Agenda packet — South Lake Tahoe City Council, August 11, 2026 (part 3 of 7)

6. It is understood that as part of the project approval, lighting standards may be created including General Lighting Standards, Street Lighting Standards, Prohibited Lighting and Exemptions to ensure that individual fixtures and lighting systems area designed, constructed and installed in a manner that controls glare and light trespass, minimizes obtrusive light and conserves energy and resources.

7. Exterior lighting is designed to the "International Dark Sky Association" standards for protecting night sky from excessive light pollution. This lighting design also references resources from IESNA. The intent of the lighting design is to maintain public safety and security in the project area while curtailing the degradation of the nighttime visual environment through limiting evening light radiation and light spill.

8. All street lighting and photometrics are consistent with the Rural Design Guidelines as required by TRPA.9. Photometrics are provided for public walkways, roadways and landscape areas only. Building mounted fixtures have been included at a conceptual level (for further information reference the architectural lighting plans). Additionally, dedicated lighting for the Exterior cabana and bar areas are not included.

10. All lighting systems will be dimmable and light levels will be reduced to maintain minimum light levels required for safe pedestrian and vehicular travel.

11. All exterior light fixtures will be selected to conform to county guidelines governing glare, light trespass and Dark Sky.

12. The design will utilize 2700K, high CRI LED light sources in consideration of nocturnal wild life and Dark Sky recommendations.

13. All exterior lighting will be controlled by dimmer and grouped by "like" fixture type and geographic area.

Project wide lighting scenes will be set at lowest light levels possible while still maintaining program requirements, safety, security and aesthetic objectives.

SITE LIGHTING LEGEND
PEDESTRIAN POSTBOLLARD TYPE 1BOLLARD TYPE 2MONUMENT LIGHTEVENT FESTOON LIGHT

SITE WALL STRIP LIGHT

BUILDING MOUNTED LIGHT

7.1 TYP
115
80 85
718
NORTH 0
ORIGINAL SCALE:
15' 30' 60'
1"=30'
MATCHLINE - SHEET L9-02
XX
300 E Second St. Suite 1210Reno, Nevada 89501(775) 329-4955 * Fax (775) 329-5098

TAHOE KEYS MARINA

REDEVELOPMENT

TAHOE KEYS SMI, LLC
17330 PRESTON ROAD
#220a
DESIGN
DALLAS, TX 75252

WORKSHOP
Landscape Architecture x Land Planning
Urban Design x Tourism Planning
Aspen x Austin x Denver x Houston
Lake Tahoe x Los Angeles x Raleigh
W W W . D E S I G N W O R K S H O P . C O M
128 Market Street, Suite 3E
Stateline, NV 89449
(775) 588-5929
4 PLANTING REFERENCE NOTES:
123
All areas disturbed due to construction activity, shall be revegetated with approved native seed mix. Refer to Specification Section 329300.

Irrigation Controller. Refer to Irrigation System Drawings.

Backflow Preventer. Refer to Irrigation System Drawings. 5 Final location to be determined in field by Landscape Architect.

Protect area drain from dogging during installation of plants and mulch.Maintain functionality and positive pitch to drain.

PLANTING KEYNOTES:

9.0 PLANTING AND LANDSCAPE

9.1 Lawn Turf9.2 Grass Planting9.39.4
Seed Mix Planting
Perennial Planting
1 / L11.01 -2 / L11.013 / L11.014 / L11.01
---
SPEC.

SECTION

DETAIL /
SHEET
Sht No
PLAN
L9.1

PLANTING
SITE

WATER TANK &

STORAGE FACILITY

VENICE DR

PROPERTY LINE

PLANTING LEGEND

PROPOSEDEVERGREEN TREESPROPOSEDDECIDUOUS TREES
TURF
4,660 SF
PLANTING TYPE 1: MEADOW
49,798 SF
PLANTING TYPE 2: STRUCTURED
22,780 SF
PLANTING TYPE 3: DRAINAGE
18,295 SF

EXISTINGEVERGREEN TREES
BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME TYPE SIZEDECIDUOUS TREESBetula populifolia Gray Birch B&B 2" Cal.

Populus tremuloides Quaking Aspen B&B 2" Cal.

EVERGREEN TREES
Calocedrus decurrens Incense Cedar B&B 8' Ht.

Pinus jeffreyi Jeffrey Pine B&B 10' Ht.Pinus jeffreyi Jeffrey Pine B&B 16' Ht.BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME TYPE SPACING SHRUBS
Amelanchier utahensis Utah Serviceberry Container 60" o.c.Artemisia tridentata Big Sagebrush Container 12" o.c.

Salix purpurea Purple Osier Willow Container 48" o.c.Spiraea betulifolia 'Tor' White Frost™ Birchleaf Spirea Container 24" o.c.

PERENNIALS
Achillea millefolium Common Yarrow Container18" o.c.Athyrium filix-femina Common Lady Fern Container 18" o.c.

Lupinus albifrons Silver Lupine Container 18" o.c.

Muhlenbergia rigens Deer Grass Container 24" o.c.

Pennisetum alopecuroides 'Hameln' Hameln Fountain Grass Container 24" o.c.

PLANT SCHEDULE
ZONE 1: 0-5'

NONCOMBUSTABLE
AREA

LIMIT OF LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS

NONCOMBUSTABLE AREA
116
81 85
719
NORTH 0
ORIGINAL SCALE:
15' 30' 60'
1"=30'
MATCHLINE - SHEET L9-01
MATