point within the proposed plan area is located at approximately 6,319 feet msl, resulting in a minimum height restriction over the Tahoe Valley plan area of approximately 100 feet or approximately 10 stories. The maximum structure height proposed in the Tahoe Valley Area Plan is 45 feet. Therefore, it is unlikely that any new structures would be constructed high enough to pierce the horizontal surface.

According to the current City General Plan, Policy HS-7.1 will implement the land use restrictions stated in the ALUCP. As such, development of the above land uses within the southern portion of the Tahoe Valley plan area would not be allowed, regardless of the status of the Tahoe Valley Area Plan. In addition to the requirements of the General Plan, the Tahoe Valley Area Plan specifically includes HNS- 1.1, which requires that land use development within the area be measured against both the requirements of the Tahoe Valley Area Plan and the ALUCP, ensuring that the safety and height requirements of the CLUP are upheld.

Implementation of this action item as well as required consistency with height restrictions would ensure that the proposed Tahoe Valley Area Plan would result in a less than significant impact.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

75. For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (CEQA VIIIf) The Project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip and therefore has no impact on public safety in the vicinity of a private airstrip.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

76. Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (CEQA VIIIg) The City of South Lake Tahoe is responsible for emergency operations within the city limits. The City has adopted a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (adopted October 2022) which has been approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). This plan provides guidance to the City for the development of pre-mitigation and post-mitigation recovery for disasters in all hazard classification.

Chapter 1.15 of the City Code provides for the preparation and carrying out of 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 Manager, or his designee, serves as the director of emergency services and is empowered to proclaim or threatened existing of an “emergency”, or to issue such as proclamation. The City has adopted General Plan policies in the Health and Safety Element: 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 2011, p. HS-2).

As described above, the Tahoe Valley Area Plan is expected to result in an increase in dwelling units and 1516
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 130

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E CFA within the plan area. Increased density has the potential to adversely affect emergency response described in local, regional, and state emergency response and/or evacuation plans, including but not limited to the County Emergency Operations Plan, the City’s Emergency Operations Plan, and the SLTFD Fire Planning Process. Increased density can result in greater numbers of residents and employees within an area that would need to be protected and potentially evacuated. Increased square footage of homes and CFA area represent greater resources that require protection and, in the event of an emergency, response. As such, the Tahoe Valley Area Plan Amendments is expected to result in an incremental impact on emergency plans in plan area. However, existing roadways provide multiple options for evacuation of the area and no roadway closures are expected as a result of the Tahoe Valley Area Plan Amendments.

Indirect effects to emergency response occur when construction and roadway improvements result in temporary and permanent changes in circulation patterns and individual site access. Construction can often disrupt emergency response and thus adversely affect response coordinated through local emergency plans.

Construction-related impacts would be temporary in nature – lasting only as long as construction – and overall traffic improvements are expected to improve circulation within the Tahoe Valley plan area, resulting in a net decrease in response times.

While temporary, construction-related impacts are not expected to be significant. The permanent effect of additional residents, employees, and structures within the Tahoe Valley plan area could significantly increase the amount and severity of emergency response required in the area, affecting emergency response and evacuation plans. Therefore, this impact is potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure HAZ-3 Subsequent projects shall incorporate all fire protection and design provisions identified by the South Lake Tahoe Fire Department intended to improve access point(s) and circulation of the subsequent project sites and the overall area in combination with other fire protection requirements (defensible space, fire flow improvements, fire resistant building materials, landscape treatments, placement of hydrants, and installation of sprinklers). The South Lake Tahoe Fire Department shall review and approve the subsequent project site design prior to commencement of project construction.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-4 Subsequent projects shall be required to prepare and receive approval of a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) in accordance with local and state guidelines and standards, including Caltrans Guidelines for Projects Located on the California State Highways in the Lake Tahoe Basin (as applicable). Approval of the TMP shall be obtained from the City and Caltrans (if TMP impacts US 50 or SR 89) prior to site disturbance. Provisions in the TMP shall include, but are not limited to:
• Reduction, to the extent feasible, the number of vehicles (construction and other) on the roadways adjacent to construction sites during project construction.  Reduction, to the extent feasible, the interaction between construction equipment and other vehicles.
 Improvement and maintenance of public safety aimed at driver and roadway safety.  Establishment and/or maintenance of safe routes through the project area for bicycles and pedestrians.
 Establishment and/or maintenance of adequate emergency access for police, fire, ambulance, and other emergency service vehicles – as determined through direct consultation with those service providers.
1517
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 131

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E Implementation of the above mitigation measures will ensure that future projects within the Tahoe Valley plan area will not adversely impact emergency response or emergency response plans, resulting in a less than significant impact.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact after Mitigation.

Required Mitigation: MM HAZ-3, MM HAZ-4.

77. Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (CEQA VIIIh)
The risk of wildfire through the City and the Tahoe Valley plan area is high due to both the extent and nature of the forested area. A network of federal, state, and local agencies has been established with responsibility for fire and emergency response. Primary response to the Tahoe Valley plan area would be the responsibility of the SLTFD, but additional response is possible from adjacent departments, the County, CAL-FIRE, and the U.S. Forest Service.

Development anticipated under the Tahoe Valley Area Plan Amendments may increase the number of dwellings and amount of CFA within the planning area. As such, additional resources and people in need of protection would be located in the area, potentially exposing those structures and people to risks of wildland fire. Following the Angora Fire, several efforts have been undertaken that will improve both land management (fuel reduction) and fire response within the Tahoe Valley plan area. Furthermore, recent changes to the allowed permits for removal and management of landscaping and vegetation around structures (agreed between TRPA and SLTFD) will further decrease the risk of wildland fire.

The Tahoe Valley Area Plan contains Policy HNS-1.3 which requires any new structure or addition to implement fire prevention techniques consistent with current California Building and Fire Codes.

Application and enforcement of TRPA Regional Plan policies, portions of the TRPA Code of Ordinances, Area Plan policies, SLTFD permitting process, and local fire codes and guidelines and required consistency with the Fire Planning Process for the City, the Lake Tahoe Basin Wildland Urban Interface Plan, and various other plans and requirements already enforced within the Tahoe Valley plan area will further reduce the risk of wildland fire to residents, employees, visitors, and structures within the area. This impact, however, is considered to be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
Implementation of mitigation measures HAZ-3 and HAZ-4 would mitigate increases to potential exposure to wildlife hazards to less than significant.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact after Mitigation.

Required Mitigation: MM HAZ-3, MM HAZ-4.

78. 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)
This potential effect is the same as those analyzed in the TRPA Regional Plan Update, and therefore this analysis tiers from the General Plan EIR. (CSLT 2010, pp. 4.3-40 to 4.3-41.) 1518
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 132

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E The risk of explosion or release of hazardous substances is discussed and analyzed in detail for Question 72 above and the impact is potentially significant. With the adoption of mitigation measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, this impact is reduced to a less than significant level.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact after Mitigation.

Required Mitigation: MM HAZ-1 and MM HAZ-2.

79. Will the Project involve possible interference with an emergency evacuation plan? (TRPA 10b)
See discussion and analysis for Question 76 above that concludes that implementation of the Tahoe Valley Area Plan will have a potentially significant impact on existing emergency evacuation plans.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact after Mitigation.

Required Mitigation: MM HAZ-3, MM HAZ-4.

80. 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 70 through 73 above.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact after Mitigation.

Required Mitigation: MM HAZ-1 and MM HAZ-2.

81. Will the Project result in exposure of people to potential health hazards? (TRPA 17b) See discussions and analyses for Questions 70 through 73 above Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact after Mitigation.

Required Mitigation: MM HAZ-1 and MM HAZ-2.
1519
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 133

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E

5.4.11 Hydrology and Water Quality
This section presents the analyses for potential impacts to hydrology and water quality. Table 27 identifies the applicable impacts, anticipated level of impact, and whether mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Table 27
Hydrology and Water Quality
CEQA Environmental
Checklist Item
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Measures
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact

82. Violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge
requirements? (CEQA IXa)
X

83. Substantially deplete
groundwater supplies or
interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such
that there would be a net
deficit in aquifer volume or a
lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g.,
the production rate of preexisting nearby wells would
drop to a level which would
notsupport existing land uses
or planned uses for which
permits have been granted)?
(CEQA IXb)
X

84. Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the
alteration of the course of a
stream or river, in a manner
which would result in
substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off-site? (CEQA IXc)
X

85. Substantially alter the existing
drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the
alteration of the course of a
stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate
or amount of surface runoff in
a manner which would result
in flooding on- or off-site?
(CEQA IXd)
X

86. Create or contribute runoff
water which would exceed the X
1520
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 134

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems
or provide substantial
additional sources of polluted
runoff? (CEQA IXe)

87. Otherwise substantially
degrade water quality? (CEQA
IXf)
X

88. Place housing within a 100-
year flood hazard area as
mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary or Flood
Insurance Rate Map or other
flood hazard delineation map?
(CEQA IXg)
X

89. Place within a 100-year flood
hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood
flows? (CEQA IXh)
X

90. Expose people or structures to
a significant risk of loss, injury
or death involving flooding,
including flooding as a result
of the failure of a levee or
dam? (CEQA IXi)
X

91. Inundation by seiche, tsunami,
or mudflow? (CEQA IXj) X
TRPA Initial Environmental
Checklist Item Yes No, With Mitigation
Data
Insufficient No

92. Changes in currents, or the
course or direction of water
movements? (TRPA 3a)
X

93. 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

94. Alterations to the course or
flow of 100-yearflood waters?
(TRPA 3c)
X

95. Change in the amount of
surface water in any water
body? (TRPA 3d)
X

96. Discharge into surface waters,
or in any alteration of surface
water quality, including but
X
1521
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 135

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
(TRPA 3e)

97. Alteration of the direction or
rate of flow of ground water?
(TRPA 3f)
X

98. 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

99. Substantial reduction in the
amount of water otherwise
available for public water
supplies? (TRPA 3h)
X
100.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
101.The potential discharge of
contaminants to the
groundwater or any alteration
of groundwater quality?
(TRPA 3j)
X
102.Is the Project located within
600 feet of a drinking water
source? (TRPA 3k)
X, LTS

82. Would the Project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (CEQA IXa)
Subsequent development under the Tahoe Valley Area Plan amendment could result in temporary and permanent water quality impacts to surface runoff from construction and increases in impervious coverage.

However, the Tahoe Valley Area Plan would continue to promote and implement existing policies related to (1) construction of best management practices and permitting requirements; (2) reducing land coverage impacts in low capability lands by transferring coverage to high capability lands and installing BMPs; (3) promoting retrofit of existing development with BMPs through existing and proposed Tahoe Valley Area Plan policies; and (4) implementing area-wide treatment systems. Application of existing transfer and restoration provisions of the TRPA Code, and proposed Tahoe Valley Area Plan policies for SEZ restoration, BMP implementation, and area-wide treatment would allow continued compliance with water quality standards and waste discharge requirements. Moreover, as discussed below in the Water Quality Impacts of Concentrated Coverage and results of pollutant load modeling, implementation of the Tahoe Valley Plan would result in a net reduction of pollutant loads to Lake Tahoe when compared to the baseline conditions.
1522
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 136

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E Water Quality Impacts of Concentration of Coverage
The 2015 Area Plan IS/IEC analyzed the potential impacts to water quality from increased land coverage allowances for Town Centers included in the 2012 TRPA RPU. The proposed expansion of the Area Plan boundary will result in potential for additional coverage on 23 parcels (11.5 acres) within the Gateway and Neighborhood Professional districts. With their inclusion in the area plan boundary, these parcels shall be added to a TRPA designated Town Center where maximum allowed land coverage equals 70 percent of the project area. These parcels all contain high capability soils that previously could not exceed 30 percent coverage. Increasing the allowable coverage to 70 percent creates the potential for approximately 200,000 square feet (4.6 acres) of additional impervious area in the TVAP Town Center with transfer from offsite locations.

Transfers of this additional coverage shall be subject to TRPA Code of Ordinances 30.4: Land Coverage Limitations. All coverage beyond the base allowed comes from the transfer and retirement of existing coverage so that there is no net increase within the basin.

This potential effect is largely the same as that analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and therefore the analysis is tiered from and is consistent with the General Plan EIR. (CLST 2010, p. 4.7-48 to 4.7-62.) The potential effect is also the same as that analyzed in the RPU EIS. As discussed in Impact 3.8-4 of the DEIS (TRPA 2012a, p. 3.8-32), the analysis concluded that increased coverage allowances up to 70 percent in conforming area plans would have a less than significant effect on surface water runoff, provided that it’s located on high capability lands and the increased coverage comes from the transfer and retirement of existing coverage.

To achieve this increased coverage, restoration and transfers of existing coverage would be required.

Applying the existing transfer provisions, implementation of the 2015 Tahoe Valley Area Plan would result in the reduction of up to 57.0 acres of coverage in sensitive land, or a reduction and relocation of 72.4 acres of coverage and permanent retirement of 28.9 acres of coverage in non-sensitive land. The Tahoe Valley Area Plan would result in the decrease of land coverage within the Upper Truckee HRA and sensitive land, while increasing coverage within high capability lands as development is further concentrated in the town center to promote a compact land use pattern (see Section 6.4.8 Geology, Soils, Land Capability, and Coverage for analysis of potential changes in coverage). While coverage in Town Centers would increase, the additional coverage would still be limited to high capability lands and would be required to meet existing BMP standards to control potential increases in stormwater runoff and pollutant loading from the additional coverage, including maintenance requirements.

The potential effects of concentrated coverage on water quality in the 2015 Tahoe Valley Area Plan was analyzed using the Pollutant Load Reduction Model (PLRM) – a publicly available computer model used to evaluate and compare alternatives for storm water quality improvement projects in the Lake Tahoe Basin.

The PLRM is a tool to compare urban stormwater quality improvement alternatives in an urban catchment based on the predicted load reductions of the pollutants of concern.

The PLRM summarizes output as average annual runoff volumes and pollutant loads for each modeled scenario. The PLRM quantifies pollutant generation from an urban land use and associated land use condition. Urban land use types include single family residential, multi‐family residential, commercial, primary roads, and secondary roads, etc. Condition is defined as the existing state of a land use relative to the pollutant generation risk during a subsequent storm and is the integration of physiographic characteristics, pollutant source controls, and the effectiveness of pollutant recovery efforts.

As discussed above and depicted in Table 28, a PLRM model run of the net effect of increased coverage resulting from the Tahoe Valley Area Plan estimates that pollutant loadings to surface waters would be reduced overall when compared to the baseline conditions that existed in the Tahoe Valley plan area in 1523
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 137

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E 2015.

Overall, analysis conducted for the 2015 Tahoe Valley Area Plan predicted reductions of: runoff volumes by 27%; Total Suspended Sediment (TSS) by 23%; FSP by 25 %; Total Phosphorus (TP) by 20%; Soluble Reactive Phosphorus (SRP) by 41%; Total Nitrogen (TN) by 21%; and Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen (DIN) by 24%. The decrease in the pollutant load is the result of a number of factors including implementation of BMPs on existing developed parcels that qualify for additional coverage. Currently, the compliance rate for BMP installation in the Tahoe Valley plan area is approximately 32 percent. As existing parcels with no BMPs are redeveloped, and BMPs are installed, pollutant loads are captured and treated.

Furthermore, implementation of the Tahoe Valley Area Plan would facilitate the construction of the Tahoe Valley Stormwater System which would treat runoff from city streets and function as an area-wide treatment system that adjacent commercial projects will plumb into. Because the stormwater system will be maintained by the City, the area-wide treatment system is expected to be more effective in treating pollutant loads than parcel-level BMPs.

Additionally, it can be assumed that some portion of the coverage transferred to the area plan will come from properties that are not in compliance with TRPA BMP standards, thus the net effect of coverage reduction and transfer to high capability lands in the Town Center would result in reduced pollutant loads.

Thus, the water quality impacts of concentrated coverage in Town Centers will be beneficial.

Table 28
Pollutant Load Reduction Model Results For the Tahoe Valley Area Plan\ Runoff Volume TSS1 FSP2 TP3 SRP4 TN5 DIN6
Ac
Ft/Yr +/- Lbs/Yr +/- Lbs/Yr +/- Lbs/Yr +/- Lbs/Yr +/- Lbs/Yr +/- Lbs/yr +/- Baseline 120.8 - 57,619.2 - 35,960.8 - 133.6 - 34.1 - 586.6 - 67.1 - Tahoe
Valley
Plan

88.7 32.1 (26.6%) 44,271.5 13,347.7
(23.2%) 27,126.5 8,834.3(24.6%) 107.2 26.4(19.8%) 20.0 14.1(41.4%) 464.6 122.0(20.8%) 51.0 16.1(23.9%)

1. Total Suspended Sediment

2. Fine Sediment Particles

3. Total Phosphorus

4. Soluble Reactive Phosphorus

5. Total Nitrogen

6. Dissolved Inorganic Nitrogen
Construction Impacts
This potential effect is the same as that analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and therefore the analysis is tiered from and is consistent with the General Plan EIR. (CLST 2010, p. 4.7-57 to 4.7-62.) This analysis addresses the specific circumstance of the project and considers the identified level of potential development within the Tahoe Valley Area Plan.

The 2015 Tahoe Valley Area Plan may result in the construction of 373 new dwelling units and 77,000 to 102,000 square feet of commercial floor area, potentially generating runoff containing various pollutants that could contaminate surface and/or groundwater supplies (if not properly treated with water quality controls) as runoff percolates into the soil. However, the statewide NPDES permits for construction runoff, dewatering and other low-threat releases to surface water, and discharges from municipal storm drain systems (MS4s) require the provision of water quality control measures that would protect groundwater quality from future development activities. In addition, numerous other regulations at the state, regional, and local levels are currently in place to protect and improve water quality in the region. (CSLT 2010, p. 1524
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 138

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E

4.7-57.)
The Tahoe Valley Area Plan Amendments would not alter or revise the regulations pertaining to discharge into surface waters and surface water quality. Chapter 60 of the TRPA Code, which includes standards for discharge limits to surface and ground waters and Chapter 7.15 of the City Code which regulates urban runoff and stormwater quality. Additionally, consistent with existing conditions, all development, redevelopment, and infrastructure improvements within the Tahoe Valley Area Plan would be required to meet the discharge standards of the Lahontan Regional Water Control Board and the City’s municipal stormwater discharge permit. All projects that would create more than one acre of disturbance are required to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with The City’s Stormwater Management Plan (2007).

Because all existing state and local protections for surface water would remain in place, and water quality BMPs (in accordance with Chapter 60 of the TRPA Code Chapter 7.15 of the City Code) would continue to be required for all properties within the Tahoe Valley Area Plan, construction activities within the Tahoe Valley Area Plan would not result in discharges to surface waters or alteration of surface water quality. This impact would be less than significant.

Groundwater Impacts
This potential effect is the same as that analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and therefore the analysis is tiered from and is consistent with the General Plan EIR. (CSLT 2010, p. 4.7-37 to 4.7-43.) This analysis addresses the specific circumstance of the Tahoe Valley planning area and considers the groundwater elevations and areas of existing soil and/or groundwater contamination identified in the Tahoe Valley plan area.

The Tahoe Valley plan area includes of areas of known high groundwater elevations, and areas of existing soils and/or groundwater contamination, that could be intercepted by excavations from subsequent development activities and/or altered through infiltration of surface water into the ground. Interception of groundwater could result in alteration of the direction of groundwater flow, alteration of the rate of flow, and could contaminate groundwater quality.

Groundwater interception or interference is prohibited under Section 33.3.6 of the TRPA Code, except under certain circumstances, described as follows:

1. Excavation is prohibited that interferes with or intercepts the seasonal high water table by:
a. Altering the direction of groundwater flow;
b. Altering the rate of flow of ground water;
c. Intercepting ground water;
d. Adding or withdrawing ground water; or
e. Raising or lowering the water table.

2. TRPA may approve exceptions to the prohibition of groundwater interception or interference if TRPA finds that:
a. Excavation is required by the International Building Code (IBC) or local building code for minimum depth below natural ground for above ground structures; 1525
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 139

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E b. Retaining walls are necessary to stabilize an existing unstable cut or fill slope; c. Drainage structures are necessary to protect the structural integrity of an existing structure; d. It is necessary for the public safety and health;
e. It is a necessary measure for the protection or improvement of water quality; f. It is for a water well;
g. There are no feasible alternatives for locating mechanical equipment, and measures are included in the project to prevent groundwater from leaving the project area as surface flow, and any groundwater that is interfered with is rerouted in the ground water flow to avoid adverse impacts to riparian vegetation;
h. It is necessary to provide two off-street parking spaces, there is no less environmentally harmful alternative, and measures are taken to prevent groundwater from leaving the project area as surface flow;
i. It is necessary to provide below grade parking for projects that qualify for additional height under subsection 37.5.4 or 37.5.9 to achieve environmental goals, including scenic improvements, land coverage reduction, and area-wide drainage systems. Measures shall also be included in the project to prevent ground water from leaving the project area as surface flow and that any groundwater, that is interfered with is rerouted into the groundwater flow to avoid adverse impacts to hydrologic conditions, SEZ vegetation, and mature trees; or j. It is necessary for a marina expansion approved pursuant to Chapter 14: Specific and Master Plans, and the environmental documentation demonstrates that there will be no adverse effect on water quality.

Where active hazardous materials release sites are located (See Question 72, Table 26) there is the potential for surface water infiltration associated with BMPs to disturb and/or distribute the pollutants further prior to remediation. The EPA recommends keeping non-contaminated stormwater separate from contaminated soils and water to prevent leaching and spreading of contaminants. Direct infiltration in these locations may introduce additional pollutant loads to groundwater and nearby surface waters (EPA, Design Principles for Stormwater Management on Compacted, Contaminated Soils in Dense Urban Areas, April 2008).

Although both parcel-specific BMP systems and area-wide systems have the potential to create this adverse impact by infiltrating stormwater, area-wide systems are typically implemented by government entities and their scale requires detailed site reconnaissance and environmental analysis, including evaluation of Source Water Protection Maps in accordance with TRPA Code section 60.3. Therefore, it is more likely that the potential for this impact would be identified and mitigated through an area-wide system than a parcelspecific BMP system implemented by a private property owner. The possibility of surface water infiltration where active release sites are located is a potentially significant impact.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure HYD-1 As part of soil/hydrologic investigations for subsequent development and activities in the Tahoe Valley plan area, TRPA and the City will require that a determination of the potential to encounter groundwater from site development may occur. Subsequent project stormwater pollution prevention plans (SWPPP) will include a dewatering program and measures to mitigate potential contamination of groundwater as well as design provisions to allow groundwater to flow through or around 1526
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 140

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E underground structures. Measures to control water quality may include use of settling tanks and Active Treatment Systems (ATS) for treatment of dewatering as well as contamination prevention measures such as proper material storage, secondary containment systems, vehicle fluid drip pans, temporary berms or dikes to isolate construction activities, use of vacuum trucks, and other measures to capture contamination releases.

Mitigation Measure HYD-2 The City and TRPA shall consult with the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board and online Geotracker Database to determine the potential for hazardous material releases on property where BMP installation is proposed prior to issuance of permits, approving the installation of BMPs. Where City and/or TRPA staff determines a potential to exist, the property is required to tie in to an existing area-wide system if one is available in lieu of parcel specific BMPs. Where an area-wide system is not available, the site shall be deemed constrained, per TRPA Code 60.4.8.B, until the time that an areawide system is available or the site has been remediated and closed by the Water Quality Control Board.

MM HAZ-1 and MM HAZ-2 (see Question 72 above).

Significance after Mitigation
Implementation of mitigation measures HYD-1 and HYD-2 as well as the TRPA Code would mitigate potential groundwater impacts to less than significant. The reader is referred to Question 72 above, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, for potential groundwater impacts associated with future land uses, which would be mitigated through implementation of MM HAZ-1 and MM HAZ-2.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact after Mitigation.

Required Mitigation: MM HYD-1, MM HYD-2, MM HAZ-1 and MM HAZ-2.

83. Would the Project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (CEQA IXb)
This potential effect is the same as that analyzed in the City General Plan EIR, and so this analysis is tiered from the General Plan EIR. (CLST 2010, 4.7-37 to 4.7-43.) The Tahoe Valley Area Plan 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 Board. Consistent with existing conditions, projects that could occur under the Tahoe Valley Area Plan with subsequent approval that would require additional water supply affecting the amount of surface water in Lake Tahoe or another water body would be required to comply with Chapters 32 and 60 of the TRPA Code. These regulations pertain to the provision of basic services to projects and the protection of source water.

The potential impact of development and redevelopment within the Tahoe Region, including development within the Tahoe Valley plan area, on the availability of public water supplies was analyzed in the RPU EIS (TRPA 2012a, p. 3.13-11) and in the General Plan EIR (CLST 2010, 4.7-37 to 4.7-43 and 4.12-12 to

4.12-13). Because the regional water demand at build-out would be less than the regional surface water allocation, and because TRPA Code Section 32.4 requires demonstration of adequate available water supply within an existing water right prior to permit approval, implementation of the Tourist Core Area Plan would not result in a substantial reduction in the amount of surface water or the water available for public water 1527
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 141

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E supplies. Thus, this would be a less than significant impact.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

84. 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, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? (CEQA IXc) This potential effect is the same as those analyzed in Impact 4.7.6 (CSLT 2010, pp. 4.7-62 to 4.7-65) of the City General Plan Update EIR, and therefore the analysis is tiered from and is consistent with the General Plan EIR. Impact 4.7.6 concluded that development within the City limits would not have a significant effect on drainage flows or result in increased flood hazards.

The Tahoe Valley Area Plan Amendments would not alter or revise the regulations pertaining to the course or direction of water movements. In accordance with Section 13.7.3 of the TRPA Code, TRPA would retain responsibility for enforcing and implementing Chapter 93 o the TRPA Code. Stream modifications are limited by the provisions of Chapter 63 which requires protection of fish resources, and Sections 61.3.3 and

30.5, which requires protection of SEZ areas, thereby protecting streams as well. Consistent with existing requirements, projects that could occur within the Tahoe Valley Area Plan that could alter the course or direction of water movements would be subject to subsequent 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. Thus, this would be a less than significant impact.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

85. 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 substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? (CEQA IXd) A small area within the Tahoe Valley plan area is within Special Flood Hazard Areas designated on the NFIP Flood Insurance Rate Maps. This area is located where the Upper Truckee River passes under US Hwy 50 and the 100-year flood zone includes properties adjacent to Hwy 50 and the river. No areas proposed for expansion of the Tahoe Valley Area Plan are located within the Special Flood Hazard Areas.

Thus, there is no impact from the proposed amendments.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

86. Would the Project 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? (CEQA IXe)
This potential effect is the same as those analyzed in Impact 4.7.6 (CSLT 2010, pp. 4.7-62 to 4.7-65) of the City General Plan Update EIR, and therefore the analysis is tiered from and is consistent with the General Plan EIR. Impact 4.7.6 concluded that development within the City limits would not have a significant 1528
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 142

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E effect on drainage flows or result in increased flood hazards. Also see discussion and analysis for Questions 82, 84 and 85 above, concluding no impact or a less than significant impact.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

87. Would the Project otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (CEQA IXf) This potential effect is the same as those analyzed in Impact 4.7.6 (CSLT 2010, pp. 4.7-62 to 4.7-65) of the City General Plan Update EIS, and therefore the analysis is tiered from and is consistent with the GP EIS.

Impact 4.7.6 concluded that development within the City limits would not have a significant effect on drainage flows or result in increased flood hazards. Also see discussion and analysis for Questions 82, 84 and 85 above.

Because all existing state and local protections for surface water would remain in place, and water quality BMPs (in accordance with Chapter 60 of the TRPA Code Chapter 7.15 of the City Code) would continue to be required for all properties within the Tahoe Valley plan area, any potential development or redevelopment of amendment parcels would not result in discharges to surface waters or alteration of surface water quality. Potential water quality impacts relating to identified active release sites set forth above in Question 82 will be less than significant after mitigation.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact after Mitigation.

Required Mitigation: MM HYD-1, MM HYD-2, MM HAZ-1 and MM HAZ-2.

88. Would the Project place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (CEQA IXg)
See discussion and analysis for Question85 above
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

89. Would the Project place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (CEQA IXh)
See discussion and analysis for Question 85 above.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

90. Would the Project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (CEQA IXi) No levees or dams are located within the boundaries of or upstream from the Tahoe Valley Area Plan, therefore no person or structures would be at a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flood as a result of the dam or levee failure. Therefore this is a less than significant impact. 1529
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 143

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E Flooding of the Tahoe Valley as a result of wave action from 100-year storm occurrence or seiches is discussed and analyzed in Question 91 below.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

91. Would the Project cause inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? (CEQA IXj) This potential effect is the same as those analyzed in Impact 4.7.8 (CSLT 2010, pp. 4.7-66 to 4.7-69) of the City General Plan Update EIR, and therefore the analysis is tiered from and is consistent with the General Plan EIR. Impact 4.7.8 concluded that after adoption of Mitigation Measure 4.7.8 requiring the City to update the Local Emergency Operations Plan and Emergency Management Plan to include planning and response provisions for seiche wave hazards, the impact would be less than significant. Also see discussion and analysis for Question 84 above.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

92. Will the Project result in changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? (TRPA 3a)
This potential effect is the same as those analyzed in the TRPA Regional Plan Update, and therefore this analysis incorporates by reference the General Plan EIR. (CSLT 2010, pp. 4.7-34 through 4.7-37.) The Tahoe Valley Area Plan Amendments would not alter or revise the regulations pertaining to the course or direction of water movements. Stream modifications are limited by the provisions of Chapter 63 of the TRPA Code, which requires protection of fish resources, and Sections 61.3.3 and 30.5, which requires protection of SEZ areas, thereby protecting streams as well. Consistent with existing requirements, projects that could occur under the Tahoe Valley Area Plan that could alter the course or direction of water movements would be subject to subsequent 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. Thus, this would be a less than significant impact.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

93. 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)
This potential effect is the same as those analyzed in the TRPA Regional Plan Update, and therefore this analysis tiers from the RPU EIR. (TRPA 2012a, pp. 3.8-31 to 3.8-53.) The General Plan EIR also analyzed this impact, and this analysis therefore incorporates by reference the General Plan EIR. (CSLT 2010, pp.

4.7-62 through 4.7-64.) Also see discussion and analyses for Question 84-86 above.

The Tahoe Valley Area Plan Amendments would not alter or revise the regulations pertaining to surface water runoff. All projects within the Tahoe Valley plan area must demonstrate compliance with the land capability and coverage provisions of Chapter 30 of the TRPA Code which is incorporated into the Tahoe Valley Area Plan Development and Design Standards.
1530
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 144

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E The potential effects of these changes related to water quality were analyzed in the RPU EIS (TRPA 2012a, pp. 3.8-32 to 3.8-53) and in response to Question 82 above. Coverage increases on high capability land would be achieved through restoration and transfer of existing land coverage. Additionally, all development within the Tahoe Valley Area Plan would be required to meet existing BMP standards to control potential increases in stormwater runoff and pollutant loading from the additional coverage. As specified in Section

60.4.6 of the TRPA Code, 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, including the Tahoe Valley plan area. Moreover, the pollutant load modeling and analysis discussed in Question 82 above, concluded that implementation of the Tahoe Valley Plan would reduce pollutant loads when compared to the baseline conditions. Therefore, future projects that may occur within the Tahoe Valley plan area would not inhibit the ability to infiltrate surface water runoff from a 20-year 1-hour storm event. Thus, this impact would be less than significant.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

94. Will the Project result in alterations to the course or flow of 100-year floodwaters? (TRPA 3c)
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. (TRPA 2012a, p. 3.14-13.) Also see discussion and analyses for Question 84-86 above. The Tahoe Valley Area Plan Amendments would not alter or revise the regulations pertaining to floodplains in Section 35.4 of the TRPA Code or Chapter 6.65 of the City Code.

Portions of the Tahoe Valley Area Plan are located within the 100-year floodplain. All future development within the Tahoe Valley Area Plan would be required to meet both the requirements of Chapter 35 of the TRPA Code and Chapter 6.65 of the City Code related to floodplain management. Thus, this impact would be less than significant.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

95. Will the Project result in change in the amount of surface water in any water body? (TRPA 3d)
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. (TRPA 2012a, pp. 3.13-11 to 3.13-15.) Also see discussion and analyses for Question 84-86 above concluding that the Tahoe Valley Area Plan would not result in significant increases in surface water in any water body.

The Tahoe Valley Area Plan Amendments 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. Consistent with existing conditions, projects that could occur under the Tahoe Valley Area Plan that would require additional water supply affecting the amount of surface water in Lake Tahoe or another water body would be required to comply with Chapters 32 and 60 of the TRPA Code.

These regulations pertain to the provision of basic services to projects and the protection of source water.

The potential impact of development and redevelopment within the Tahoe Region, including development 1531
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 145

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E within the Tahoe Valley plan area, on the availability of public water supplies was analyzed in the RPU EIS (TRPA 2012a, pp. 3.13-11 to 3.13-15) and discussed in detail in Questions 156 and 164 below. Because the regional water demand at build-out would be less than the regional surface water allocation, and because TRPA Code Section 32.4 requires demonstration of adequate available water supply within an existing water right prior to permit approval, implementation of the Tahoe Valley Area Plan would not result in a substantial reduction in the amount of surface water or the water available for public water supplies. Thus, this impact would be less than significant.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

96. 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) 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. (TRPA 2012a, p. 3.8-24 to 3.8-31.) Also see discussion and analyses for Questions 82-87 above.

The Tahoe Valley Area Plan Amendments would not alter or revise the regulations pertaining to discharge into surface waters and surface water quality. Chapter 60 of the TRPA Code, which includes standards for discharge limits to surface and ground waters and Chapter 7.15 of the City Code which regulates urban runoff and stormwater quality. Additionally, consistent with existing conditions, all development, redevelopment, and infrastructure improvements within the Tahoe Valley Area Plan would be required to meet the discharge standards of the Lahontan Regional Water Control Board and the City’s municipal stormwater discharge permit. All projects that would create more than one acre of disturbance are required to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with The City’s Stormwater Management Plan (2007).

Because all existing state and local protections for surface water would remain in place, and water quality BMPs (in accordance with Chapter 60 of the TRPA Code Chapter 7.15 of the City Code) would continue to be required for all properties within the Tahoe Valley Area Plan, the Tahoe Valley Area Plan would not result in discharges to surface waters or alteration of surface water quality. Potential water quality impacts relating to identified active release sites set forth above in Question 82 will be less than significant after mitigation.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact after Mitigation.

Required Mitigation: MM HYD-1, MM HYD-2, MM HAZ-1 and MM HAZ-2.

97. Will the Project result in alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground water? (TRPA 3f)
This potential effect is the same as those analyzed in the TRPA Regional Plan Update, and therefore this analysis tiers from the RPU EIS. (TRPA 2012a, Chapters 3.8 and 3.13.) See also discussion and analysis for Question 83 above.

The Tahoe Valley Area Plan Amendments would not alter or revise the regulations pertaining to excavations that could intercept or otherwise interfere with groundwater. Section 33.3 of the TRPA Code prohibits excavations, except under certain defined and permitted conditions, that interfere with or intercept the high water table by: altering the direction of groundwater flow; altering the rate of flow of groundwater; 1532
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 146

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E intercepting groundwater; adding or withdrawing groundwater; or raising or lowering the groundwater table. Additionally, excavation in excess of 5 feet below ground surface (or less in areas of known high groundwater) is generally prohibited because of the potential to intercept or interfere with groundwater is prohibited. Such excavations may be permitted under certain defined conditions (Section 3.3.6.B of the TRPA Code), and in such cases it must be demonstrated in a soils/hydrologic report that no interference or interception of groundwater would occur as a result of the excavation. Therefore, consistent with existing conditions, future projects that may occur within the Tahoe Valley plan area are subject to subsequent environmental review and permitting by the City and/or TRPA, which would require the project applicant to demonstrate compliance with Chapter 33 of the TRPA Code and the protection of groundwater. Thus, this impact would be less than significant.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

98. 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 95 through 97 above, concluding that this impact would be less than significant.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.

99. 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 95 above and analyses in Questions 156 and 164 below which conclude that potential impact of development and redevelopment within the Tahoe Region on the availability of public water supplies, including development within the Tahoe Valley plan area, would have a less than significant impact
Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
100. 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) This potential effect is the same as those analyzed in the TRPA Regional Plan Update, and therefore this analysis tiers from the RPU EIS. (TRPA 2012a, p. 3.14-13 to 3.14-14.) Also see discussion and analysis for Question 91 above, concluding that this impact would be less than significant.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
101. 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 95 through 97 above. 1533
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 147

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E Because all existing state and local protections for surface water would remain in place, and water quality BMPs (in accordance with Chapter 60 of the TRPA Code Chapter 7.15 of the City Code) would continue to be required for all properties within the Tahoe Valley Area Plan. The Tahoe Valley Area Plan Amendments would not result in discharges to surface waters or alteration of surface water quality. As discussed in detail above, however, where active hazardous materials release sites are located (See Question 72, Table 26) there is the potential for surface water infiltration associated with BMPs to disturb and/or distribute the pollutants further prior to remediation. Potential water quality impacts relating to identified active release sites set forth above in Question 82 will be less than significant after mitigation.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact after Mitigation.

Required Mitigation: MM HYD-1, MM HYD-2, MM HAZ-1 and MM HAZ-2. 102. Is the Project located within 600 feet of a drinking water source? (TRPA 3k) Sources of drinking water are located within 600 feet of the project area, however, the Tahoe Valley Area Plan Amendments would not alter or revise the regulations pertaining to source water protection and is therefore consistent with the goals of the Regional Plan and the RPU EIS. Chapter 60 of the TRPA Code includes protections for drinking water sources. Specifically, Section 60.3.3.C.1 of the TRPA Code identifies a Source Water Protection Zone that includes a 600-foot radius around wells, lake intakes, and springs assessed by TRPA. Into total, TRPA’s Source Water Assessment Map identifies 12 active wells located in the boundary of the Tahoe Valley Area Plan All development within Source Water Protection Zones is subject to the requirements of Section 60.3.3.D, including installation of water quality BMPs and development of a spill control plan. Any subsequent projects allowed within the Tahoe Valley plan area would be subject to permitting by the City and/or TRPA. Consistent with existing conditions, permit applicants within 600 feet of a drinking water source would be required to demonstrate compliance with the source water protection provisions in Chapter 60 of the TRPA Code. Thus, this impact would be less than significant.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
1534
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 148

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E

5.4.12 Land Use and Planning
This section presents the analyses for potential impacts to land use and planning. Table 29 identifies the applicable impacts, anticipated level of impact, and whether mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Table 29: Land Use and Planning
CEQA Environmental
Checklist Item
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Measures
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
103. Physically divide an
established community?
(CEQA Xa)
X
104.Conflict with any applicable
land use plan, policy, or
regulation of an agency with
jurisdiction over the Project
(including, but not limited to
the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or
zoning ordinance) adopted for
the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental
effect? (CEQA Xb)
X
105.Conflict with any applicable
habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation
plan? (CEQA Xc)
X
TRPA Initial Environmental
Checklist Item Yes No, With Mitigation
Data
Insufficient No
106.Include uses which are not
listed as permissible uses in
the applicable Plan Area
Statement, adopted
Community Plan, or Master
Plan? (TRPA 8a)
X
107.Expand or intensify an existing
non-conforming use? (TRPA
8b)
X, LTS
103. Would the Project physically divide an established community? (CEQA Xa) Division of an established community commonly occurs as a result of development and construction of physical features that constitute a barrier to easy and frequent travel between two or more constituent parts of a community. For example, a large freeway structure with few crossings could effectively split a 1535
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 149

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E community. Likewise, geographic features could similarly affect the community, such as the development of a large residential project on the opposite side of a river from the existing community. The Tahoe Valley Area Plan Amendments would not include any features that would have the potential to divide the community. Moreover, the Tahoe Valley Area Plan would include planned improvements along US 50 and SR 89, including signalization upgrades, specific roadway, pedestrian, and bicycle facility improvements which would have a net benefit to circulation within the Tahoe Valley plan area, providing for greater connectivity between land uses and between the Tahoe Valley plan area and the rest of the south shore community.

Tahoe Valley Area Plan Amendments would not include any features that would have the potential to divide the community. Furthermore, by allowing for circulation to travel more than one route through the area plan, interconnectivity between land uses is increased rather than impeded. As such, the proposed Tahoe Valley Area Plan Amendments would result in a beneficial impact.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
104. Would the Project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the Project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (CEQA Xb)
The Tahoe Valley Area Plan Amendments proposes to amend the Area Plan boundary, Town Center Overlay boundary as follows (see Figure 3):
• Incorporate seven parcels abutting Melba Avenue into the area plan and Town Center Overlay for the purposes of incentivizing high-density housing.. The parcels are a mix of privately owned vacant and developed multi-family parcels totaling approximately 5.2 acres in size. One parcel is public owned and is currently vacant. The parcels are located in Plan Area Statement (PAS) 114 Special Area #1, and are zoned residential and designated as high-density residential in the City General Plan. The parcels would be rezoned as Town Center Gateway District and added to the Town Center overlay.
• Incorporate one tourist accommodation developed parcel located at 1220 Emerald Bay Road (APN 032-151-002) into the area plan and Town Center Overlay and rezone the property from PAS 114, Special Area #1 residential to Town Center Gateway District. The approximately one acre parcel is designated high-density residential in the City General Plan. • Incorporate 15 parcels located between James Avenue and Eloise Avenue into the Town Center and rezone the parcels from PAS 111 Special Area #2, residential to Town Center Neighborhood Professional for the purpose of incentivizing high-density housing and redevelopment of existing commercial properties. The parcels include a mix of multi-family, commercial, and public service uses. The parcels are designated high-density residential in the City General Plan. • Amend the Town Center Core District to incorporate one parcel located at 1080 Emerald Bay Road (APN 023-081-011), immediately south of the Raley’s Shopping Center, for the development of high-density housing by allowing an increase in height from 36 feet to 42 feet. The parcel is currently zoned Town Center Gateway District.
• Incorporate 19 residential parcels located south of the Tahoe Valley Area Plan and between Emerald Bay Road and Bonanza Avenue into the area plan and create a new Residential (Emerald 1536
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 150

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E Bay Connection Corridor) District to promote high-density housing. The parcels are currently located in PAS 114, Special Area #1, residential. The proposed amendment would not substantially change the use list but would allow an increase in density from 15 units per acre to 25 units per acre. The parcels are primarily private undeveloped parcels with two properties operating as active mobile home parks. The area is designated High-Density Residential and Low-Density Residential in the City General Plan.

Pursuant to Chapter 13 of the TRPA Code (Section 13.5.3.G), modifications to a Town Center Overlay boundary to incorporate an undeveloped parcel are permitted if they comply with the following:

1. At least three sides of the parcel to be included are adjacent to developed parcels.

2. Properties included in a Town Center are less than ¼ mile from existing commercial and Public Service uses.

3. Properties included in a Town Center shall encourage and facilitate the use of existing or planned transit stops and transit system.

The parcels along Melba Avenue in the south and adjacent to James and Eloise Avenues in the north are generally surrounded by development on at least three sides given the predominance of development along the US Highway 50 corridor. The Melba Avenue parcels are located directly adjacent to the existing Town Center Gateway District and are immediately adjacent to commercial establishments fronting US Highway 50 including Ernie’s Coffee Shop and Blue Granite Climbing Gym and tourist accommodation units such as the High Country Lodge. The James and Eloise Avenue parcels are immediately adjacent to commercial establishments fronting US Highway 50 including O’Reilly Auto Parts, several restaurants, and other general retail establishments. Each of the proposed Town Center parcels are close to existing transit facilities at the “Y” intersection or walkways and trails located along US Highway 50. The proposed modification is consistent with Regional Plan and General Plan land use and housing policies to create additional housing choicesin the Tahoe Valley area, and to locate future growth in Town Centers and within close proximity to commercial uses, public services, employment centers, transit service, and bike and pedestrian infrastructure. Development of any future multi-family housing would be subject to TRPA’s growth management system requiring the allocation of residential bonus units. Moreover, the development of multi-family housing within close proximity to a service and employment center is consistent with existing land use and sustainability policies and strategies to reduce vehicle miles travelled, daily vehicle trips ends, and greenhouse gas emissions.

The incorporation of the parcels listed above into the TRPA Town Center Overlay would not conflict with a plan or regulation adopted to avoid or reduce environmental impacts. Thus, this impact would be less than significant.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
105. Would the Project conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? (CEQA Xc)
The Tahoe Valley Area Plan Amendments does 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. Thus, there would be no impact. 1537
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 151

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
106. Will the Project include uses which are not listed as permissible uses in the applicable Plan Area Statement, adopted Community Plan, or Master Plan? (TRPA 8a) The Tahoe Valley Area Plan Amendments proposes modifications to the land use mix of the parcels that will be moved from Plan Area Statement 111, Special Area #2 and Plan Area Statement 114, Special Area #1 to improve the concentration and the mixing of commercial, tourist and residential uses. These adjustments to the permissible use list would result in permitting uses that are currently prohibited in those portions of plan areas 111 and 114. The amendments also modify the permissible uses and allowable densities in existing Districts. The modifications are outlined in Tables 3 through 9 in Chapter 2 and are summarized in Table 2.

The modifications promote an expansion of the current land use pattern that allows for residential uses in close proximity to commercial and employment centers and the mixing of residential, commercial, and tourist uses to promote live/work units as part of a mixed-use project, thus increasing housing options in the Tahoe Valley plan area and providing opportunities to live near potential employers and services.

The modifications to the uses are intended to make the Tahoe Valley Area Plan consistent with the types of uses envisioned for areas designated as “Mixed-Use” by the TRPA Regional Plan and “Town Center” by the City General Plan. Areas with these designations are intended to provide a mix of commercial, public services, light industrial, office, and residential uses in a concentrated, higher density land use pattern for public convenience, and enhanced sustainability. The proposed uses and higher densities are consistent with the types of uses envisioned for these areas, thus would not result in any land use inconsistency. The expansion of the applicability of some uses to other areas of the Tahoe Valley plan area is not expected to have any significant impact because the proposed uses would be consistent with the uses envisioned in the Regional Plan and General Plan designated Town Centers.

The more concentrated land use pattern is expected to reduce automobile reliance, reduce emissions, and increase feasibility of transit, decrease environmental impacts, and increase the availability of housing in close proximity to employment and commercial service. The Tahoe Valley Area Plan includes provisions to concentrate development in the Town Center which would result in greater opportunity for alternative transportation options, reduced VMT, reduce air pollutant emissions, increase preservation and restoration of open space as a result of transfer of development. Furthermore, any subsequent projects allowed within the Tahoe Valley Area Plan would be subject to permitting by the City and/or TRPA. Consistent with existing conditions, permit applicants would be required to demonstrate that any proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment including but not limited to traffic, land coverage, scenic resources, air quality, water quality, etc. Thus this impact is considered less than significant.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None
107. Will the Project expand or intensify an existing non-conforming use? (TRPA 8b) The amendments would expand the existing Town Center Neighborhood Professional District to include 15 existing parcels located in Plan Area 111, Special Area #2 and the Town Center Gateway District to include 7 existing parcels located in Plan Area 114, Special Area #1. The amendment area of Plan Area 111 currently contains a number of professional office land uses (e.g., 965 Tahoe Keys and 2265 Eloise - Realty 1538
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 152

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E World) and membership organizations (e.g., South Tahoe Association of Realtors) that are non-conforming uses in Special Area #2. The amendment area of Plan Area 114 currently contains a number of land uses that conform to the permissible uses in Special Area #1. The reason for the boundary amendment here is that many of these parcels are large and contain aging residential uses. Should they be redeveloped in the future, there will be opportunity to take advantage of additional coverage and density to provide more housing units. Consistent with the policies of the Regional Plan and General Plan, promoting the concentration and mixing of uses, the Tahoe Valley Area Plan amendments would change the permissible use list for these two areas to allow existing non-residential uses (professional office, membership organizations, storage) in the former special areas of residential plan areas.

The changes to the permissible use list would make existing non-residential uses a conforming use and allow for new residential uses (i.e., employee housing and multi-person dwelling) at higher densities.

However, as discussed above, the adjustment to the land use mix is in line with the policies of the Regional Plan and General Plan, promoting the concentration of and mixing of uses within close proximity to service and employment centers such as Tahoe Valley. The proposed land use changes promote the concentration of multi-residential uses and single-family live/work units within close proximity to the town center, thus reducing the need for vehicle trips and reducing air pollutant emissions. Development of residential units would continue to be subject to the TRPA growth management and allocation system and must meet the requirements of the City building and design standards for parking, setbacks and noise attenuation.

Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
1539
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 153

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E

5.4.13 Mineral Resources (CEQA) and Natural Resources (TRPA) This section presents the analyses for potential impacts to mineral resources and natural resources. Table 30 identifies the applicable impacts, anticipated level of impact, and whether mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Table 30: Mineral Resources and Natural Resources
CEQA Environmental
Checklist Item
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Measures
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
108.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
XIa)
X
109.Result in the loss of
availability of a locallyimportant mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a
local general plan, specific
plan or other land use plan?
(CEQA XIb)
X
TRPA Initial Environmental
Checklist Item Yes No, With Mitigation
Data
Insufficient No
110.A substantial increase in the
rate of use of any natural
resources? (TRPA 9a)
X
111.Substantial depletion of any
non-renewable natural
resource? (TRPA 9b)
X
108. 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 XIa) There are no mapped mineral resources within the Tahoe Valley plan area, nor does the City General Plan, nor any specific plan or other plan, such as the TRPA Regional Plan and Plan Area Statement, identify any sites within the Tahoe Valley plan area as an important mineral recovery site. Thus, there would be no impact.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
1540
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 154

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E 109. 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 XIb) See discussion and analysis for Question 108 above, concluding no impact.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
110. Will the Project result in a substantial increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? (TRPA 9a)
This potential effect is the same as those analyzed in the TRPA Regional Plan Update, and therefore this analysis tiers from the RPU EIS. (TRPA 2012a, 5-3.)
The use of natural resources, such as construction wood or metals, or gasoline would increase incrementally as more commercial, tourist, and residential developments are constructed as envisioned in the Tahoe Valley Area Plan. The RPU EIS (TRPA 2012a, p. 5-3) acknowledged the potential increase in the use of natural resources resulting from increased development and redevelopment within the Tahoe Region, however any project permitted through the Tahoe Valley Area Plan would be subject to project level environmental review and site-specific mitigation measures if necessary. Therefore, any increase in the rate of use of natural resources would not be substantial and would not be in quantities that would result in a significant effect. Thus, this impact would be less than significant.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
111. Will the Project result in a substantial depletion of any non-renewable natural resource? (TRPA 9b)
Non-renewable natural resources such as gasoline and diesel would be consumed during the construction of development projects; however, the potential for new development would be limited through restrictions to TRPA regulated commodities (see project description) such as commercial floor area, residential allocations and tourist accommodation units. Because construction would be limited and would not require quantities of non- renewable resources beyond those of typical residential and commercial construction, projects associated with the Tahoe Valley Area Plan would not result in substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource. Thus, this impact would be less than significant.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
1541
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 155

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E

5.4.14 Noise
This section presents the analyses for potential impacts related to noise. Table 31 identifies the applicable impacts, anticipated level of impact, and whether mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Table 31
Noise
CEQA Environmental Checklist
Item
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Measures
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
112.Exposure of persons to or generation
of noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan
or noise ordinance, or applicable
standards of other agencies? (CEQA
XIIa)
X
113.Exposure of persons to or generation
of excessive groundborne vibration
or groundborne noise levels? (CEQA
XIIb)
X
114.A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the Project
vicinity above levels existing without
the Project? (CEQA XIIc)
X
115.A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in
the Project vicinity above levels
existing without the Project? (CEQA
XIId)
X
116.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
expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise
levels? (CEQA XIIe)
X
117.For a Project within the vicinity of a
private airstrip, would the Project
expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise
levels? (CEQA XIIf)
X
1542
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 156

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E TRPA Initial Environmental
Checklist Item Yes No, With Mitigation
Data
Insufficient No
118.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
119.Exposure of people to severe noise
levels? (TRPA 6b) X
120.Single event noise levels greater than
those set forth in the TRPA Noise
Environmental Threshold? (TRPA
6c)
X
112. Would the Project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (CEQA XIIa)
This potential effect is the same as those analyzed in the General Plan Update, and therefore the analysis is tiered from and is consistent with the General Plan EIR. (CSLT 2010, Chapter 4.6.) The potential for noise conflicts from development, including construction of additional residential, commercial floor area, industrial facilities, recreational facilities, and infrastructure such as roadway improvements, water and sewer lines that is expected to occur under the Tahoe Valley Area Plan amendments, includes conflicts as a result of adjacent land uses and their operational aspects. Parcels located along Melba Drive are currently within Plan Area 114 which has a maximum community noise equivalent level of 50 CNEL for areas outside of the US Highway 50 corridor (which has a 65 CNEL limit).

These parcels would be added to the Town Center Gateway District, which has a 65 CNEL limit for all locations within the District. The Tahoe Valley Area Plan addresses these potential conflicts through the land use designation, zoning identification, and development standard process, however, the potential exists for some development allowed under amended land use designations and zoning to have operational aspects that could create noise impacts on other adjacent land uses. Thus, the Tahoe Valley Area Plan incorporates noise protection policies to maintain the CNEL standards, to mitigate new transportation noise sources, to require acoustical analysis during project review, to mitigate ground-borne vibration, and to ensure land use compatibility through appropriate site design. The Tahoe Valley Area Plan noise policies are:
 Poly HNS-2.1, Maximum Community Noise Equivalent Level  Policy HNS-2.2, Transportation Noise
 Policy HNS-2.3, Project Review
 Policy HNS-2.4, Construction Noise
 Policy HNS-2.5, Land Use Compatibility
In addition, this potential effect is the same as that analyzed in the City General Plan DEIR (CSLT 2010, p. 4.6-24 to 4.6-27) in Impact 4.6.1, and therefore this analysis tiers from and is consistent with the DEIR.

The DEIR concluded that application of the General Plan (CSLT 2011a, p. HS-9 through HS-13) noise policies was adequate to mitigate any potential noise impacts. The City’s noise policies provide expanded protection for ambient conditions, which are designed toward eliminating land use conflicts with respect to 1543
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 157

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E noise. Policies include specific numeric noise level standards for new projects affected by or including both transportation and non-transportation noise sources, as well as guidance in evaluating noise impacts and for identification of noise mitigation measures. The applicable General Plan noise policies are:
 HS-8.1, Annoying and Excessive Non-Transportation Noise Protection  HS-8.2, Annoying and Excessive Non-Transportation Noise Mitigation  HS-8.3, Overall Background Noise Mitigation
 HS-8.4, Annoying and Excessive Transportation Noise Protection  HS-8.5, New Transportation Noise Source Mitigation
 HS-8.6, Acoustical Analysis Preparation
 HS-8.7, California State Building Code Title 24 Consistency  HS-8.8, Lake Tahoe Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan Compliance  HS-8.9, Airport Noise Mitigation for Adjacent Residential Projects  HS-8.10, Airport Noise Level Compatibility
It should also be noted that existing noise standards set forth in Chapter 68 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances are applicable to any future development in the Tahoe Valley area. Thus, application of the Tahoe Valley Area Plan and General Plan noise policies and Chapter 68 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None
113. Would the Project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (CEQA XIIb)
The effects of ground-borne vibration can vary from no perceptible effects at the lowest levels, low rumbling sounds and detectable vibrations at moderate levels, and slight damage to nearby structures at the highest levels. At the highest levels of vibration, damage to structures is primarily architectural (e.g., loosening and cracking of plaster or stucco coatings) and rarely results in structural damage. The effects of ground-borne vibration are influenced by the duration of the vibration and the distance from the vibration source.

There are no federal, state, or local regulatory standards for vibration. However, various criteria have been established to assist in the evaluation of vibration impacts. For instance, Caltrans has developed vibration criteria based on human perception and structural damage risks. For most structures, Caltrans considers a peak-particle velocity (ppv) threshold of 0.2 inches per second (in/sec) to be the level at which architectural damage (i.e., minor cracking of plaster walls and ceilings) to normal structures may occur. Below 0.10 in/sec there is “virtually no risk of ‘architectural’ damage to normal buildings.” Damage to historic or ancient buildings could occur at levels of 0.08 in/sec ppv. In terms of human annoyance, continuous vibrations in excess of 0.1 in/sec ppv are identified by Caltrans as the minimum level perceptible for groundborne vibration. Short periods of ground-borne vibration in excess of 0.2 in/sec ppv can be expected to result in increased levels of annoyance to people in buildings (Caltrans, 2002).

Construction activities are expected to continue to occur within the amended Tahoe Valley plan area resulting in ground-borne vibration. However, the Tahoe Valley Area Plan incorporates Policy HNS-2.4 1544
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 158

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E requiring an analysis of potential 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. The analysis will address the potential for adverse vibration levels based on the criteria contained in Table 32 below. The City will ensure that construction operations are designed to avoid or mitigate for vibrations above 0.02 in/second (0.5 mm/second). Thus, this impact is less than significant.

Table 32
Effects of Vibration on People and Buildings
Peak Particle
Velocity
inches/second
Peak Particle Velocity
mm/second
Human Reaction Effect on Buildings
0 -.006 0.15 Imperceptible by people Vibrations unlikely to cause damage of any type

0..6 - .02 0.5 Range of threshold of
perception
Vibrations unlikely to cause
damage of any type

0.8 2.0 Vibrations clearly
perceptible
Recommended upper level
of which ruins and ancient
monuments should be
subjected

0.1 2.54 Level at which continuous
vibrations begin to annoy
people
Virtually no risk of
architectural damage to
normal buildings

0.2 5.0 Vibrations annoying to
people and buildings
Threshold at which there is a
risk of architectural damage
to normal dwellings

1.0 25.4 Architectural damage

2.0 50.45 Structural damage to
residential buildings

6.0 151.0 Structural damage to
commercial buildings
Source: Caltrans, 1976
It should also be noted that TRPA Standard Conditions of Approval for Grading Projects and Standard Conditions of Approval for Residential Projects require projects to utilize sonic pile driving wherever feasible, and pre-drill pile driving holes to the extent feasible when approved by a design engineer.

Future projects are subject to Policy HSN-2.4 and TRPA standard conditions of approval to reduce ground-borne vibration; thus, this impact is less than significant. 1545
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 159

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
114. Would the Project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? (CEQA XIIc) See discussion and analysis for Question 112 above, concluding that this impact would be less than significant.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None
115. Would the Project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the Project vicinity above levels existing without the Project? (CEQA XIId) See discussion and analysis for Question 112 above, concluding that this impact would be less than significant.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None
116. 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 expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (CEQA XIIe) Helicopter Noise Associated with Barton Hospital
Helicopter noise occurs due to emergency operations associated with the day-to-day operations of Barton Hospital. Section 68.9 (Exemptions to Noise Limitations) in Chapter 68 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances provides exemptions from noise limitations for activities associated with emergency work to protect life or property. In addition, the project does not result in an increase in these noise levels when compared to CEQA standards.

Table 33
Significance of Changes in Noise Exposure (Based Upon CEQA) Ambient Noise Level Without Project, CNEL/Ldn Increase Required for Significant Impact <60 dB +5.0 dB or more
60-65 dB +3.0 dB or more
>65 dB +1.5 dB or more
Source: Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON)
Lake Tahoe Airport
Pursuant to the City Code Chapter 2.65.100, the Lake Tahoe Airport is closed to all operations between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m., except for emergency and mercy flights, military and government owned aircraft, and aircraft operations that will not result in a Single Event Noise Exposure Level reading exceeding 77.1. Thus, no nighttime noise impacts are expected from airport operations. In addition, consistent with General Plan Policy HS-8.8, the City requires all projects located in the airport flight safety overlay zone to comply with the Lake Tahoe Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Concurrently, 1546
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 160

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E General Plan Policy HS 8.9 and City Code Chapter 6.55.200, requires all new residential projects within the Lake Tahoe Airport’s 55 dB and 60 dB CNEL contours, as defined in the Lake Tahoe Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, to be designed to limit intruding noise such that the interior noise levelsshall not exceed 45 dB CNEL in any habitable room. If the 45 dB CNEL standard is only achieved with the windows and doors in the closed position, a mechanical air exchange will need to be provided as a part of the project design. Future projects within the amended Tahoe Valley Area Plan would also comply with the General Plan and TRPA policies and standards, and so this impact is less than significant.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
117. For a Project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the Project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (CEQA XIIf) The project area is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip and therefore does not expose people working in the project area to excessive noise levels from aircrafts. Thus, there would be no impact.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
118. 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 discussion and analysis for Question 112 above, concluding that this impact would be less than significant.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None
119. Would the Project result in exposure of people to severe noise levels? (TRPA 6b) This potential effect is the same as those analyzed in the TRPA Regional Plan Update, and therefore this analysis tiers from and is consistent with the RPU EIS. (TRPA 2012a, p. 3.6-11.) Increased Traffic Noise
Based upon a comparison of Tables 34 and 35 prepared for the 2015 Tahoe Valley Area Plan IS/IEC, Area Plan buildout will result in an increase in traffic noise levels between 0 dB and 1 dB CNEL. Amendment of the Area Plan boundary would not result in a measurable increase to the predicted CNEL levels given the small size of the expanded boundary. This is not considered to be a significant increase in noise levels under CEQA. Projects would be required to comply with the Tahoe Valley Area Plan CNEL noise standards and policies to reduce excessive transportation noise levels and other provisions of Chapter 68 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances including Section 68.8.3 that requires major roadway projects on roadway segments that are not meeting CNEL standards to incorporate noise mitigating design features. Furthermore, as analyzed in Section 6.4.18, Transportation, the implementation of the 2015 Tahoe Valley Area Plan would reduce region-wide vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by 10,702 below the region-wide modeled total of 1,932,441 (see discussion and analyses for Question 142 below). In addition, planned improvements associated with pedestrian, bicycling, and transit improvements are further expected to reduce vehicle trips, thereby reducing overall noise levels associated with traffic. Thus, people would not be exposed to severe 1547
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 161

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E noise levels.

Table 34
Predicted Existing No Project and Existing plus 2015 Tahoe Valley Area Plan Traffic Noise Levels
Roadway Segment
Traffic Noise Levels(CNEL, dB) Distance to Noise Level Contours(feet) Distance
(feet)
2014
No
Project
2014
+
ALT 3
∆
Change
2014 No Project
(CNEL, dB)
2014 + Proposed
Tahoe Valley Area
Plan (CNEL, dB)
65 60 55 65 60 55
Lake Tahoe
Blvd SR89/US50 to Julie Lane 100 61 61 0 56 121 260 57 123 265 US50 Lake Tahoe Blvd to 3rd Street 100 66 66 0 113 244 525 114 245 528 US50 3rd St to Tahoe KeysBlvd 100 66 66 0 116 251 541 119 256 552 US50
Tahoe KeysBlvd to River
Drive 100 66 67 1 126 271 584 128 275 592
SR89 US50 to 10th St 100 60 60 0 46 100 216 47 101 218
SR89 US50 to E St 100 64 64 0 81 173 374 81 175 377
3rd St US50 to Washington Ave 100 53 54 1 17 37 79 17 37 80 3rd St US50 to South Ave 100 50 51 1 10 22 48 12 25 54
Tahoe Keys
Blvd US50 to Eloise Ave 100 57 57 0 31 66 143 31 67 144 Tahoe Keys
Blvd
South of US50 into Parking
Area 100 37 37 0 1 3 6 1 3 6
1 Distances to traffic noise contoursare measured in feet from the centerlines of the Roadways. 2 Traffic noise levels do not account for shielding from existing noise barriers or intervening structures. Traffic noise levels may vary depending on actual setback distances and localized shielding.

Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. and JC Brennan & Associates Table 35
Predicted 2035 No Project and 2035 plus 2015 Tahoe Valley Area Plan Traffic Noise Levels Roadway Segment
Traffic Noise Levels(CNEL, dB) Distance to Noise Level Contours(feet) Distance
(feet)
2035
No
Project
2035 +
Proposed
Tahoe
Valley
Area
Plan
∆
Change
2035 No Project
(CNEL, dB)
2035 + Proposed
Tahoe Valley Area
Plan (CNEL, dB)
65 60 55 65 60 55
Lake Tahoe
Blvd SR89/US50 to Julie Lane 100 62 62 0 65 139 300 66 141 305 US50 Lake Tahoe Blvd to 3rd Street 100 66 66 0 123 264 569 123 266 573 US50 3rd St to Tahoe KeysBlvd 100 67 67 0 126 271 584 128 276 595 US50
Tahoe KeysBlvd to River
Drive 100 67 67 0 135 291 628 137 295 635
SR89 US50 to 10th St 100 60 60 0 48 104 223 49 105 226
SR89 US50 to E St 100 64 64 0 82 176 380 83 178 384
3rd St US50 to Washington Ave 100 53 54 1 17 37 79 17 37 80 1548
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 162

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E 3rd St US50 to South Ave 100 50 51 1 10 22 48 12 25 54
Tahoe Keys
Blvd US50 to Eloise Ave 100 57 57 0 31 68 145 31 68 146 Tahoe Keys
Blvd
South of US50 into Parking
Area 100 37 37 0 1 3 6 1 3 6
1 Distances to traffic noise contoursare measured in feet from the centerlines of the Roadways. 2 Traffic noise levels do not account for shielding from existing noise barriers or intervening structures. Traffic noise levels may vary depending on actual setback distances and localized shielding.

Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. and JC Brennan & Associates Increased Noise from Additional Light Industrial, Public Service and Commercial Uses The Tahoe Valley Area Plan could include development of additional commercial or light industrial uses that contain noise sources, but it is not expected to exceed the Tahoe Valley Area Plan’s noise level standards of 55dB and 65dB. The Tahoe Valley Area Plan incorporates two noise protection policies. Policy HNS-2.3 requires acoustical analysis as part of the environmental review process for when noise-sensitive land uses are proposed, and Policy HNS-2.5 requires the incorporation of noise reducing measures on a project specific basis. Such measure may include but are not limited to:
 Construction of barriers, berms, and/or acoustical shielding;  Establishment of setbacks;
 Noise reducing acoustical treatment; or
 Use of building layout.

Additional policies in the General Plan would also be applicable to future development in the Tahoe Valley plan area. General Plan Policy HS-8.1 requires that annoying and excessive non-transportation noise not exceed the exterior noise level standards shown in Table HS-1 of the General Plan. In addition, Policy HS8.2 requires appropriate mitigation to be incorporated in a project’s design to achieve the noise standards.

City site design standards also require projects (industrial and stationary sources) that may potentially exceed a plan area noise standard to include a noise analysis as part of the environmental review process and incorporate design features and self-monitoring components to ensure compliance with noise standards.

Application of the Tahoe Valley Area Plan and General Plan policies would ensure that people would not be exposed to severe noise levels.

Construction Noise
Construction activities are expected to occur within the Tahoe Valley plan area. Construction activities associated with new development and redevelopment include site preparation (e.g., demolition, clearing, excavation, grading), foundation work, paving, building construction, utility installation, 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. In unique circumstances, specialized construction equipment (such as pile drivers) or techniques (such as blasting) that are inherently louder than typical construction equipment (typically between 94 and 101 dBA Lmax at 50 feet) may be required. This noise increase would be of short duration and would likely occur primarily during daytime hours. Construction noise impacts are not considered significant under CEQA if the construction activity is temporary, the use of heavy equipment and noise activities is limited to daytime 1549
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 163

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E hours, and all feasible noise abatement measures are used for noise-producing equipment. All construction activities are not considered to be adverse noise sources as long as construction occurs between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. pursuant to Chapter 68 Noise Limitations, of the TRPA Code of Ordinances.

Thus, this impact would be less than significant.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
120. Will the Project result in single event noise levels greater than those set forth in the TRPA Noise Environmental Threshold? (TRPA 6c)
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. (TRPA 2012a, Chapter 3.6.) Single-event noise standards are set for in Section 68.3.1 of the TRPA Code for aircraft, watercraft, motor vehicles, motorcycles, off-road vehicles, and over-snow vehicles. The Regional Plan also sets forth single event numerical standards as set forth in Table 36.

Table 36.

Single Event Numerical Noise Standards
Source Overall Lessthan 35
Mph
Greater than 35
MPH Monitoring Distances
Aircraft
80 -- -- 6,500m – start of takeoff roll
2,000m – runway threshold approach

77.12 -- -- 6,500m – start of takeoff roll
2,000m – runway threshold approach
Watercrafts

1. Pass-By Test 82 Lmax - - 50 ft. – engine at 3,000 rpm

2. Shoreline Test

3. Stationary Test
75 Lmax - - Microphone 5 ft. above water, 2 ft, above
curve of shore, dock or platform. Watercraft in
Lake, no minimum distance.
88 dBA Lmax for
boats
manufactured
before January 1,
1993
- - Microphone 3.3 ft. from exhaust outlet – 5 ft.
above water
90 dBA Lmax for
boats
manufactured
after January 1,
1993
Motor Vehicles
Less than 6,000 GVW
Greaterthan 6,000 GVW
-- 76 82 50 ft.
-- 82 86 50 ft.

Motorcycles -- 77 86 50 ft.

Off-road Vehicles -- 72 86 50 ft.

Snowmobiles -- 82 -- 50 ft.
2 Between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m.

The TRPA Regional Plan Goals and Policies also contain applicable goals and policies in the Noise Subelement, as described below:
1550
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 164

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E  Goal N-1: Single Event Noise Standards Shall Be Attained and Maintained. People can be annoyed by a specific noise source. Thresholds have been adopted that apply to aircraft, boats, motor vehicles, off-road vehicles, and snowmobiles to reduce impacts associated with single noise events.
 Policy N-1.1. Unless superseded by an update to the 1996 Airport Master Plan, an ordinance and enforcement program shall permit only aircraft that meet the single event noise thresholds to use the airport.
 Policy N-1.2. Boats will only be allowed on Lake Tahoe if in compliance with the single-event threshold.
 Policy N-1.3. Motor vehicles and motorcycles shall comply with the appropriate noise thresholds.  Policy N-1.4. Off-road vehicle use is prohibited in the Lake Tahoe Region except on specified roads, trails, or designated areas where the impacts can be mitigated.  Policy N-1.5. The use of snowmobiles will be restricted to designated areas.  Policy N-1.6. Permit uses only if they are consistent with the noise standards. Noise mitigation measures may be required on all structures containing uses that would otherwise adversely impact the prescribed noise levels.

Development within the Tahoe Valley Area Plan could involve uses that include these types of motorized vehicles. As is the case under existing conditions, new uses involving over-snow or other vehicles would be required to meet the TRPA Code provisions pertaining to single-event noise. Thus, this impact would be less than significant.

With respect to possible single event noise arising from construction, see discussion and analyses for Questions 112, 113 and 118.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None
1551
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 165

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E

5.4.15 Population and Housing
This section presents the analyses for potential impacts to population and housing. Table 37 identifies the applicable impacts, anticipated level of impact, and whether mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Table 37
Population and Housing
CEQA Environmental
Checklist Item
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Measures
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
121.Induce substantial 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 XIIIa)
X
122.Displace substantial numbers
of existing housing,
necessitating the construction
of replacement housing
elsewhere? (CEQA XIIIb)
X
123.Displace substantial numbers
of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement
housing elsewhere? (CEQA
XIIIc)
X
TRPA Initial Environmental
Checklist Item Yes No, With Mitigation
Data
Insufficient No
124.Alter the location, distribution,
density, or growth rate of the
human population planned for
the Region? (TRPA 11a)
X
125.Include or result in the
temporary or permanent
displacement of residents?
(TRPA 11b)
X
1552
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 166

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E 126.Affect existing housing, or
create a demand for additional
housing?
To determine if the proposal
will affect existing housing or
create a demand for additional
housing, please answer the
following questions: (1) Will
the proposal decrease the
amount of housing in the
Tahoe Region? (2) Will the
proposal decrease the amount
of housing in the Tahoe
Region historically or
currently being rented at rates
affordable by lower and verylow-income households?
(TRPA 12a)
X
127.Will the proposal result in the
loss of housing for lowerincome and very-low-income
households? (TRPA 12b)
X
121. Would the Project induce substantial 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 XIIIa)
This potential effect is the same as those analyzed in the City General Plan EIR and therefore this analysis tiers from the General Plan EIR (CSLT 2010, p. 4.2-12).

The Tahoe Valley Area Plan Amendments may result in an increase in dwelling units and CFA within the boundaries of the area plan as a result of demolition and construction of land uses. As documented in 2015 for the initial Area Plan adoption, the Tahoe Valley Area Plan is expected to result in 373 dwelling units (approximately 932 new residents) as well as 102,000 square feet of CFA transferred to the Tahoe Valley Area Plan (approximately 204 full-time equivalent employees) by the year 2034. The rate of growth is assumed to occur over 20 years as a result of residential allocations assignments, bonus unit assignments, conversion of tourist accommodation units, and transfer of existing development to the Tahoe Valley Area Plan. At build out, the 2015 Tahoe Valley Area Plan predicted the construction of 97 affordable residential units and 276 market rate units. Since adoption, the Sugar Pine Village affordable housing project was approved and will eventually construct 248 affordable housing units. The affordable units require a bonus unit assignment from TRPA which currently has approximately 950 available through 2032. The market rate units would require a residential allocation from the approximately 1,650 allocations currently remaining and forecasted to be constructed through the year 2045. Conversion of use and transfer of existing development into residential units of use are not considered additional growth by the TRPA Code of Ordinances.

The Tahoe Valley Area Plan would implement the mixed-use zoning concepts envisioned by the Regional Plan and the General and analyzed in the RPU EIS (TRPA 2012a) and the General Plan EIR (CSLT 2010, p. 4.2-12). The TRPA Regional Plan and the City General Plan would result in changes to the overall density and distribution of the region’s population and gradually increase the density of the population within 1553
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 167

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E centers such as the Tahoe Valley plan area and simultaneously phase out lower-density uses outside these centers. Although this represents a change in the density and distribution of the region’s population, such changes are not anticipated to result in environmental degradation. The transition to higher-density, compact, transit-oriented development is anticipated to reduce environmental impacts associated with traffic (vehicle miles traveled), air quality, land disturbance, infrastructure expansion, and other environmental issue areas and to provide opportunities for stream environment restoration and improved water quality control facilities which would be beneficial. Growth within the Tahoe Valley plan area would continue to be constrained to that which is allowed by the growth management system set forth in Chapter 50 of the TRPA Code. Thus, this impact would be less than significant.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
122. Would the Project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (CEQA XIIIb) The Project does not displace housing or necessitate the construction of replacement housing elsewhere but rather incentivizes the transfer of existing residential uses located in sensitive land or distant from community centers to transfer to community mixed-use centers. The intent of the plan is promote higher density residential uses within the mixed-use centers to promote walkability and feasibility of alternative transportation options and adhere to statutory requirements of the Sustainable Communities Strategy to reduce passenger vehicle-related greenhouse gas emission in California. Thus, this impact would be less than significant.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
123. Would the Project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (CEQA XIIIc)
See discussions and analyses for Questions 121 and 122 above, concluding that this impact would be less than significant.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
124. Will the Project alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population planned for the Region? (TRPA 11a)
See discussions and analyses for Questions 121 and 122 above, concluding that this impact would be less than significant.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
1554
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 168

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E 125. Will the Project include or result in the temporary or permanent displacement of residents? (TRPA 11b)
See discussions and analyses for Questions 121 and 122 above, concluding that this impact would be less than significant.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
126. Will the Project affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? (1) Will the proposal decrease the amount of housing in the Tahoe Region? (2) Will the proposal decrease the amount of housing in the Tahoe Region historically or currently being rented at rates affordable by lower and very-low-income households? (TRPA 12a) (1) The vision for the Tahoe Valley Area Plan is a central destination that provides full services for tourists and permanent residents. The potential development and redevelopment associated with the Tahoe Valley Area Plan is anticipated to create an increase in temporary and permanent jobs, which would result in a commensurate increase in the demand for housing.

The amount and timing of additional housing units within the Region and similarly the Tahoe Valley plan area is limited by TRPA’s existing growth management provisions. The TRPA Code provides incentives for the development of affordable and moderate-income housing, as discussed below under Item 2. Also, the creation of workforce and affordable housing is a priority of the City of South Lake Tahoe. The Housing Element of the City’s General Plan includes several goals and actions related to increasing housing opportunities within the City, including affordable housing units at Lake Tahoe (Goal HE-1 and Goal HE-2, CLST 2011). The City has programs in place to facilitate housing including reserving one-third of its annual allocation for multiresidential projects, collaborating with TRPA to convert illegal mother-in-law units to legal accessory dwelling units, and when funding is available supporting the First-Time Homebuyer and Moderate- Income Homebuyers Programs. The City also collaborates with TRPA and other local jurisdictions on the Living Working Group and implementing policies that are called for in TRPA’s Goals and Policies (TRPA, 2012d, p. A5-1). Implementation of the Tahoe Valley Area Plan would not result in a decrease in the amount of housing available in the Tahoe Region, but would rather result in more housing options available for residents of the Tahoe Basin due to propose changes to require a minimum multi-family density, and standards that prohibit the replacement of existing housing with vacation homes within the area plan. (2) This potential effect is the same as those analyzed in the TRPA Regional Plan Update, and therefore tiers from the RPU EIS. (TRPA 2012a, 3.12-8 to 3.12-13.) The Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) is mandated by State Housing Law as part of the periodic process of updating local housing elements of the General Plan. The RHNA quantifies the need for housing within each jurisdiction during specified planning periods. The total RHNA allocation for the projection period from January 1, 2006 to June 30, 2013 was a total of 218 units from very low to above moderate units (CSLT 2011, p. HE-53). The City met its obligation of 291 units for the 2006-2013 projection period. The total RHNA allocation for the June 2014-June 2022 projection period is 336 units. During this cycle, the City provided 408 housing units towards the RHNA obligation. The City recently adopted (June 2022) an updated Housing Element to provide direction on addressing housing issues and the RHNA allocation. The total RHNA allocations from 1555
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 169

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E 2022 through 2027 is 289 units. At this time (March 2024), 230 units have been permitted.

Additionally, Regional Plan Policy HS-1.2 requires local governments to assume their “fair share” of the responsibility to provide low and very low-income housing. The TRPA Code also provides incentives for the development of affordable and moderate-income housing, including increased density (Section 31.4.1 of the TRPA Code), height (Section 37.5.5 of the TRPA Code), and exemption from residential allocation requirements (Section 52.3.4 of the TRPA Code). Finally, in accordance with Regional Plan Goal HS-3 and Policy HS-3.1 (TRPA 2012d), TRPA is required to develop and implement a Regional Housing Needs Program. The Housing Needs Program will evaluate progress towards the adopted housing goals and recommend policy and ordinance changes necessary to achieve those goals. Changes may include, but are not limited to, the conversion of residential allocations to bonus units that would be available only for the construction of affordable and/or moderate-income housing, the creation of new bonus units for affordable housing and modification of development standards to promote housing affordability.

Additionally, the following Policies in the Tahoe Valley Area Plan will promote housing affordability:

Policy LU-2.11 designates the Tahoe Valley as a primary area in the City for resident-serving commercial uses, workforce housing and affordable housing. Furthermore, the policy encourages transforming the area into a contemporary, pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use, commercial service district served by a transit center and alternate transportation opportunities.

Policy LU-5.1 – Town Center Core Create a compact, mixed-use, vibrant Town Center Core district focused on the “Y” intersection that includes resident-serving commercial uses, retail and entertainment uses, and workforce and affordable housing.

Policy H-1.1 – Housing Options Provide for a range of housing options that include affordable, moderate-income, and workforce housing so that people can live and work in the City.

Policy H-1.7 – Tahoe Livable Communities Program Collaborate and support efforts of the California Tahoe Conservancy to remove blighted properties and repurpose associated development commodities. Encourage the use of residential commodities for affordable housing in Tahoe Valley area.

Policy H-1.8 – Regional Housing Needs Assessment Collaborate with TRPA on the Regional Housing Needs Assessment to develop updated policies and implementation strategies to remove barriers and facilitate the development of affordable housing. Regional housing policies and programs should complement and not conflict with or duplicate state or local housing policies and programs.

For these reasons implementation of the Tahoe Valley Area Plan and other housing programs implemented on a regional scale is likely to increase the number of affordable units within the Tahoe region. Thus, this impact would be less than significant.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
1556
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 170

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E 127. Will the Project result in the loss of housing for lower-income and very-low-income households? (TRPA 12b)
See discussion and analysis for Question 126 above, concluding that this impact would be less than significant.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
1557
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 171

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E

5.4.16 Public Services
This section presents the analyses for potential impacts to public services. Table 38 identifies the applicable impacts, anticipated level of impact, and whether mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Table 38
Public Services
CEQA Environmental
Checklist Item
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Measures
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
128.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? X
Police protection? X
Schools? X
Parks? X
Other public facilities? (CEQA
XIVa) 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?
129. Fire protection? (TRPA 14a) X
130. Police protection? (TRPA
14b) X
1558
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 172

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E 131. Schools? (TRPA 14c) X
132. Parks or other recreational
facilities? (TRPA 14d) X
133. Maintenance of public
facilities, including roads?
(TRPA 14e)
X
134. Other governmentalservices?
(TRPA 14f) X
128. 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 XIVa)
Schools
The Tahoe Valley Area Plan amendments could result in additional dwelling units based on increased density and land coverage limits for former Plan Area 111 and 114 parcels, generating approximately new students. The Lake Tahoe Unified School District has experienced a drop in student enrollment in the past several decades. As such, it is expected that any additional students generated as a result of the Tahoe Valley Area Plan amendments will be adequately served by existing educational facilities in the City, several of which are located in close proximity to the Tahoe Valley plan area. As the Tahoe Valley Area Plan would not require the provision of new or updated schools to serve students generated in Tahoe Valley plan area, there would not be an adverse impact to schools.

Police Services
Police service in the Tahoe Valley plan area is provided by the City of South Lake Tahoe Police Department.

The South Lake Tahoe Police Department has a jurisdictional area of approximately 13 square miles, five of which include waters of Lake Tahoe. The department is located at 1352 Johnson Boulevard and currently has 42 full-time sworn officers. Supporting the 42 sworn positions are 20 civilian personnel. (Email Comm.; Chief David Stevenson, 2/26/2024)
As of February, 2024, the current staffing level at the South Lake Tahoe Police Department is approximately

1.9 officers per 1,000 residents, based on a Census population of 21,508 (CA Department of Finance, 2023).

According to U.S. Bureau of Justice statistics (2008), Municipal and township police departments employed an average of 2.3 full-time officers per 1,000 residents.

Dispatch service is provided by the Operations Division of the police department. The dispatch center logs when a call is made to report a crime, when an officer is dispatched, when the officer arrives at the scene, and when the officer leaves the scene. An analysis of the of the dispatch logs indicates that the average response time for all calls (emergency and non-emergency) is approximately 9 minutes.

Fire Protection Services
The City of South Lake Tahoe Fire Department (SLTFD) consists of one Fire Chief, one administrative 1559
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 173

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E Executive assistant, three shift commanders Battalion Chiefs, one Battalion Chief/Fire Marshal, one Fire Inspector II, nine captains, nine engineers, and sixteen firefighter paramedics of which fifteen are paramedics, and 13 reserve firefighters (Per Comm. Sallie Ross-Filgo, Administrative Executive Assistant to the Fire Chief, 2/27/2024).

Fire Station 1 is located within the Tourist Core and is located at 1252 Ski Run Boulevard at the intersection of Ski Run and Pioneer Trail. This is the Battalion Headquarters. Fire Station 2 is located at 2951 Lake Tahoe Boulevard.

Fire station 3 is located at 2101 Lake Tahoe Blvd and is located 2 blocks east of the Y intersection within the Tahoe Valley Area Plan boundary. This is the Administration Headquarters and staffed by one Type 1 Engine, one Type 3 Engine, an OES Type 6 Engine for back country rescue, 2 utility vehicles, a mobile air station, and a hazardous materials response trailer. Station 3 staff also operates Marine 17 (Rescue Boat) which is located in the Tahoe Keys.

Stations 1, 2 and 3 are minimum staffed with 1 Captain, 1 Engineer and 1 Firefighter/Paramedic. In addition, the SLTFD maintains mutual aid agreements with other fire and emergency response agencies in the Tahoe Region, including the Tahoe Douglas Fire District, Lake Valley Fire Protection District, and the US Forest Service, providing for area-wide fire response services both in and outside the City limits.

The Tahoe Valley Area Plan amendments may result in a modest increase in residential dwelling units and CFA previously predicted for buildout within the Tahoe Valley plan area in 2015, resulting in an increased need for fire and emergency response. This impact would be potentially significant.

The 2015 Tahoe Valley Area Plan Initial Study predicted up to 373 additional dwelling units and 102,000 square feet of CFA within the plan area. The Tahoe Valley Area Plan incorporates supporting policies to ensure that the increase in development potential will not cause an increase in demand for fire and emergency response that would result in a significant impact. The following proposed policies related to fire protection are incorporated in the Safety and Noise Section of the Tahoe Valley Area Plan:
 Policy HNS-1.3 Fire Protection Require any new structure or any addition, alteration or repair, to implement fire prevention techniques consistent with the current California Building and Fire Codes in order to obtain a building permit.
 Policy HNS-1.4 – Defensible Space and Fire-Safe Landscaping Require property owners to maintain defensible space through annual landscape maintenance, including the removal of dead/dying material and pruning/thinning of flammable vegetation. Ensure that landscape plans for new and rehabilitated structures conform to defensible space requirements of Section 4291 of the California Public Resources Code.
 Policy HNS-1.6 – Water Lines Require all public water providers to maintain adequate water supply systems and flows to meet fire suppression needs throughout the City.  Policy HNS-1.7 – Minimum Fire Flow Requirements Require that all new construction meet the minimum fire flow requirements as set forth in the current California Building and Fire Codes.  Policy HNS-1.8 – Healthcare Campus District Collaborate with Barton Healthcare System to ensure adequate access is provided for emergency vehicles in any new construction or reconstruction of facilities in the Healthcare District.

In addition to the proposed policies of the Tahoe Valley Area Plan listed above, the City has adopted policy provisions in the General Plan (CSLT 2011, p. PQP-9) and fire protection standards in Title 5 of the City Code to ensure adequate fire protection services in the future. These provisions include maintaining adequate staffing levels, maintaining appropriate response times, requiring projects to install fire resistant 1560
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 174

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E materials and interior sprinklers, incorporating fire safe landscaping and defensible space in all remodeled and new construction. Taken together with compliance with the California Fire Code, these existing provisions would help prevent and minimize the occurrence of fires. Prior to any project approval, the South Lake Tahoe Fire Department is consulted during project review to ensure that any subsequent project would not adversely affect the Fire Department’s ability to provide fire and emergency response to a project within the Tahoe Valley plan area as a whole. The development within the Tahoe Valley Area Plan would concentrate development or commodities, including residential units of use, that could already be constructed in the City in a single area, thereby resulting in a gross, but not net, increase in population. The Tahoe Valley Area Plan also proposes economic redevelopment that would increase the property tax base and sales tax, thereby increasing City revenues available to pay for added services, including additional fire personnel.

Fire Flow
Water infrastructure located within the Tahoe Valley Area Plan may not support adequate fire flow to serve the needs of the South Lake Tahoe Fire Department. However, implementation of General Plan, Municipal Code, California Fire Code protection policies and standards, and Tahoe Valley Area Plan Health and Safety Policy HSN-1.3 would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

According to Lukins Brothers Water Company (Lukins) Water System Rehabilitation and Replacement Design Report, adopted in 2009 (per comm: Jennifer Lukins, 3/10/2015), the water purveyor for the northwest portion of the Tahoe Valley plan area, some of the water lines underlying the Tahoe Valley plan area are smaller than eight inches in diameter, generally considered the minimum required to provide adequate fire flow to hydrants and risers. In the case of a significant fire event, adequate flow may not be maintained to firefighters responding to the blaze. Older, smaller diameter lines (e.g., 4 inches) within the Tahoe Valley plan area will require update in order to adequately provide fire flow to the area.

The Lukins system rehabilitation report identifies needed improvements and recommended improvements to bring the water system up to current fire flow standards. Phase 1 of the waterline replacement was completed in the spring of 2014 and involved the installation of a 12-inch main along 12th Street, the installation of fire hydrants, and upgrading residential service connection to 1-inch pipes to accommodate fire sprinkler requirements (Lukins 2014). Phase 2 extends the replacement of 4-inch water mains with 12- inch water mains, hydrants and meters in the James Avenue area. This project is pending funding from State of California Department of Water Resources, State Revolving Funding Program.

Although the Lukins system is not completely upgraded at this time, the requirement of existing policies and standards of the General Plan, City Municipal Building Code, Tahoe Valley Area Plan, and the California Fire Code, which requires all new construction meet the minimum fire flow requirements, installation of sprinklers and fire resistance materials, and incorporation of fire safe landscaping and defensible space, would help prevent and minimize the occurrence of fires. Implementation of these measures reflects the SLTFD’s orientation toward preventing structural fires by incorporating these measures in projects, thus reducing the likelihood of a fire and reducing the need for additional staffing.

See discussion and analysis in Question 132 below for parks and recreation impacts.

With respect to other public facilities, the City has facilities located throughout the City of South Lake Tahoe, which are used for various purposes including social gathering and recreation uses. However, within the Tahoe Valley Area Plan there are no city-owned recreational facilities.

Implementation of the Tahoe Valley Area Plan may result in increased demand for community facilities and services as well as a need for new or physically altered governmental facilities. However, the changes 1561
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 175

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E in demand to community services and facilities are not expected to result in substantial effects to the physical environment. However, as with other projects developed within the Tahoe Valley plan area and consistent with existing conditions, environmental review of specific projects would be required to ensure that physical impacts on the environment area fully mitigated.

Given current staffing levels, the proximity of existing police, fire, and emergency service facilities, implementation of City General Plan policies to minimize fire risk and reduce demand, as well as declining school enrollment, it is not anticipated that implementation of the Tahoe Valley Area Plan 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. However, as with other projects developed within the Tahoe Valley plan area and consistent with existing conditions, environmental review of specific projects would be required to ensure that staffing needs are identified and properly mitigated.

Health Services
Barton Memorial Hospital has served the South Lake Tahoe community since 1963 as a regional medical center. Since its inception, the hospital has been fully accredited by the Joint Commission on Accreditation of Health Care Organizations and the State of California. Part of the Barton HealthCare System, Barton Hospital, is South Lake Tahoe’s largest medical facility and largest employer (900 employees).

The Barton HealthCare System facilities located within the Tahoe Valley plan area include:

Barton Memorial Hospital and Helicopter Landing Pad. Located at 2170 South Avenue, South Lake Tahoe.

Barton Center for Orthopedics and Wellness. Located at 2170 South Avenue, South Lake Tahoe.

Barton Community Clinic. Located at 2201 South Avenue, South Lake Tahoe.

Barton Administrative Building. Located at 2155 South Avenue, South Lake Tahoe.

Tahoe Medical Offices. Located at 2169 South Avenue, South Lake Tahoe.

Barton Physician Offices. Located at 2175 South Avenue, South Lake Tahoe.

Barton Physician Offices. Located at 1139 Third Street, South Lake Tahoe Barton Physician Offices. Located at 1090 Third Street, South Lake Tahoe.

Barton Laboratory. Located at 1067 Fourth Street, South Lake Tahoe.

Barton Offices. Located at 1111-1113 Emerald Bay Road, South Lake Tahoe.

Barton Offices. Located at 2092 Lake Tahoe Boulevard, South Lake Tahoe.

The following facility is outside of the Tahoe Valley plan area but still may serve residents and visitors to the area:

Stateline Medical Center. Located at 155 Highway 50, Stateline, Nevada.

Lake Tahoe Surgery Center. Located at 212 Elks Point Road, Zephyr Cove, Nevada. 1562
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 176

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E Tahoe Orthopedics & Sports Medicine. Located at 212 Elks Point Road, Zephyr Cove, Nevada.

As reported in 2015 at the time of adoption, the Tahoe Valley Area Plan could result in development of 373 additional dwelling units as well as 102,000 additional square feet of CFA, incrementally increasing demand for health services in the Tahoe Valley plan area. The 2015 Tahoe Valley Area Plan established a Town Center Healthcare District east of the “Y” intersection. Establishment of this district consolidated health services within the Tahoe Valley plan area and the City as a whole, increasing convenience for users, providing adequate access through improvements to circulation and pedestrian/bicycle facilities to and from the district, and other similar ancillary benefits of consolidation. At the request of Barton, the proposed amendments would add numerous land uses to the District as documented in Table 7 of Chapter 2. The Tahoe Valley Area Plan includes the following objective and policy regarding Health Care District:
 Policy LU-6.2 – Barton Hospital Campus Encourage Barton Healthcare to consolidate its facilities within the Town Center Hospital Campus District (TC-HC). This district would provide for healthcare services such as an orthopedic center, employee housing, temporary housing for patients’ family members, and a parking garage. Encourage Barton Healthcare to prepare a Campus Master Plan for the Town Center Healthcare District that provides a blueprint for future development and redevelopment that connects existing and future facilities through an integrated pedestrian and bike friendly system.
 Policy LU-6.4 – Parking The Campus Master Plan should include an analysis of parking needs in the Town Center Healthcare District and incorporate parking management strategies to centralize and consolidate parking to create a “park-once” environment that is efficient, convenient and accessible by all the facilities located within the district.  Policy ED-2.1 – Healthcare Encourage additional healthcare-related facilities to locate in the Town Center Healthcare District.
 Policy ED-2.2 – Barton Hospital Campus Master Plan Encourage and collaborate with Barton Hospital to develop a Campus Master Plan for the Town Center Healthcare District that promotes connectivity, walkability, and bikeability. (See also Policies LU-6.2 and LU-6.3.)  Policy ED-2.3 – Barton Hospital Incentives Provide flexibility for the Barton Hospital to engage in public-private ventures. Upon adoption of a Campus Master Plan, healthcare services in which Barton Hospital owns a majority interest and are located within the Town Center Healthcare District will be considered public services provided by a non-profit organization, and may be exempt from the requirements for CFA entitlements pursuant to TRPA Code Section 50.8.3.

Update of older structures and the construction of new health care facilities would result in typical construction- and operational-related concerns of such uses. These effects include, but are not limited to, air quality impacts from both construction and operation, traffic impacts related to greater vehicle trips, biological and hydrological resources impacts (site dependent), and other similar effects of construction and operation of new structures within the Tahoe Valley plan area. These effects are discussed in the pertinent technical sections of this IS/IEC. The Tahoe Valley Area Plan would increase demand but also increase the effectiveness of health services, as well as potentially creating additional health related services within the City.

The Tahoe Valley Area Plan could result in development of 373 additional dwelling units and 102,000 square feet of CFA, and thus an associated increase in demand for healthcare services within the City.

Additionally, as described above, the amendment to the Town Center Healthcare District to add new land uses is expected to result in greater flexibility for future redevelopment of health care-related structures 1563
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 177

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E within the Tahoe Valley plan area. The reader is referred to Question 104 regarding proposed Policy ED2.2 that would exempt certain health care services from the requirements of CFA entitlements.

Implementation of the Tahoe Valley Area Plan will have a less than significant impact to governmental services.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
129. 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 128 above.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
130. 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 128 above.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact
Required Mitigation: None.
131. Will the Project have an unplanned effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services: schools? (TRPA 14c)
See discussion and analysis for Question 128 above.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None
132. 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) This effect was analyzed in the RPU EIS and therefore tiers from the RPU EIS. (TRPA 2012a, Chapter

3.11.) This effect was also analyzed in the General Plan EIR, and this incorporates by reference the analysis from the General Plan EIR. (CSLT 2010, pp. 4.14-9 to 4.14-9.) Within the Tahoe Valley Area Plan there are no City-owned or City-operated recreational facilities.

Informal recreational activities available within the Tahoe Valley Area Plan include dispersed recreation activities, such as bicycling, running, jogging, walking, skateboarding, and in-line skating.

The City of South Lake Tahoe Parks and Recreation Department maintains the following facilities outside of the Tahoe Valley Area Plan. Table 39 provides a list of these facilities along with their location and a description of the amenities offered.
1564
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 178

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E Table 39
Parksand Recreation Facilitieswithin City of South Lake Tahoe Name Address Facilities
Recreation and Aquatics Center Rufus Allen Blvd. near its intersection with US Highway 50
Construction on a new recreation
and aquatics center is scheduled
for 2024. The new facility
includes a pool, lazy river, gym,
elevated track, commercial grade
kitchen, and meeting rooms.

Recreation and Swim Pool Complex 1180 Rufus Allen Blvd. Pool, weight room, multi-purpose gym, BBQ, new outdoor
playground, sand volleyball court,
meeting and party room rentals,
adult, youth and teen programs,
snack bar, and swim shop.

Ice Arena 1176 Rufus Allen Blvd. NHL size ice surface with public skating, classes and hockey
programs. Café, video arcade, disc
sales, party room rentals, and pro
shop.

Campground by the Lake 1150 Rufus Allen Blvd. Open April–October. Cabins, group sites, hook ups.

Bijou Municipal Golf Course 3464 Fairway Ave. & Johnson Blvd.

Open May–October. 9-hole
executive golf course with pro
shop, practice net, putting green,
snack bar and rentals.

South Lake Tahoe Recreation Area, El
Dorado Beach, Boat Ramp & Parking
On US 50 at Lakeview Ave. Concessionaire, picnic and BBQ areas. Boat ramp availability
depends on lake level.

Conolley Beach Behind Timber Cove Lodge on
US 50
Public beach.

Lakeview Commons and El Dorado
Beach
On US 50 across from
Campground by the Lake
Public beach.

Regan Beach ½ mile west of El Dorado Beach
off Lakeview Avenue at
Sacramento Avenue
Public beach, playground,
volleyball court, concessions, and
restrooms.

Bijou Community Park 1201 Al Tahoe Blvd. Group picnic shelters, gazebo/bandstand, playground,
game court area, sand volleyball
courts, horseshoe pits, fitnesstrail,
27-hole disc golf course,
skateboard park (helmets and pads
required), and a central
concession/restroom building.

South Lake Tahoe Community Play
Fields
1300 Al Tahoe Blvd. 110,000 sq. ft. synthetic turf multiuse play fields with warm-up area, parking, and restrooms.

South Lake Tahoe Senior Center 3050 Lake Tahoe Blvd. Facility with meeting rooms and programs.

Explore Tahoe — An Urban Trailhead 4114 Lake Tahoe Blvd. Tahoe Visitor’s Center. 1565
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 179

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E The Lake Tahoe Unified School District maintains South Tahoe High School (located east of the Tahoe Valley Area Plan), which has tennis courts, ball fields, and a gymnasium, and Tahoe Valley Elementary School (located north of the Tahoe Valley Area Plan), which has play areas. Forest lands managed by the U.S. Forest Service located near the Tahoe Valley Area Plan provide opportunities for active and passive outdoor recreation.

In addition, bike and pedestrian trails have been incorporated in some of the open spaces within the Tahoe Valley plan area providing connections to adjacent neighborhoods and to regional recreation amenities.

Further, the City General Plan incorporates policies designed to meet any increase in demand for recreational opportunities. (CSLT 2010, pp. 4.14-9 to 4.14-9.) Under the 2015 Tahoe Valley Area Plan buildout projections, it is assumed that approximately 373 new residential units will be developed in the Tahoe Valley plan over the next 20 years. Using the City’s average household population of 2.5 persons, this new development would increase the area’s population by about 932 persons. There would also be additional activity associated with the anticipated 102,000 square feet of commercial floor area. However, this minimal growth potential is not expected to have an impact on existing facilities. Moreover, the Tahoe Valley Area Plan would result in the development of a new open space greenbelt, and bike and pedestrian trails to serve the existing and future population of the Tahoe Valley plan area. Therefore, a substantial increase in the use of the existing parks and recreational facilities in the Tahoe Valley plan area and surrounding region is not anticipated based on the small amount of anticipated growth and no substantial physical deterioration of these facilities would occur as a result of implementing the Tahoe Valley Area Plan. Thus, this impact would be less than significant.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
133. 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 Tahoe Valley Area Plan would not alter or revise policies and practices pertaining to maintenance of public facilities, including roads. The City General Plan, Public/Quasi-Public Facilities and Services Element (CSLT 2011, p. PQP-4) lists the following goal and policy:
 Goal PQP-1.1 To ensure the timely maintenance, expansion, and upgrades of public facilities and services for the entire community.
 Policy PQP-1.5 The City shall require that new development pay it fair share of the cost of providing new public services and/or the costs of expanding/upgrading existing facilities in services impacted by new development.
 Policy PQP-1.8 The City shall identify operations and maintenance costs and priorities for existing infrastructure, and identify and develop a fair, equitable, and stable fiscal program to finance the ongoing maintenance of infrastructure.

Therefore, subsequent projects under the Tahoe Valley Area Plan would be required to pay all appropriate fees associated with the maintenance of public facilities. Any subsequent projects proposed within the Tahoe Valley plan area would be subject to permitting by City and/or TRPA. Consistent with existing requirements, permit applicants would be required to demonstrate how any additional public maintenance requirements would be accomplished. Thus, this impact would be less than significant. 1566
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 180

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
134. Will the Project have an unplanned effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in other governmental services? (TRPA 14f) There are no other known governmental services that would be directly affected by development associated with the Tahoe Valley Area Plan.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
1567
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 181

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E

5.4.17 Recreation
This section presents the analyses for potential impacts to recreation. Table 40 identifies the applicable impacts, anticipated level of impact, and whether mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Table 40
Recreation
CEQA Environmental
Checklist Item
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Measures
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
135. Increase the use of existing
neighborhood and regional
parks or other recreational
facilitiessuch thatsubstantial
physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be
accelerated? (CEQA XVa)
X
136.Include recreational facilities
or require the construction or
expansion of recreational
facilities which might have an
adverse physical effect on the
environment? (CEQA XVa)
X
TRPA Initial Environmental
Checklist Item Yes No, With Mitigation
Data
Insufficient No
137.Create additional demand for
recreation facilities? (TRPA
19a)
X
138.Create additional recreation
capacity? TRPA 19b) X
139.Have the potential to create
conflicts between recreation
uses, either existing or
proposed? (TRPA 19c)
X
140.Result in a decrease or loss of
public access to any lake,
waterway, or public lands?
(TRPA 19d)
X
135. 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 XVa)
See response to Question 132 above.
1568
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 182

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E As described above, there are currently no City-owned or City-operated parks or active recreational facilities within the Tahoe Valley plan area; however, there are some recreational facilities provided at the public schools adjacent to the Tahoe Valley plan area as well as informal recreational activities available throughout the Tahoe Valley plan area including bicycling, running, jogging, walking, skateboarding, and in-line skating. In addition, bike and pedestrian trails have been incorporated in some of the open spaces within the Tahoe Valley plan area providing connections to adjacent neighborhoods and to regional recreation amenities.

Under the 2015 Tahoe Valley Area Plan buildout projections, it is assumed that approximately 373 new residential units will be developed in the Tahoe Valley plan over the next 20 years. Using the City’s average household population of 2.5 persons, this new development would increase the area’s population by about 932 persons. There would also be additional activity associated with the anticipated 102,000 square feet of commercial floor area. However, this minimal growth potential is not expected to have an impact on existing facilities. Moreover, the Tahoe Valley Area Plan would result in the development of a new open space greenbelt, and bike and pedestrian trails to serve the existing and future population of the Tahoe Valley plan area. Therefore, a substantial increase in the use of the existing parks and recreational facilities in the Tahoe Valley plan area and surrounding region is not anticipated based on the small amount of anticipated growth and no substantial physical deterioration of these facilities would occur as a result of implementing the Tahoe Valley Area Plan. Thus, this impact would be less than significant.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
136. 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 XVb) The Tahoe Valley Area Plan includes recreation goals, policies and implementation strategies that would encourage the development of additional recreational improvements within the Tahoe Valley plan area.

These improvements include the following:
 Creating additional public open spaces (limited or no development);  Constructing the Tahoe Valley Greenbelt (public open space with recreation access and recreation amenities);
 Encouraging public plazas and gathering spaces in commercial nodes;  Improving the safety, convenience and attractiveness of pedestrian facilities;  Constructing Class I bike paths, Class II bike lanes, and Class III bike routes linkages;  Improving bicycle route crossings at major streets, state highways and the “Y” intersection;  Improving the bike way-finding signage program; and
 Promoting the Town Center Core District as a recreation “hub” at Highway 50/89 intersection.

Environmental impacts of development and operation of these additional recreation amenities and improvements cannot be directly quantified as none of these proposed improvements have been designed and no specific proposals for construction of these improvements has been received by either TRPA or the City. However, general impacts are expected to be largely similar to other construction expected within the 1569
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 183

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E Tahoe Valley plan area (air quality impacts from both construction traffic/equipment; potential soils impacts from grading and ground development as well as additional public use of open space; traffic generated through maintenance and use of these amenities; etc.). The potential environmental effects of constructing these recreational facilities are addressed as part of overall development of the Tahoe Valley Area Plan throughout this document at a programmatic level and mitigation measures are provided where necessary to minimize project impacts. In addition, each improvement would be subject to its own environmental review at a project-specific level prior to construction. Implementation of the policies contained in the proposed Area Plan and the mitigation measures identified herein, and the completion of project-level environmental review for each improvement will reduce this impact to a less than significant level.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
137. Will the Project create additional demand for recreation facilities? (TRPA 19a) See response to Question 132 above concluding that this impact would be less than significant.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
138. Will the Project create additional recreation capacity? (TRPA 19b) See discussions and analyses in Questions 136 through 137 above that concludes that any potential new demand that is created by development within the Tahoe Valley plan area is expected to be easily met.

Furthermore, the Tahoe Valley Area Plan also proposes policies and implementing strategies to enhance public transit, biking and pedestrian linkages to recreation uses within and beyond the boundaries of the Tahoe Valley Area Plan. By providing access to a wider range of public recreation opportunities within and outside the boundary will limit the disproportional effect on any one recreation site or activity.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
139. Will the Project have the potential to create conflicts between recreation uses, either existing or proposed? (TRPA 19c)
Any projects permitted through the Tahoe Valley Area Plan would be subject to subsequent project-level environmental review and permitting. 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, pp. 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, p. 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: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
1570
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 184

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E 140. Will the Project result in a decrease or loss of public access to any lake, waterway, or public lands? (TRPA 19d)
TRPA policy encourages the preservation and enhancement of the high-quality recreation experience through the preservation of high-quality undeveloped shorezone and other natural areas and through the provision of additional access to such areas. The Tahoe Valley plan area does not encompass any shorezone. However, a portion of the Tahoe Valley plan area (18.9 acres) is already preserved as publiclyowned open space.

The Tahoe Valley Area Plan includes recreation goals and policies that would result in better utilization of public land in the Tahoe Valley plan area for recommended recreation amenities and provide for additional public open space amenities that are linked to adjacent neighborhoods and regional recreation sites. Specific recreational improvements called for in the Tahoe Valley plan area include restoring two disturbed sites acquired by the California Tahoe Conservancy to open space, and developing the Tahoe Valley Greenbelt as an open space and recreation amenity that can be accessed from the commercial nodes and adjacent residential areas. Also called for in the Tahoe Valley Area Plan is increased safety, convenience, access and attractiveness of pedestrian facilities and trails, construction of Class I bike paths, Class II bike lanes, and Class III bike routes, improvements to bike crossings, and other transportation and recreation improvements integrating the trail system to other regional recreation facilities that provide access to natural areas and public lands.

The Tahoe Valley Area Plan would specifically implement the following policies related to recreation:
 Policy REC-1.1 – Hierarchy and Interconnection Develop an interconnected system of open spaces, community parks, plazas, bike and pedestrian trails, and other types of public and private spaces as part of new development and redevelopment of existing sites.  Policy REC-1.3 – Private Improvements Encourage the private sector to make recreational improvements on their land. Improvements may include establishing community event areas, providing paths and walkways that connect to adjacent sidewalks and bike paths, establishing appropriate space for the outdoor display of for sale or rent recreation equipment.  Policy REC-1.4 – Access Enhance the existing trail and bike system that connects the Tahoe Valley area to recreation opportunities in the south shore.  Policy REC-2.1 – Preservation Preserve and maintain open spaces within the Tahoe Valley plan area that provide a visual break from the urban environment as well as views of surrounding mountains, forests, and stream environment zones. Depending upon their ecological sensitivity, open spaces may incorporate paths, boardwalks, pedestrian and bicycle trails, and benches.  Policy REC-2.2 – Public Access Ensure that public access does not jeopardize restoration activities and water quality and stormwater treatment projects on publicly-owned open space lands.  Policy REC-2.3 – Multi-Use Encourage the multi-use of open spaces in the Tahoe Valley area for storm water treatment, pedestrian and bicycle connectivity, passive recreation uses and as a visual break from the developed environment.
 Policy REC-2.4 – Tahoe Valley Greenbelt Construct the Tahoe Valley Greenbelt Project as multi-use area incorporating stormwater treatment facilities, pathways, and open space. Allow for the accommodation of active and passive recreation uses that include but are not limited to installing bike/pedestrian paths, pedestrian amenities, and interpretive signage. 1571
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 185

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E  Policy REC-2.5– Adjacent Uses Encourage commercial uses located adjacent to the Tahoe Valley Greenbelt to provide direct access to the greenbelt and use it as a visual amenity.  Policy REC-3.1 – Recreation Hub Promote the Town Center Core District as a recreation hub by allowing for a mix of uses that promote outdoor recreation concessionaires, recreation based commercial services, and temporary activities. Connect the recreation hub to recreation opportunities by upgrading existing bike and pedestrian trails, constructing new connections, and increasing transit service. Improve access to recreation opportunities by installing way-finding and interpretive signage within the Town Center Core District and improve access along bike trails.  Policy REC-3.3 – Neighborhood/Pocket Parks Develop neighborhood/pocket parks within the Neighborhood Professional District and surrounding residential areas.

Therefore, implementation of the proposed policies above, creating and preserving additional open space, construction of additional bike trails, and constructing the Tahoe Valley Greenbelt are consistent with TRPA policies encouraging the preservation of natural areas. Providing access to public recreation lands will result in a beneficial impact.

Environmental Analysis: Beneficial Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
1572
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 186

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E

5.4.18 Transportation and Traffic (CEQA) and Traffic and Circulation (TRPA) This section presents the analyses for potential impacts to transportation, traffic and circulation. Table 41 identifies the applicable impacts, anticipated level of impact, and whether mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Table 41
Transportation, Traffic and Circulation
CEQA Environmental
Checklist Item
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with Mitigation
Measures
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
141.Conflict with an applicable
plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of
effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation
system, taking into account all
modes of transportation
including mass transit and
non-motorized travel and
relevant components of the
circulation system, including
but not limited to intersections,
streets, highways and
freeways, pedestrian and
bicycle paths, and mass
transit? (CEQA XVIa)
X
142.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 county
congestion management
agency for designated roads or
highways? (CEQA XVIb)
X
143.Result in a change in air traffic
patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a
change in location that results
in substantial safety risks?
(CEQA XVIc)
X
144.Substantially increase hazards
due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous
intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
(CEQA XVId)
X
145.Result in inadequate
emergency access? (CEQA X
1573
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 187

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E XVIe)
146.Conflict with adopted policies,
plans or programs regarding
public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or
otherwise decrease the
performance or safety of such
facilities? (CEQA XVIf)
X
TRPA Initial Environmental
Checklist Item Yes No, With Mitigation
Data
Insufficient No
147.Generation of 650 or more
new average daily Vehicle
Miles Travelled? (TRPA 13a)
X, LTS
148.Changes to existing parking
facilities, or demand for new
parking? (TRPA 13b)
X
149.Substantial impact upon
existing transportation
systems, including highway,
transit, bicycle or pedestrian
facilities? (TRPA 13c)
X
150.Alterationsto present patterns
of circulation or movement of
people and/or goods? (TRPA
13d)
X
151.Alterationsto waterborne, rail
or air traffic? (TRPA 13e) X
152.Increase in traffic hazards to
motor vehicles, bicyclists, or
pedestrians? (TRPA 13f)
X
141. Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? (CEQA XVIa) The Tahoe Valley Area Plan amendments would not alter, revise or conflict with any applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing the measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system.

Consistent with the Regional Plan, development and redevelopment associated with the Tahoe Valley Area Plan as a whole, and individual projects therein, that would generate a net increase of 1,300 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) or more would be required to prepare a project-level traffic analyses in accordance with Section 65.2.4.B of the TRPA Code. Under the proposed amendments, restaurants would be permitted to add up to 20 seats of outdoor dining with no requirement for obtaining additional CFA. This amendment is considered to have a less than significant impact on applicable transportation plans given STPUD and TRPA determinations that this level of restaurant expansion would not require a change to sewer allocations or require new CFA for the business. For any new VMT that are generated, TRPA requires an applicant to offset the potential regional traffic and air quality effects of the new VMT by requiring an applicant to meet the standards of significance listed in Table 65.2.3-1. In accordance with Section 65.2.4.C of the TRPA 1574
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 188

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E Code, regional and cumulative mitigation measures may include, but not be limited to transit facility construction; transportation system management measures (such as bicycle and pedestrian facilities and use of alternative fuels in fleet vehicles); or transfer and retirement of offsite development rights. In order to offset regional and cumulative impacts, additional development, excepting deed-restricted affordable, moderate, and achievable housing development within areas eligible for Residential Bonus Units, shall contribute to the Mobility Mitigation Fund. The amount of contribution is established in Code subparagraph

65.2.4.D. Thus, this impact would be less than significant.

Also see discussion and analysis in Question 19 above which conclude that all signalized intersections are found to attain LOS standards and analysis in Question 142 below which concludes that the 2015 Tahoe Valley Area Plan is forecast to result in a reduction in region- wide VMT of 10,702 or 0.55 percent below the baseline region-wide modeled total of 1,932,441.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
142. Would the Project 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 county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (CEQA XVIb)
The Tahoe Valley Area Plan amendments would not alter, revise or conflict with the 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 Tahoe Basin and has established Level of Service standards for roadways and intersections and Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT) standards.

The potential effect is the same as those analyzed in the City General Plan Update EIR, which included an evaluation of LOS for key roadway segments intersections. At full build out under the General Plan the General Plan EIR concluded that all roadway segments and all intersections would achieve the LOS standards under year 2030 traffic conditions (CSLT 2010, pp. 4.4-30 through 4.4-40). The amount and location of potential development allowed in the Tahoe Valley Area Plan is consistent with the City General Plan. All intersections would provide adequate (D or better) LOS under current traffic control.

The RPU EIS also evaluated roadway LOS in 2035 along US 50 and SR 89. The assumptions regarding future development in the Tahoe Valley plan area are articulated in Appendix E.7 of the RPU EIS (2012a).

These assumptions include an increase in residential, tourist accommodation, and commercial uses in the Tahoe Valley plan area, consistent with increases that could occur under implementation of the Regional Plan. The amount and location of potential development allowed in the Tahoe Valley Area Plan is consistent with the Regional Plan and the RPU EIS analysis. Therefore, based on this modeling, roadway and intersection LOS standards along roadway segments in the Tahoe Valley would be acceptable in 2035 (TRPA 2012a, pp. 3.3-42 to 3.3-44). Any subsequent project implemented under the Tahoe Valley Area Plan that would not meet screening criteria for VMT (Code Section 65.2.3.D) would be required to prepare a project-level traffic analyses in accordance with Sections 65.2.4.B of the TRPA Code. Any impacts that exceed VMT standards of significance (Table 65.2.3-1) would require mitigation at a project level.

The 2015 Tahoe Valley Area Plan is consistent with the Regional Plan and analysis of VMT contained in the Regional Plan EIS. The City of South Lake Tahoe is also subject to the residential allocation procedures established by the TRPA Code that phases the release of land use allocations contingent upon VMT Threshold being maintained. As shown in Table 42 the 2015 Tahoe Valley Area Plan is forecast to result 1575
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 189

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E in a reduction in region-wide VMT of 10,702 or 0.55 percent below the baseline region-wide modeled total of 1,932,441. This includes consideration of proposed VMT reduction measures and environmental improvements in the Tahoe Valley Area Plan. To the degree that adoption of the Area Plan results in expanded implementation, this is considered to be a beneficial impact. The addition of approximately 11.5 acres to the Area Plan Town Center in the Gateway and Neighborhood Professional Districts and establishment of the new Emerald Bay Connection Corridor District (17.5 acres) would not adversely effect the projected benefits to VMT, as the land uses and densities are consistent with the existing goals of the Area Plan to concentrate development within close proximity to services and transit facilities.

TABLE 42
IMPACT ON REGIONAL VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL AT BUILDOUT OF 2015 AREA PLAN Model Regional
Vehicle Milesof
Travel
Model Change from
Baseline Conditions
Additional
Reductionsin
VMT
Total
Impact on
VMT
% Total Impact
on Regional VMT
Transit
Improv
ements
Bicycle
/
Pedestr
ian
Improv
ements

WITH REGIONAL PLAN UPDATE LAND USE
Baseline
Conditions 1,932,331 0 0 0 - -
2015 Tahoe
Valley Area Plan 1,924,144 -8,297 -850 -1,555 -10,702 -0.55% Source: TRPA Regional Transportation Model
Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
143. Would the Project result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? (CEQA XVIc) The Project does not change air traffic patterns or air traffic. With respect to air traffic safety risks, see response to Question 74 above. Thus, there would be no impact.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
144. 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 XVId) Consistent with the TRPA Regional Plan and City General Plan, implementation of the Tahoe Valley Area Plan is expected to enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety. Figure 13 of the Transportation and Circulation Element includes the existing and planned bicycle and pedestrian facilities within the Tahoe Valley Area Plan.

Further, Policy T-3.4 of the Transportation and Circulation Element requires sidewalks for all new and 1576
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 190

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E expanded uses. The Tahoe Valley Area Plan amendment areas would also be required to include improvements that would separate pedestrian and bicycle travel from roadway travel lanes, thus reducing the potential for conflicts between motor vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Specifically, by virtue of adding sidewalks, dedicated bike paths, enhanced transit, and other amenities, safety conditions would be improved and the potential for conflict would be reduced. Furthermore, all transportation and traffic related facilities proposed in the Tahoe Valley Area Plan would conform to the appropriate federal, state and local roadway, sidewalk intersection design standards (e.g., ASHTOO, MUTCD, Caltrans Highway Design Manual and City Roadway Design Standards) for public health and safety reasons.

The Transportation Element of the proposed Tahoe Valley Area Plan includes policies that provide for minimizing through traffic on residential streets, Complete Street strategies on collector streets, and improvements to separate bicycle/pedestrian and vehicular traffic. It would also result in a net reduction in vehicle-miles of travel. To the degree that adoption of the Area Plan results in expanded implementation of these strategies, this impact would be beneficial.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
145. Would the Project conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? (CEQA XVIf)
The implementation of the Tahoe Valley Area Plan would 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. Tahoe Valley Area Plan policies call for construction of pedestrian sidewalk, bike paths, bike lanes and expansion of transit routes to recreation sites. It is expected that the adding sidewalks, dedicated paths, and enhanced transit options will improve safety conditions and allow efficient movement of people in the Tahoe Valley plan area. To the degree that adoption of the Area Plan results in expanded implementation of these strategies, this impact would be beneficial.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
146. Would the Project conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? (CEQA XVIf)
The implementation of the Tahoe Valley Area Plan would 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. Tahoe Valley Area Plan policies call for construction of pedestrian sidewalk, bike paths, bike lanes and expansion of transit routes to recreation sites. It is expected that the adding sidewalks, dedicated paths, and enhanced transit options will improve safety conditions and allow efficient movement of people in the Tahoe Valley plan area. To the degree that adoption of the Area Plan results in expanded implementation of these strategies, this impact would be beneficial.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
1577
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 191

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E 147. Will the Project result in generation of 650 or more new average Daily Vehicle Miles Travelled? (TRPA 13a)
This potential effect is the same as those analyzed in the TRPA Regional Plan Update, and therefore this analysis tiers from and is consist with the RPU EIS. (TRPA 2012a, Chapter 3.3.) While the 2015 Tahoe Valley Area Plan as amended would permit additional development on newly added vacant lands which could result in generation of new VMT, this change in area plan boundary is still consistent with the increase in development envisioned in the Regional Plan and analyzed in the RPU EIS, which projected to result in a 10 percent reduction in VMT region wide. Further, the proposed amendment under consideration is not a single project (to which the standard of 650 or more VMT is applicable), but an Area Plan, the implementation of which would likely result in some level of traffic increase.

The Tahoe Valley Area Plan amendments would not alter or revise the regulations pertaining to trip generation. Consistent with the Regional Plan, development and redevelopment associated with the Tahoe Valley Area Plan as a whole, and individual projects therein, is likely to generate 650 or more new average daily VMT. TRPA’s updated project assessment process replaces average daily vehicle trip ends with VMT to determine a project’s impact to transportation. The updated process screens eventual Area Plan development projects from additional analysis depending on its location: less than 1,300 average daily VMT when a project is within, or within 1⁄2 mile of a town or regional center; less than 715 average daily VMT in all other areas in the Region. Any subsequent project implemented under the Tahoe Valley Area Plan that would generate a net increase of VMT over these standards would be required to prepare a projectlevel traffic analyses in accordance with Section 65.2.4.B of the TRPA Code. The amendments would permit restaurants to add up to 20 seats of outdoor dining with no requirement for obtaining additional CFA.

This amendment is considered to have a less than significant impact on VMT given TRPA’s determination (Code Section 50.6.1.B.2) that this level of restaurant expansion would not require new CFA for the business. The amendments would allow accessory land uses to advertise separately from the primary land use – this is a change from TRPA Code. This amendment may result in increased visitation to accessory land uses and increase VMT. However, based on other limitations such as accessory use signage area and floor area, the potential increase to VMT is considered to be less than significant (e.g., under 650 or more new average daily VMT). For any new VMT that are generated by unexempted Area Plan projects, TRPA requires an applicant to offset the potential regional traffic and air quality effects of the new VMT by requiring payment of the calculated Mobility Mitigation Fee. The mobility mitigation fee amount would be assessed in accordance with the current mitigation fee schedule in the TRPA Rules of Procedure. Thus, this impact would be less than significant.

See also response to Question 142 above.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
148. Will the Project result in changes to existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? (TRPA 13b)
While the Tahoe Valley Area Plan amendments could result in changes to existing parking facilities, the changes would be consistent with the development envisioned in the Regional Plan and analyzed in the RPU EIS and this analysis tiers from the RPU EIS. (TRPA 2012a, Chapter 3.3.) Therefore, the potential changes to existing parking facilities would comply with the Regional Plan and would occur in compliance with the City and TRPA Codes.
1578
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 192

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E The City Code (Chapter 6.10) and proposed amendments to the Tahoe Valley Area Plan design standards (Appendix C) require any subsequent development under the Area Plan to meet standards for parking supply and design. The proposed Area Plan amendments include possibilities for reductions to parking supply standards for multi-family residential and commercial projects located within 0.5 mile of transit stops or with contribution to alternative transportation measures. To utilize the reduced parking standards, an applicant must demonstrate that the alternative parking standards would not impact offsite parking facilities. As this would ensure the adequate design and provision of parking, this impact would be less than significant.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
149. 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 147, 148, 150, 151 and 152.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
150. Will the Project result in alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods? (TRPA 13d)
This potential effect is the same as those analyzed in the TRPA Regional Plan Update, and therefore this analysis is tiered from the RPU EIS. (TRPA 2012a, Chapter 3.3.) The Tahoe Valley Area Plan would not alter or revise the regulations pertaining to roadway and intersection level of service (LOS). The total amount of new development in the Tahoe Valley plan area is constrained by the growth control system in the Regional Plan and the proposed new permissible uses in the Tahoe Valley Area Plan would be consistent with the types of uses envisioned in the Regional Plan (see project description of this IS/IEC). As such, the Tahoe Valley Area Plan is within the development potential envelope of the Regional Plan, and no additional information on potential future projects within the Tahoe Valley plan area is known. Therefore, there is no need to further analyze roadway and intersection LOS beyond what was contemplated for the Regional Plan.

The RPU EIS also evaluated roadway LOS in 2035 along US 50 and SR 89. The assumptions regarding future development in the Tahoe Valley plan area are articulated in Appendix E.7 of the RPU EIS (2012a).

These assumptions include an increase in residential, tourist accommodation, and commercial uses in the Tahoe Valley plan area, consistent with increases that could occur under implementation of the Regional Plan. The amount and location of potential development allowed in the Tahoe Valley Area Plan is consistent with the Regional Plan and the RPU EIS analysis. Proposed amendments would add parcels to the Area Plan boundary, but buildout assumptions for residential units and commercial floor area are not substantially increased. Therefore, based on the TRPA RPU modeling, roadway and intersection LOS standards along roadway segments in the Tahoe Valley would be acceptable in 2035 (TRPA 2012a, pp. 3.3- 42 and 3.3-44). Any subsequent project implemented under the Tahoe Valley Area Plan that would generate a net increase of VMT over the standards of significance (Code Section 65.2.3.D.2) would be required to prepare a project-level traffic analyses in accordance with Section 65.2.4.B of the TRPA Code. Any impacts on roadway or intersection LOS would require mitigation at a project level. Thus, this impact would be less than significant.
1579
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 193

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
151. Will the Project result in alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? (TRPA 13e) Implementation of the Tahoe Valley Area Plan will not result in alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic.

Thus, there would be no impact.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
152. Will the Project result in increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? (TRPA 13f)
This potential effect is the same as those analyzed in the TRPA Regional Plan Update, and therefore this analysis is tiered from the RPU EIS. (TRPA 2012a, Chapter 3.3.) Consistent with the TRPA Regional Plan and City General Plan, implementation of the Tahoe Valley Area Plan is expected to enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety. Figure 8-1 of the Transportation and Circulation Element includes the existing and planned bicycle and pedestrian facilities within the Tahoe Valley plan area.

Further, Policy T-3.4 of the Transportation and Circulation Element requires sidewalks for all new and expanded uses. The proposed Tahoe Valley Area Plan improvements would separate pedestrian and bicycle travel from roadway travel lanes, thus reducing the potential for conflicts between motor vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Specifically, by virtue of adding sidewalks, dedicated bike paths, enhanced transit, and other amenities, safety conditions would be improved and the potential for conflict would be reduced. Furthermore, all transportation and traffic related facilities proposed in the Tahoe Valley Area Plan would conform to the appropriate federal, state and local roadway, sidewalk intersection design standards (e.g., ASHTOO, MUTCD, Caltrans Highway Design Manual and City Roadway Design Standards) for public health and safety reasons.

The Transportation Element of the proposed Tahoe Valley Area Plan includes policies that provide for minimizing through traffic on residential streets, Complete Street strategies on collector streets, and improvements to separate bicycle/pedestrian and vehicular traffic. It would also result in a net reduction in vehicle-miles of travel. To the degree that adoption of the Area Plan results in expanded implementation of these strategies, this impact would be beneficial.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
1580
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 194

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E

5.4.19 Tribal Cultural Resources (CEQA)
This section provides analysis regarding the project’s potential for 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, as it applies to the following. Table 43 identifies the applicable impacts, anticipated level of impact, and whether mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Table 43: Tribal Cultural Resources
CEQA Environmental
Checklist Item
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Measures
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
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:
153. 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
154. 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
1581
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 195

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E 153. 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 listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)? (CEQA XVIIIa) The proposed amendment does not alter regulations pertaining to cultural resources.

There is no evidence of intact, potentially significant Washoe cultural sites within the existing TVAP or proposed amendment areas. 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 March 13, 2023. To date, no response has been received.

Federal and state regulations, the TRPA Code (Chapter 67) and City General Plan policies address protection of tribal cultural resources and provide processes to avoid or minimize impacts to such resources. Included in the existing Codes and policies are measures to identify tribal cultural resources discovered during ground disturbing construction activities, and protect those deemed by the tribes to have unique ethnic values. 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 47 through 50 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 proposed amendments would not result in a physical change that would affect unique ethnic cultural values. Thus, this impact is considered to be less than significant.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact
Required Mitigation: None.
154. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision( c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1.

In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe? (CEQA XVIIIb).

See discussion and analysis for Question 153 above.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact
Required Mitigation: None.
1582
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 196

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E

5.4.20 Utilities and Service Systems (CEQA) and Energy and Utilities (TRPA) This section presents the analysis for potential impacts to utilities, service systems and energy. Table 44 identifies the applicable impacts, anticipated level of impact, and whether mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Table 44: Utilities, Service Systems and Energy
CEQA Environmental
Checklist Item
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Measures
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
155. Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality
Control Board? (CEQA
XVIIa)
X
156. Require or result in the
construction of new water or
wastewater treatment facilities
or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant
environmental effects? (CEQA
XVIIb)
X
157. Require or result in the
construction of new storm
water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities,
the construction of which
could cause significant
environmental effects? (CEQA
XVIIc)
X
158. Have sufficient water supplies
available to serve the Project
from existing entitlements and
resources, or are new or
expanded entitlements needed?
(CEQA XVIId)
X
159.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 XVIIe)
X
1583
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 197

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E 160. Be served by a landfill with
sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the Project’s
solid waste disposal needs?
(CEQA XVIIf)
X
161. Comply with federal, state,
and local statutes and
regulations related to solid
waste? (CEQA XVIIg)
X
TRPA Initial Environmental
Checklist Item Yes No, With
Mitigation
Data
Insufficient No
162. Use of substantial amounts of
fuel or energy? (TRPA 15a) X
163. Substantial increase in
demand upon existing sources
of energy, or require the
development of new sources of
energy? (TRPA 15b)
X
Except for planned improvements,
will the proposal result in a need
for new systems, or substantial
alterations to the following
utilities:
164. Power or natural gas? (TRPA
15a) X
165. Communication systems?
(TRPA 15b) X
166. Utilize additional water which
amount will exceed the
maximum permitted capacity
of the service provider?
(TRPA 15c)
X
167. Utilize additional sewage
treatment capacity which
amount will exceed the
maximum permitted capacity
of the sewage treatment
provider? (TRPA 15d)
X
168. Storm water drainage? (TRPA
15e) X
169. Solid waste and disposal?
(TRPA 15f) X
155. Would the Project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (CEQA XVIIa)
STPUD currently quantifies expected and current wastewater generation in terms of sewer units. A sewer 1584
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 198

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E unit represents a single point source for wastewater, such as a kitchen or bathroom. Each sewer unit is assumed to generate on average 80 gallons per day (gpd) during normal flows.

Under the adopted 2015 Tahoe Valley Area Plan, the Tahoe Valley area could experience development of 373 additional dwelling units by the year 2032. According to current generation rates provided by STPUD (STPUD assumes that new multi-family dwellings are likely to include three sewer units per dwelling unit), this would result in approximately 1,119 new sewer units, which equates to 89,520 gpd of additional wastewater or 0.089 million gallons per day (mgd). While exact commercial wastewater generation flows cannot be determined by STPUD until specific commercial uses are identified, it is estimated that 102,000 square feet of CFA could generate approximately 31,824 gallons per day or 0.031 mgd of wastewater flow.

As the STPUD wastewater treatment plant currently exhibits excess capacity of 3.7 mgd on average dry days, the project is not expected to require additional treatment capacity at the wastewater treatment plant.

Moreover, STPUD wastewater demand projections for 2028 were estimated to be 5.8 mgd, which is well within the maximum capacity of 7.7 mgd.

As described above, the wastewater generated by potential increases in development within the Tahoe Valley area would not require additional capacity or infrastructure. The proposed amendments would help facilitate development within the Area Plan, but would add little additional potential development potential at buildout given the existing TRPA growth management restrictions. Therefore, the Tahoe Valley Area Plan would have a less than significant impact on wastewater collection and treatment systems.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
156. Would the Project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (CEQA XVIIb)
This potential effect is the same as those analyzed in the City General Plan EIR and therefore this analysis tiers from the General Plan EIR. (CSLT 2010, pp. 4.12-12 to 4.12-16 and 4.12-26 to 4.12-27.) See discussion and analysis for Question 155 above that concludes adequate wastewater capacity exists and therefore the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities is unlikely. With respect to water supply systems, the adopted 2011 Tahoe Valley Area Plan could result in an additional 373 dwelling units and 102,000 square feet of CFA within the Tahoe Valley plan area. The amendents would expand the area plan boundary and help facilitate completion of the proposed residential and commercial buildout. This development would result in the need for upgraded water delivery infrastructure in both the Lukins and STPUD service areas.

Updates of water supply infrastructure commonly involve typical construction impacts including, but not limited to, potential impacts to surface waters, air quality (from exhaust equipment and particulate matter or dust), biological resources, and soils issues. These specific types of impacts are addressed programmatically with overall implementation of the Tahoe Valley Area Plan in the appropriate sections herein. Future environmental review of individual water infrastructure improvement projects may require project-specific environmental documentation, likely to be prepared with STPUD acting as lead agency once specific projects are designed.

The following list includes those Tahoe Valley Area Plan and General Plan policies that contain specific, enforceable requirements and/or restrictions and corresponding performance standards that address these potential impacts.
1585
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 199

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E Tahoe Valley Area Plan
 Policy PS-2.1 – Lukins Brothers Water
Coordinate with South Tahoe Public Utility District and Lukins Brothers Water in upgrading water system in the Tahoe Valley area.

General Plan
 Policy PQP-1.1: Infrastructure Expansion in Under-Served Areas. The City shall coordinate and prioritize infrastructure expansion and/or improvements in areas that are under-served.  Policy PQP-1.2: Provider Requirements. The City shall work within available legal means to ensure statutory requirements are met by all providers.  Policy PQP-1.3: Utility Service Agency Coordination Meetings. The City shall conduct periodic coordination meetings with utility service agencies.
 Policy PQP-1.4: Public Facility Master Plans. The City shall prepare and annually review and regularly update public facility master plans to ensure compliance with appropriate regional, State, and Federal laws, use of modern and cost effective technologies, and compatibility with current land use policy.
 Policy PQP-1.5 Fair Share Costs on New Developments. The City shall require that new development pay its fair share of the cost of providing new public services and/or the costs of expanding/upgrading existing facilities and services impacted by the new development.  Policy PQP-1.7 Ultimate Capacity Needs. The City shall ensure, through the development review process, that public facilities and infrastructures are designed and constructed to meet ultimate capacity needs, pursuant to a master plan, to avoid the need for future replacement to achieve upsizing.
 Policy PQP-2.2 Coordination with Urban Water Management Plan. The City should coordinate with and support the planning efforts of the South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD), including all measures contained in the Urban Water Management Plan.  Policy PQP-2.4 Sustainable Water Use. The City shall encourage efficient practices that ensure water is used in a sustainable manner.
 Policy PQP-2.5 Sustainable Water Distribution. The City shall support local water supply agencies in upgrading public water systems, as needed, to ensure efficient and sustainable water distribution.
 Policy PQP-2.7 Water and Wastewater Management Strategy. The City shall support water and wastewater agencies in developing an innovative water and wastewater management strategy that considers water supply and treatment systems.
 Policy PQP‐6.2 The City shall coordinate efforts with water providers to ensure that fire protection needs and adequate water flows are met throughout the community. The City shall also work with water providers to design systems and processes, and build infrastructure necessary to ensure fire protection.
1586
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 200

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E  Policy HS‐2.4 The City shall require all public water providers to maintain adequate water supply systems and flows to meet fire suppression needs throughout the city.  Policy HS‐2.5 The City shall require that all new construction meets the minimum fire flow requirements as set forth in the California Building and Fire Codes.

The existing General Plan and proposed Tahoe Valley Area Plan policies listed above would ensure that the City coordinates with STPUD and the other water purveyors in the Tahoe Valley plan area on the planning and construction of water supply infrastructure required by new development (Policy PQP-2.7).

These policies would also ensure that the City requires new development to pay its fair share of the costs of expanding and upgrading existing facilities and services impacted by the new development as well as to meet minimum fire flow requirements (Policy HS-2.4 and HS-2.5). As such, this impact is considered to be less than significant.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
157. Would the Project require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (CEQA XVIIc)
This potential effect is the same as those analyzed in the City General Plan EIR and therefore this analysis tiers from the General Plan EIR. (CSLT 2010, Chapter 4.7.) See also responses to Questions 82 and 84-86 above.

All development permitted though the Tahoe Valley Area Plan would be required to meet TRPA BMP standards to reduce runoff and pollutant loading from impervious cover as specified in Section 60.4.6 of the TRPA Code, 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. Therefore, there would be no unplanned alterations or changes to existing stormwater drainage systems associated with buildout of the Tahoe Valley Area Plan that are not first studied and approved by proper regulatory agencies. Thus, this impact is less than significant.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
158. Would the Project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (CEQA XVIId) This potential effect is the same as those analyzed in the City General Plan EIR and therefore this analysis tiers from the General Plan EIR. (CSLT 2010, Chapter 4.11.) The adopted 2015 Tahoe Valley Area Plan could result in up to 373 residential dwelling units as well as up to 102,000 square feet of new CFA by the year 2032 (though it should be noted that potential CFA development in the proposed Tahoe Valley Area Plan is considerably less than that analyzed in the City’s General Plan EIR [CSLT 2010, Chapter 4.11], which concluded a less than significant impact). The proposed amendments would not substantially increase the estimates at buildout. Buildout of the 2015 Area Plan would result in an annual water demand of approximately 179 acre-feet annually, and would not be 1587
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 201

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E substantially increased by the proposed amendments. This water demand is well within STPUD’s projected water demands through year 2030 (4,587 acre-feet annually), its water allocation, as well as the total annual 12,493 acre-feet allocation for use within the Tahoe Valley plan area under the Truckee-Carson-Pyramid Lake Water Rights Settlement Act and the California-Nevada Interstate Compact Concerning Water of Lake Tahoe, Truckee River, Carson River, and Walker River Basins. As identified in STPUD’s Urban Water Management Plan, groundwater levels are stable in the STPUD service area and are considered a reliable source of water during drought years. Thus, adequate groundwater supply exists to meet the Tahoe Valley Area Plan’s demands under existing and future conditions.

Furthermore, all development permitted by the Tahoe Valley Area Plan would be required to comply with Section 32.4 of the TRPA Code, 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, any project proposing construction, reconstruction, or expansion of a structure would be required to meet the Basic Services and Facilities Standards con contained in the TRPA Code. Therefore, implementation of the Tahoe Valley Area Plan would not create water use in excess of the maximum permitted capacity of the service provider. Thus, this impact is less than significant.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
159. 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 XVIIe) See response to Question 155 above.

All development permitted by the Tahoe Valley Area Plan would be required to comply with Section 32.5 of the TRPA Code, 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 prohibits distribution of allocations to jurisdictions with insufficient wastewater capacity to support residential development, and Section 13.10.7 of the TRPA Code requires demonstration of adequate sewer capacity prior to occupancy of a transferred unit (TRPA 2012a, p. 3.13-16). Thus, this impact is less than significant.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
160. Would the Project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the Project’s solid waste disposal needs? (CEQA XVIIf)
This potential effect is the same as that analyzed in the General Plan Update EIR. (CSLT 2010, Chapter

3.11.) The adopted 2015 Tahoe Valley Area Plan provides for 373 new residential units and up to 102,000 square feet of CFA over the next 20 years. Based on a per capita residential solid waste generation rate of

0.25 tons per resident per year (CIWMB, 2007b) and an average of 2.5 persons per household, the anticipated residential development would be expected to generate an additional 235 tons of solid waste per year by 2030. Based on an average per employee solid waste generation rate of 1.3 tons per employee per year (CIWMB, 2007c) and an estimated 400 new employees in the Tahoe Valley plan area (based on an average of 250 square feet per employee ratio), the anticipated commercial development would be expected 1588
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 202

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E to generate an additional 520 tons per year. Therefore, full buildout of the 2015 Tahoe Valley Area Plan would result in the generation of approximately 635 additional tons of solid waste per year by 2030 (or about 2 tons per day).

The South Tahoe Refuse (STR) is under contract with the City to collect solid waste from city 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, materials recovery facility, and the Tahoe Basin Container Service, has a total permitted capacity of 370 tons per day, but currently receives 200 to 250 tons per day.

The remaining capacity of 120 to 170 tons per day is sufficient to serve the growth anticipated under the proposed General Plan Update. Any additional staffing or equipment required to increase service to the city would be funded through the additional service rates that would be collected by STR from the new development. Solid waste is expected to be disposed of at the Lockwood Regional Landfill in Sparks, Nevada. This landfill has a total capacity of approximately 43 million tons and is expected to reach capacity by the year 2025. However, multiple large-scale expansions to the facility are expected before this capacity is reached. In addition, the city currently achieves a nearly 50 percent diversion rate (CIWMB, 2008a); therefore, the increase in solid waste requiring disposal at the landfill would be anticipated to be about half that generated by the planned development. In addition, implementation of the City’s Sustainability Plan includes developing a recycling action plan to achieve a 55 percent diversion rate.

Both the STR main facility and the Lockwood Regional Landfill have sufficient capacity to manage the growth anticipated under the proposed General Plan Update as well as the Tahoe Valley Area Plan.

Therefore, this impact is considered to be less than significant.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
161. Would the Project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (CEQA XVIIg)
The Lockwood Regional Landfill will receive solid waste generated within the Tahoe Valley Area Plan and have sufficient capacity to serve the needs as discussed in Question 160 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 Tahoe Valley plan area would be subject to Chapter 4.150 of the City Code regulating refuse and garbage, as well as TRPA Regional Plan Land Use Element Goal 5, Policy ,1 Public Services Element Goal 3, Policy 2, and the City General Plan Policy PQP-3.3 requiring the transport of solid waste outside the Basin in compliance with California state laws. Thus, the Tahoe Valley Area Plan complies with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste.

Environmental Analysis: No Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
162. Will the Project result in use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? (TRPA 15a) All development permitted through the Tahoe Valley Area Plan would occur in accordance with the Regional Plan and City Code. While any new construction would require electric and natural gas service as part of the basic services (Chapter 32 of the TRPA Code) the entire area within the Tahoe Valley plan area is located within close proximity to existing electric and gas infrastructure. Additionally, projects requiring new or modified connections would be subject the requirements and fees of the applicable utility providers. 1589
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 203

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E 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, p. 3.13-20). Thus, this impact is less than significant.

Also see discussion and analysis for Question 110 above.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
163. Will the Project result in substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? (TRPA 15b) See discussion in Question 162 above that concludes that the available capacity would far exceed the demand generated at build-out of the TRPA Regional Plan; therefore, demand create by implementation of the Tahoe Valley Area Plan, as amended would not exceed available capacity, or require the development of new sources of energy. Thus, this impact is less than significant.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
164. 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 discussion and analysis for Question 162 above that concludes that the available capacity would far exceed the demand generated at build-out of the TRPA Regional Plan; therefore, demand create by implementation of the Tahoe Valley Area Plan, as amended would not result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to power or natural gas. Thus, this impact is less than significant.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
165. 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 or the City Code; however, the City Code requires any new communication wires to be installed underground (City Code Chapter

7.10.060). Any development or redevelopment permitted through the Tahoe Valley Area Plan, as amended would be located within existing service areas for communication systems providers. Each project would be responsible for any elected connection or subscription to communication systems within the region.

Additionally, the increased development and re-development could stimulate investment in improved broadband service, which was identified as a need in the Lake Tahoe Basin Prosperity Plan (WNDD 2010).

Thus, this impact is less than significant.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
1590
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 204

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E 166. 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 15c)
See discussion and analysis for Question 158 above that concludes additional capacity exists in the Tahoe Region and therefore a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to utilize additional water is unlikely.

Thus, this impact is less than significant.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
167. 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 15d) See discussions and analyses for Questions 155, 156 and 159 above that concludes additional sewage capacity exists in the Tahoe Region and therefore a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to utilize additional treatment capacity is unlikely. Thus, this impact is less than significant.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
168. Except for planned improvements, will the Project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to storm water drainage? (TRPA 15e) See discussion and analysis for Question 157 above, concluding that this impact is less than significant.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
169. Except for planned improvements, will the Project result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to solid waste and disposal? (TRPA 15f) See discussion and analysis for Question 160 above. Implementation of the Tahoe Valley Area Plan, as amended would result in new development that would increase the Region’s overall solid waste generation.

Solid waste generation under the TRPA Regional Plan is anticipated to increase to 115,200 tons per year with some small portion of that attributable to the Tahoe Valley Area Plan. Given the substantial existing capacity of 22 million tons, and planned expansion that would allow for a total capacity of 204 million tons at the Lockwood Regional Landfill, waste disposal needs for development under the Tahoe Valley Area Plan could be adequately served in the future. Thus, this impact is less than significant.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
1591
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 205

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E

5.4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance
This section presents the analyses for mandatory findings of significance. Table 45 identifies the applicable impacts, anticipated level of impact, and whether mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level.

Table 45: Mandatory Findings of Significance
CEQA Environmental
Checklist Item
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Measures
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No Impact
170.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 a rare or
endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples
of the major periods of
California history or
prehistory? (CEQA XVIIIa)
X
171.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 XVIIIb)
X
172.Does the Project have
environmental effects which
will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings,
either directly or indirectly?
(CEQA XVIIIc)
X
1592
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 206

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E TRPA Initial Environmental
Checklist Item Yes No, With Mitigation
Data
Insufficient No
173.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)
X
174.Does the Project have the
potential to achieve short-term,
to the disadvantage of longterm, environmental goals? (A short-term 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
175.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
176.Does the Project have
environmental impacts which
will cause substantial adverse
effects on human being, either
directly or indirectly? (TRPA
21d)
X
1593
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 207

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E 170. 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 a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? (CEQA XVIIIa) Fish and Aquatic Habitat
The Tahoe Valley Area Plan would not alter or revise any TRPA Regional Plan policies pertaining to the management of aquatic resources, or permitting of projects affecting these habitats. The Tahoe Valley Area Plan would permit development and redevelopment only in accordance with the Regional Plan and General Plan, and any projects proposed within the plan area that could affect aquatic habitats 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 fish habitat as a condition of project approval. 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, p. 3.10- 45).

Construction activities could result in temporary increases in sedimentation, small amounts of fill placed in aquatic habitats, 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 or Endangered Species and Communities
The Tahoe Valley Area Plan would not alter or revise TRPA Regional Plan policies regarding the protection of rare, endangered, or sensitive plant and animal communities. Compliance with all provisions of the Resource Management and Protection regulations found in Chapter 67 of the TRPA Code is still required for all project review delegated to the City. The Tahoe Valley Area Plan 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 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 fish habitat as a condition of project approval. 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, p. 3.10-50).

During project-level environmental review, potential impacts to protected plant or animal communities would be identified and minimized through the design process and/or through compensatory mitigation, as required under TRPA and applicable federal and state regulations. Additionally, any new development and redevelopment with the Tahoe Valley Area Plan boundary would occur in accordance with TRPA policies that incentivize transfers of land coverage and development rights from sensitive lands, and require restoration and retirement of the sending sites (TRPA 2012a). This policy could result in a benefit to the associated special status species through enhancement and restoration of riparian and wetland habitats.

Cultural, Historical, and Archeological Resources
The Tahoe Valley Area Plan would not alter or revise TRPA Regional Plan policies regarding the protection of cultural, historical, or archeological resources. Compliance with all provisions of the Resource Management and Protection regulations found in Chapter 67 of the TRPA Code is still required for all project review delegated to the City. In addition, federal and state regulations address protection of these resources and provide mechanisms to minimize impacts. The Tahoe Valley Area Plan would permit development and redevelopment only in accordance with the TRPA Regional Plan and the City General Plan, some of which could occur on properties with known or unknown cultural, historical, or archeological 1594
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 208

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E resources. The proposed Tahoe Valley Area Plan contains historic sites CA-Eld-721-H and CA-Eld-2240- H as identified by archaeological and historical investigations. Previous cultural resources studies within the Tahoe Valley plan area suggest that it is sensitive for the presence of undiscovered prehistoric sites, historic sites, and historic buildings and structures (e.g., given the location of the former Barton Ranch complex, motels/auto courts). The potential impacts to cultural resources were analyzed in the RPU EIS and, with implementation of TRPA’s existing code provisions, found to be less than significant (TRPA 2012a, beginning on p. 3.15-13). During project-level environmental review, cultural, historical, and archeological resources specific to the site would be identified, significance determined, and appropriate mitigation implemented in accordance with federal, state, City, and TRPA regulations.

Because the Tahoe Valley Area Plan amendment proposes no changes to existing policies regarding aquatic habitats, special status plant or animal communities, or to cultural, historical, and archeological resources, and because federal, state, and TRPA protections are already in place, implementation of the Tahoe Valley Area Plan would not result in the degradation of these resources.

In addition, the Tahoe Valley Area Plan, as amended, is consistent with the TRPA Code of Ordinances Chapter 13.5.3.G concerning modification to Town Center boundaries. As analyzed herein, TRPA and the City have determined that implementation of the updated Tahoe Valley Area Plan, including all elements of the plan, existing environmental protection requirements, and adopted mitigation, would achieve and maintain TRPA’s environmental threshold carrying capacities and result in environmental improvement.

Therefore, the Tahoe Valley Area Plan amendment would not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment. Thus, these impacts are less than significant.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
171. 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 XVIIIb)
Like the General Plan itself, the Tahoe Valley Area Plan amendment is a collection of 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. Because these policies are implemented in the Tahoe Valley Area Plan over the long-term (i.e., the remaining 20 years of the Plans applicability) and are applicable to all programs and projects over this period, they are inherently cumulative in nature.

The cumulative projects contemplated in the General Plan EIR (CSLT 2010, Chapter 5.0; and see TRPA 2012a, pp. 4-2 through 4-10) include Environmental Enhancement, Land Management Plans, TTD/TMPO projects and programs, and other development projects. These projects and programs also apply to the Tahoe Valley Area Plan, their scope and characteristics are not known to have substantially changed, no additional cumulative projects or programs are known at this time.

Because the Tahoe Valley Area Plan, as amended, will be wholly consistent with the General Plan and because no specific projects are proposed for which contributions to cumulative impacts may be defined and assessed, the cumulative impacts analysis prepared for the Regional Plan is also applicable to the Tahoe Valley Area Plan. As discussed in Question 68, the General Plan EIR concluded that General Plan implementation could result in increased development, redevelopment, and construction activity resulting in an increase in overall greenhouse gas (GHG) emission that would make a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change. Because the Tahoe Valley Area Plan amendment is consistent with 1595
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 209

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E and implements the General Plan and the General Plan EIR, development and population growth anticipated during the Tahoe Valley Area Plan horizon could also contribute cumulatively to global climate change. The General Plan EIR disclosed this significant effect; mitigated it and concluded that with implementation of relevant policies from the General Plan Update, the City’s Sustainability Plan (which calls for development of a GHG inventory and reduction target), and associated mitigation measure MM

4.5.6 are anticipated to mitigate GHG emissions in a manner consistent with current state efforts to reduce GHG emissions under AB 32 and SB 375. Specifically implementation of IMP-8.6 (Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategy in the years 2013-2015) in combination with implementation of Mitigation Measure MM 4.5.6 that would require coordination with future TRPA GHG reduction efforts and the establishment of an emission reduction target consistent with AB 32 and SB 375 reduction efforts would ensure that City GHG emissions are mitigated. Thus, this impact is considered less than cumulatively considerable (CSLT 2011a, pp. 4.0-4 through 4.0-5). Because the Tahoe Valley Area Plan, as amended is consistent with and implements the General Plan and is consistent with the General Plan EIR, development and population growth anticipated during the Tahoe Valley Area Plan planning horizon is not expected to make a considerable contribution to global climate change. Thus this impact is considered less than significant.

Additional consideration is applied below to those resources that could result in more localized cumulative effects, including noise, geologic hazards, scenic resources, and recreation.

Traffic
The Tahoe Valley Area Plan amendment would not alter, revise or conflict with applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing the measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system.

Consistent with the Regional Plan, development and redevelopment associated with the Tahoe Valley Area Plan as a whole, and individual projects therein, that would generate a net increase of 650 average daily VMT or more would be required to prepare a project-level traffic analyses in accordance with Section

65.2.4.B of the TRPA Code. For any new VMT that are generated, TRPA requires an applicant to offset the potential regional traffic and air quality effects of the new VMT by requiring an applicant to contribute to the Mobility Mitigation Fund. The mobility mitigation fee amount would be assessed in accordance with the current mitigation fee schedule in the TRPA Rules of Procedure. Furthermore, all individual projects would be required to meet all applicable LOS standards for roadways and intersection standards. For these reasons the Tahoe Valley Area Plan, as amended would not contribute to an increase in traffic levels that results in cumulatively adverse impacts. Thus, this impact is less than significant.

Water Quality
The Tahoe Valley Area Plan potential effect on water quality was discussed above in response to Questions 82-102. All new development and redevelopment within the Tahoe Valley plan area as amended would be required to meet existing BMP standards to control potential increases in stormwater runoff and pollutant loading onsite. As specified in Section 60.4.6 of the TRPA Code, 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.

Therefore, new development within the Tahoe Valley plan area is not expected to cumulatively create or contribute additional runoff that would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage system. Thus, this impact is less than significant.

Cultural Resources
Because federal and state regulations, the TRPA Code (Chapter 67) and General Plan Policies (CSLT 2010, pp. NCR-6 trough NCR-7) address protection of these resources and provide processes to avoid or minimize 1596
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 210

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E impacts to historic and archaeological resources and any development associated with the Tahoe Valley Area Plan would be required to comply with federal and state regulations, TRPA Code and General Plan policies, during project specific review, it would not contribute to an adverse cumulative effect on archeological or historical resources. Thus, this impact is less than significant.

Noise
The Tahoe Valley Area Plan would continue or strengthen the noise standards currently in effect. In addition, the City and/or TRPA would continue to implement the project specific noise reduction measures described in the Regional Plan EIS, General Plan EIR and the Tahoe Valley Area Plan. For these reasons the Tahoe Valley Area Plan, as amended would not contribute to an adverse cumulative increase in noise levels. Thus, this impact is less than significant.

Hazards
Because existing TRPA and City protections are in place, and because project-specific environmental review would be required for all projects, implementation of the Tahoe Valley Area Plan, as amended would not result in increased exposure of people or property to geologic hazards. As part of the 2012 RPU EIS analysis, TRPA conducted an analysis of wildfire risk and its impact on emergency evacuation analysis, considering the amount of growth forecast for the region. This amendment does not propose additional growth, only amendments to area plan boundary, land uses and design standards intended to encourage buildout of the remaining residential and commercial development within the Tahoe Valley Area Plan. As such, the amendments do not exacerbate previously identified wildfire risk from the buildout development of new residential housing. The proposed amendments are focused on town centers and areas immediately adjacent to town centers, where wildfire danger is inherently less because these areas are further from the wildland-urban interface, and there is more defensible space and urban development (e.g., pavement). New housing developments and commercial buildings that may be facilitated by the amendments are still subject to local building standards that are written to ensure structures can withstand fire and be used to shelter in place. Thus, this impact is less than significant.

Scenic Resources
Because the Tahoe Valley Area Plan carries forward and strengthens the existing scenic protections, and because all permitted projects would continue to meet the TRPA scenic threshold non-degradation standard, the Tahoe Valley Area Plan, as amended would not contribute to an adverse cumulative effect on scenic resources. Thus, this impact is less than significant.

Recreation
The Tahoe Valley Area Plan protects existing recreational resources and provides for the development of increased recreation opportunities through the construction of a bike paths and lanes. Implementation of the Tahoe Valley Area Plan would be consistent with land use changes and policies contemplated and analyzed in the General Plan EIR, including their potential to contribute to cumulative environmental effects. Because all permitted projects would continue to meet the TRPA recreation threshold nondegradation standard, the Tahoe Valley Area Plan, as amended would not contribute to an adverse cumulative effect on recreation resources. Thus, this impact is less than significant.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
1597
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 211

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E 172. Does the Project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (CEQA XVIIIc) As described above in question 171, projects permitted through the Tahoe Valley Area Plan would require project-level environmental review and would be required to comply with all applicable TRPA, federal, state, county, and City regulations, including protections for human health and safety. Therefore, implementation of the Tahoe Valley Area Plan, as amended would not create a substantial direct or indirect adverse effect on human beings. Thus, this impact is less than significant.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
173. 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 171 that concludes implementation of the Tahoe Valley Area Plan would be consistent with land use changes and policies contemplated and analyzed in the RPU EIS, including their potential to contribute to cumulative environmental effects. This discussion of cumulative effects tiers from the cumulative impact discussion included in the RPU EIS. Additionally, the RPU EIS identified resources with localized cumulative issues such as noise, geologic hazards, scenic impacts, and recreation impacts, which were further analyzed in this IS/IEC and were not found to have adverse cumulative effects.

Therefore, the Tahoe Valley Area Plan, as amended and the cumulative projects contemplated in the RPU EIS would not result in a considerable contribution to cumulative adverse conditions. Thus, this impact is less than significant.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
174. Does the Project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (TRPA 21b)
The TRPA Regional Plan is a broad suite of policies, ordinances, and land use controls designed specifically to achieve long-term environmental goals. The Tahoe Valley Area Plan would implement the policies of the TRPA Regional Plan and City General Plan, which—among others—call for concentrating development and redevelopment in town centers (e.g., the TC-G, TC-C, TC-MUC and TC-HC zoning districts), combined with transfer of land coverage and development rights from sensitive lands and lands more distant from community centers, and restoration of those areas (TRPA 2012a).

The Tahoe Valley Area Plan, like the Regional Plan itself, is a collection of policies and ordinances; no specific projects are proposed or would be approved through approval of the Tahoe Valley Area Plan.

However, as described in Section 5.4 of the RPU EIS, the Regional Plan will be implemented through projects that would have short-term effects, but through which long-term term environmental goals will be achieved.

The potential development permitted through the Tahoe Valley Area Plan, as amended could commit raw land to new development resulting in permanent alterations to soils, habitats, and land uses. 1598
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 212

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E Development in accordance with RPU and Tahoe Valley Area Plan policies and ordinances, however, would result in a refinement of the land use pattern within the Region through redevelopment in urban areas and transfer of development rights from sensitive lands to improve the long-term sustainability of natural resources and to support social and economic health (TRPA 2012a). Thus, this impact is less than significant.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
175. Does the Project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environmental is significant?) (TRPA 21c)
See analysis in Question 171 that concludes implementation of the Tahoe Valley Area Plan would be consistent with land use changes and policies contemplated and analyzed in the RPU EIS, including their potential to contribute to cumulative environmental effects.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
176. 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 172 above that concludes that projects permitted through the Tahoe Valley Area Plan would require project-level environmental review and would be required to comply with all applicable TRPA, federal, state, county, and City regulations, including protections for human health and safety. Therefore, implementation of the Tahoe Valley Area Plan, as amended would not create a substantial direct or indirect adverse effect on human beings. Thus, this impact is less than significant.

Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.

Required Mitigation: None.
1599
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 213

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E

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.

Signature:
at
Person preparing application County Date
1600
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 214

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E

5.6 REFERENCES
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.
. 2012. Air Quality Standards and Area Designations. http://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/desig.htm accessed on 6/28/2013.

CDFG. See California Department of Fish and Game
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). Rarefind - California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB). California Department of Fish and Game Special-status Species database search for the Emerald Bay USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle and the surrounding quadrangles (Homewood, Meeks Bay, Rockbound Valley, South Lake Tahoe, Pyramid Peak, Echo Lake, and Freel Peak).

CSLT. See City of South Lake Tahoe.

City of South Lake Tahoe. 2010. General Plan Update, Draft EIR. City of South Lake Tahoe, California. . 2010 (February). General Plan Update, Final EIR. City of South Lake Tahoe, California . 2011 (May 17). General Plan. City of South Lake Tahoe, California. . 2013. City of South Lake Tahoe Police Department Information. http://www.cityofslt.us/index.aspx?NID=304 accessed on 6/11/2013.

EPA. See Environmental Protection Agency
Environmental Protection Agency. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). http://www.epa.gov/air/criteria.html
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.

IDSA. See International Dark-Sky Association.

International Dark-Sky Association. 1998 (July). Information Sheet 77: Recommended Light Levels for Exterior Lighting, Tucson, Arizona.

Kaye, Dr. 2011 (June 22). Lake Tahoe Tsunami, It’s Happened Before, It Will Happen Again. Available:
http://unofficialnetworks.com/tahoe-tsunami-26376/.

STPUD. See South Lake Tahoe Public Utility District.
1601
M A R C H 2 0 2 4 TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT P AG E 215

I N I T I A L S T U D Y / M I T I G A T G E D N E G A T I V E D E C L A R A T I O N / I N I T I A L E N V I R O N M E N T A L C H E C K L I S T / F O N S E South Tahoe Public Utility District. District Information. https://stpud.us/about/district-facilities/accessed on 3/2024.

TRPA. See Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. 1993. Lake Tahoe Scenic Resources Evaluation. Stateline, Nevada. . 1993b (November). Stateline Community Plan: Design Standards and Guidelines. Stateline, Nevada
. 1994 (June). Stateline/Ski Run Community Plan: Standards and Guidelines: Stateline, Nevada . 2008. Regional Transportation Plan, Chapter 6: Conformity. 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 Linking Tahoe:

Regional Transportation Plan & Sustainable Communities Strategy IS/ND/IEC/FONSE, April 2021.

USFWS. See United States Fish and Wildlife Service
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2014. Federal Endangered and Threatened Species that may be Affected by Projects in the Emerald Bay USGS 7.5-minute quadrangle and the surrounding quadrangles (Homewood, Meeks Bay, Rockbound Valley, South Lake Tahoe, Pyramid Peak, Echo Lake, and Freel Peak). USFWS, Sacramento Fish and Wildlife Office, Sacramento, California. Document Number: 080116093311.
1602
1603

FINAL INITIAL STUDY/

MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION
(State Clearinghouse #2024031020)
for the

TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT
Prepared for
City of South Lake Tahoe
1052 Tata Lane
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Prepared by
Hauge Brueck & Associates
www.haugebrueck.com
April 30, 2024
1604

FINAL INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT
APRIL 2024 PAGE i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1.0 SUMMARY AND FINDINGS...................................................................... 1

2.0 APPROVAL OF THE IS/MND.................................................................... 4

3.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ................................................................... 5

4.0 TEXT MODIFICATIONS TO THE INITIAL STUDY ................................... 8

ATTACHMENT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM

ATTACHMENT B COMMENT LETTERS
1605

FINAL INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT
APRIL 2024 PAGE 1

1.0 SUMMARY AND FINDINGS
Project: Tahoe Valley Area Plan Amendment
(SCH# 2024031020)
Lead Agency: City of South Lake Tahoe
Project Contact:

Questions or comments regarding this document may be addressed to:

Anna Kashuba
City of South Lake Tahoe
1052 Tata Lane
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Phone: (530) 542-7405
Email: [email protected]
Project Description:

This Initial Study (IS) has been prepared to address the potential environmental effects of the Tahoe Valley Area Plan (TVAP) Amendment, 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 Amendment 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 proposed project is an update to the Tahoe Valley Area Plan in which current goals, policies and implementation strategies for providing specific land use guidance within the plan’s boundary are contained. The proposed amendments would expand the Area Plan boundary to incorporate parcels fronting US Highway 50 from the existing boundary line south to H Street, plus APNs 032-161-012, 032- 161-013, 032-161-009, and 032-161-008 (previously PAS 114). The addition of these parcels as the Emerald Bay Connection Corridor District would increase opportunity for residential development near a town center and provide additional transit opportunities for residents. Second, seven parcels fronting Melba Drive would be added so that the area plan is contained in this corner by the intersection of E Street and Melba Drive (previously PAS 114). This area was identified as having high redevelopment potential, which may be incentivized by the benefits of being in an area plan Town Center. The third area of expansion is in the northeast corner of the Area Plan. All parcels east of Tahoe Keys Blvd between Eloise Ave and James Ave would be included up until the existing area plan boundary, in addition to 023- 221-020 north of Eloise Ave (previously PAS 111). In addition to the boundary amendments described above, other changes are proposed as documented in IS Chapter 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 1606

FINAL INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT
APRIL 2024 PAGE 2
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, wildfire, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation/traffic, utilities/service systems/energy resources and mandatory findings of significance.

2. Mitigation is required to avoid or reduce potentially significant impacts related to hydrology/water quality and hazards/hazardous materials.

The following mitigation measures have been incorporated in the Project by the City of South Lake Tahoe to avoid or minimize environmental impacts. These mitigation measures were developed during the environmental analysis prepared for the original TVAP adoption in 2015. Implementation of these mitigation measures would avoid or reduce the environmental impacts of the proposed project to a lessthan-significant level. These measures are included in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Attachment A).

Mitigation Measure HAZ-1
Require all subsequent projects that would be located on sites suspected or known to contain hazardous materials and/or are identified in a hazardous material/waste search to be reviewed, tested, and remediated for potential hazardous materials in accordance with all local, state, and federal regulations. The City and TRPA shall require written confirmation from applicable local, regional, state, and federal agencies that known contaminated sites have been deemed remediated to a level appropriate for land uses proposed prior to the City and TRPA approving site development or provide an approved remediation plan that demonstrates how contamination will be remediated prior to site occupancy. This documentation will specify the extent of development allowed on the remediated site as well as any special conditions and/or restrictions on future land uses.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-2
Subsequent projects that meet the definition of a “Possible Contaminating Activity” under Section 60.3.5 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances shall demonstrate compliance with the findings and requirements under Section 60.3.3.D of the TRPA Code of Ordinances and demonstrate that adequate protections are in place to avoid soil and groundwater contamination and protect public health of area residents. This demonstration shall be required prior to subsequent project approvals and implemented as part of project design.

Mitigation Measure HAZ-3
Subsequent projects shall incorporate all fire protection and design provisions identified by the South Lake Tahoe Fire Department intended to improve access point(s) and circulation of the subsequent project sites and the overall area in combination with other fire protection requirements (defensible space, fire flow improvements, fire resistant building materials, landscape treatments, placement of hydrants, and installation of sprinklers). The South Lake Tahoe Fire Department shall review and approve the subsequent project site design prior to commencement of project construction. 1607

FINAL INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT
APRIL 2024 PAGE 3
Mitigation Measure HAZ-4
Subsequent projects shall be required to prepare and receive approval of a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) in accordance with local and state guidelines and standards, including Caltrans Guidelines for Projects Located on the California State Highways in the Lake Tahoe Basin (as applicable). Approval of the TMP shall be obtained from the City and Caltrans (if TMP impacts US 50 or SR 89) prior to site disturbance. Provisions in the TMP shall include, but are not limited to:
• Reduction, to the extent feasible, the number of vehicles (construction and other) on the roadways adjacent to construction sites during project construction. • Reduction, to the extent feasible, the interaction between construction equipment and other vehicles.
• Improvement and maintenance of public safety aimed at driver and roadway safety. • Establishment and/or maintenance of safe routes through the project area for bicycles and pedestrians.
• Establishment and/or maintenance of adequate emergency access for police, fire, ambulance, and other emergency service vehicles – as determined through direct consultation with those service providers.

Mitigation Measure HYD-1
As part of soil/hydrologic investigations for subsequent development and activities in the Tahoe Valley plan area, TRPA and the City will require that a determination of the potential to encounter groundwater from site development may occur. Subsequent project stormwater pollution prevention plans (SWPPP) will include a dewatering program and measures to mitigate potential contamination of groundwater as well as design provisions to allow groundwater to flow through or around underground structures.

Measures to control water quality may include use of settling tanks and Active Treatment Systems (ATS) for treatment of dewatering as well as contamination prevention measures such as proper material storage, secondary containment systems, vehicle fluid drip pans, temporary berms or dikes to isolate construction activities, use of vacuum trucks, and other measures to capture contamination releases.

Mitigation Measure HYD-2
The City and TRPA shall consult with the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board and online Geotracker Database to determine the potential for hazardous material releases on property where BMP installation is proposed prior to issuance of permits, approving the installation of BMPs. Where City and/or TRPA staff determines a potential to exist, the property is required to tie into an existing area-wide system if one is available in lieu of parcel specific BMPs. Where an area-wide system is not available, the site shall be deemed constrained, per TRPA Code 60.4.8.B, until the time that an area-wide system is available or the site has been remediated and closed by the Water Quality Control Board. 1608

FINAL INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT
APRIL 2024 PAGE 4

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
1609

FINAL INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT
APRIL 2024 PAGE 5

3.0 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
The Draft IS was circulated for public review and comment between March 27, 2024 and April 26, 2024.

A Notice of Intent to adopt a Mitigated 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 two letters were received from Wells Barnett Associates and Caltrans District 3 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. A. Lyn Barnett, AICP, Wells Barnett Associates, LLC – 04/22/24

2. Gary Arnold, Branch Chief, Caltrans District 2 – 4/29/24 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 letters as numbered.

1. A. Lyn Barnett, 04/22/24 Letter
Comment 1
This office represents the South Tahoe Association of Realtors (STAOR) whose office at 2307 James Avenue is located in an area proposed for inclusion into the TVAP and rezoned to Town Center – Neighborhood Professional (TC-NP). In past permits, STOAR was verified as a “membership organization” by the City of South Lake Tahoe and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA).

Membership organizations are public service uses and are currently “allowed” in the existing zoning for the STAOR property (Plan Area Statement 111, Special Area 2) and also in the proposed TC-NP zone in the updated TVAP. The new TC-NP zone also includes “local assembly and entertainment” as a special use. This public service designation would allow STAOR to apply for a special use permit to rent their underutilized meeting hall to organizations and groups of people beyond what is currently allowed an exempt temporary activity in accordance with Subsection 2.3.5 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances. We support the proposed TVAP amendments for this reason.

Response 1
Comment noted.

Comment 2
We have reviewed the draft Tahoe Valley Area Plan Amendment Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist dated March 2024 and concur with its analysis. Please note, however, that we recommend that the following corrections be made to Figure 2 on page 8:

1. The existing use of the STAOR property should be “public/quasi-public” rather than “commercial,” as currently mapped, and

2. The legend should be corrected so that existing multi-family uses (currently marked as yellow) match the multi-family uses illustrated in the map (shown as brown).” 1610

FINAL INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT
APRIL 2024 PAGE 6
Response 2
Figure 2 has been revised to correct the land use for the STAOR property and the error in the legend.

2. Caltrans, 04/29/24 Letter
Comment 1
Highway Operations / Traffic Safety
The SLT Wye is the intersection with the highest amount of conflicting traffic as the intersection of two state highways. A Traffic Impact Study and VMT analysis will be needed to analyze the impact on US 50 and on SR 89. Queuing and operational analysis will be needed for proposed changes to the intersection and the affected highways of this plan.

Response 1
The Initial Study documents the need for future study of the state highways and the Wye intersection when the potential for increased traffic would result from future Area Plan development. Mitigation measure HAZ-4 includes the requirement to prepare a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) to management construction traffic for projects located on California state highways. The analysis prepared for question 141 (page 186) documents that future projects that would generate a net increase of 1,300 vehicle miles traveled (VMT) or more would be required to prepare a project-level traffic analyses per TRPA Code.

Further, on page 187 that analysis states “Any subsequent project implemented under the Tahoe Valley Area Plan that would not meet screening criteria for VMT (Code Section 65.2.3.D) would be required to prepare a project-level traffic analyses in accordance with Sections 65.2.4.B of the TRPA Code. Any impacts that exceed VMT standards of significance (Table 65.2.3-1) would require mitigation at a project level. Finally, regarding proposed transportation or traffic related facility improvements within the Area Plan, page 192 states “all transportation and traffic related facilities proposed in the Tahoe Valley Area Plan would conform to the appropriate federal, state and local roadway, sidewalk intersection design standards (e.g., ASHTOO, MUTCD, Caltrans Highway Design Manual and City Roadway Design Standards) for public health and safety reasons.”
Comment 2
Right of Way
If any of the development abuts State right of way (ROW), plans will need to delineate and clearly identify our state ROW along with all proposed improvements within our ROW, mapping can be obtained by contacting the district 3 ROW Map counter at: [email protected]. Applicant or their representatives may also need to identify any possible vulnerable survey monuments in the development area that will need to be preserved and/or perpetuated, as required by PE Act 6731.2 and PLS Act 8771.

Response 2
Comment noted. Future Area Plan development will comply with applicable right of way regulations.

Comment 3
Hydraulics
Tahoe Valley Plan area is in the southwestern portion of the city of South Lake Tahoe. Regional access to the plan area is provided by US 50 and California SR 89. The Area Plan Boundary is going to be expanded to the southwest to include parcels fronting US 50.

Based on the information as provided, there should not be any immediate effect on existing drainage facilities for inclusion of the mentioned parcels in TVAP. However, during development process of the new parcels, following new land coverage, appropriate drainage facilities should be provided to avoid any flooding or ponding of run off in the State Highways.
1611

FINAL INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT
APRIL 2024 PAGE 7
There should not be any significant concerns to the SHS for implementing the proposed project.

Response 3
Comment noted. Future Area Plan development will comply with TRPA stormwater management ordinances to protect state facilities from site drainage.

Comment 4
Encroachment Permit
Any project or work, including access modification and drainage work, that takes place along or within the State’s ROW requires an encroachment permit issued by Caltrans.

Response 4
Comment noted.
1612

FINAL INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT
APRIL 2024 PAGE 8

4.0 TEXT MODIFICATIONS TO THE

INITIAL STUDY
The following changes to the IS dated March 2024 have been made based on 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.

Figure 2 (below) has been revised to correct the existing land use for the STAOR property on James Avenue and the error in the legend.
1613

FINAL INITIAL STUDY/ MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT
APRIL 2024 PAGE 9
1614

FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT
APRIL 2024 PAGE A - 1

ATTACHMENT A MITIGATION MONITORING AND

REPORTING PROGRAM
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP) for the Tahoe Valley Area Plan Amendment 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 measures 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 TVAP Amendment Mitigation Measure Description
Monitoring
Responsibility Timing
Monitoring
Requirement
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1
Require all subsequent projects that would be located on sites suspected or known to contain hazardous materials and/or are identified in a hazardous material/waste search to be reviewed, tested, and remediated for potential hazardous materials in accordance with all local, state, and federal regulations. The City and TRPA shall require written confirmation from applicable local, regional, state, and federal agencies that known contaminated sites have been deemed remediated to a level appropriate for land uses proposed prior to the City and TRPA approving site development or provide an approved remediation plan that demonstrates how contamination will be remediated prior to site occupancy. This documentation will specify the extent of development allowed on the remediated site as well as any special conditions and/or restrictions on future land uses. ses proposed prior to the City and TRPA approving site development or provide an approved remediation plan that demonstrates how contamination will be remediated prior to site occupancy.

This documentation will specify the extent of development allowed on the remediated site as well as any special conditions and/or restrictions on future land uses.

City of South
Lake Tahoe
Prior to
issuance of
permits for
site
development
Written
confirmation of
compliance with
applicable
regulations
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2
Subsequent projects that meet the definition of a “Possible Contaminating Activity” under Section

60.3.5 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances shall demonstrate compliance with the findings and City of South
Lake Tahoe
Prior to
issuance of
permits for
Written
confirmation of
compliance with
1615

FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT
APRIL 2024 PAGE A - 2
Mitigation Measure Description
Monitoring
Responsibility Timing
Monitoring
Requirement
requirements under Section 60.3.3.D of the TRPA Code of Ordinances and demonstrate that adequate protections are in place to avoid soil and groundwater contamination and protect public health of area residents. This demonstration shall be required prior to subsequent project approvals and implemented as part of project design.
gn.
site
development
applicable
regulations
Mitigation Measure HAZ-3
Subsequent projects shall incorporate all fire protection and design provisions identified by the South Lake Tahoe Fire Department intended to improve access point(s) and circulation of the subsequent project sites and the overall area in combination with other fire protection requirements (defensible space, fire flow improvements, fire resistant building materials, landscape treatments, placement of hydrants, and installation of sprinklers). The South Lake Tahoe Fire Department shall review and approve the subsequent project site design prior to commencement of project construction. subsequent project site design prior to commencement of project construction.

City of South
Lake Tahoe Fire
Department
Prior to
project
construction
Written
confirmation of
compliance with
applicable
regulations
Mitigation Measure HAZ-4
Subsequent projects shall be required to prepare and receive approval of a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) in accordance with local and state guidelines and standards, including Caltrans Guidelines for Projects Located on the California State Highways in the Lake Tahoe Basin (as applicable). Approval of the TMP shall be obtained from the City and Caltrans (if TMP impacts US 50 or SR 89) prior to site disturbance. Provisions in the TMP shall include, but are not limited to:
• Reduction, to the extent feasible, the number of vehicles (construction and other) on the roadways adjacent to construction sites during project construction. the number of vehicles (construction and other) on the roadways adjacent to construction sites during project construction.
• Reduction, to the extent feasible, the interaction between construction equipment and other vehicles.
• Improvement and maintenance of public safety aimed at driver and roadway safety. • Establishment and/or maintenance of safe routes through the project area for bicycles and pedestrians.
• Establishment and/or maintenance of adequate emergency access for police, fire, ambulance, and other emergency service vehicles – as determined through direct consultation with those service providers.

City of South
Lake Tahoe
Prior to
project
construction
Written
confirmation of
compliance with
applicable
regulations
1616

FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT
APRIL 2024 PAGE A - 3
Mitigation Measure Description
Monitoring
Responsibility Timing
Monitoring
Requirement
Mitigation Measure HYD-1
As part of soil/hydrologic investigations for subsequent development and activities in the Tahoe Valley plan area, TRPA and the City will require that a determination of the potential to encounter groundwater from site development may occur. Subsequent project stormwater pollution prevention plans (SWPPP) will include a dewatering program and measures to mitigate potential contamination of groundwater as well as design provisions to allow groundwater to flow through or around underground structures. Measures to control water quality may include use of settling tanks and Active Treatment Systems (ATS) for treatment of dewatering as well as contamination prevention measures such as proper material storage, secondary containment systems, vehicle fluid drip pans, temporary berms or dikes to isolate construction activities, use of vacuum trucks, and other measures to capture contamination releases.
s to control water quality may include use of settling tanks and Active Treatment Systems (ATS) for treatment of dewatering as well as contamination prevention measures such as proper material storage, secondary containment systems, vehicle fluid drip pans, temporary berms or dikes to isolate construction activities, use of vacuum trucks, and other measures to capture contamination releases.

City of South
Lake Tahoe
Prior to
issuance of
permits for
site
development
Written
confirmation of
compliance with
applicable
regulations
Mitigation Measure HYD-2
The City and TRPA shall consult with the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board and online Geotracker Database to determine the potential for hazardous material releases on property where BMP installation is proposed prior to issuance of permits, approving the installation of BMPs.

Where City and/or TRPA staff determines a potential to exist, the property is required to tie into an existing area-wide system if one is available in lieu of parcel specific BMPs. Where an area-wide system is not available, the site shall be deemed constrained, per TRPA Code 60.4.8.B, until the time that an area-wide system is available or the site has been remediated and closed by the Water Quality Control Board.

City of South
Lake Tahoe
Prior to
issuance of
permits for
site
development
Written
confirmation of
compliance with
applicable
regulations
1617

FINAL INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

TAHOE VALLEY AREA PLAN AMENDMENT
APRIL 2024 PAGE B - 1

ATTACHMENT B COMMENT LETTERS
1618
P.O. Box 10379 (775) 580-7478 310 Dorla Court, Suite 100 Zephyr Cove, NV 89448 www.wbaplanning.com Zephyr Cove, NV 89448 [email protected]
April 22, 2024
Anna Kashuba, Senior Planner
Development Services Department
City of South Lake Tahoe
1052 Tata Lane
South Lake Tahoe, California 96150 Sent via Email
Subject: Comments on Draft Tahoe Valley Area Plan Amendment Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist dated March 2024
Dear Ms. Kashuba:

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the subject draft environmental document for proposed updates to the Tahoe Valley Area Plan (TVAP). This office represents the South Tahoe Association of Realtors (STAOR) whose office at 2307 James Avenue is located in an area proposed for inclusion into the TVAP and rezoned to Town Center – Neighborhood Professional (TC-NP).

In past permits, STOAR was verified as a “membership organization” by the City of South Lake Tahoe and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). Membership organizations are public service uses and are currently “allowed” in the existing zoning for the STAOR property (Plan Area Statement 111, Special Area 2) and also in the proposed TC-NP zone in the updated TVAP. The new TC-NP zone also includes “local assembly and entertainment” as a special use. This public service designation would allow STAOR to apply for a special use permit to rent their underutilized meeting hall to organizations and groups of people beyond what is currently allowed an exempt temporary activity in accordance with Subsection

2.3.5 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances. We support the proposed TVAP amendments for this reason.

We have reviewed the draft Tahoe Valley Area Plan Amendment Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist dated March 2024 and concur with its analysis. Please note, however, that we recommend that the following corrections be made to Figure 2 on page 8:

1. The existing use of the STAOR property should be “public/quasi-public” rather than “commercial,” as currently mapped, and

2. The legend should be corrected so that existing multi-family uses (currently marked as yellow) match the multi-family uses illustrated in the map (shown as brown). 1 2
1619
Anna Kashuba
City of South Lake Tahoe
April 22, 2024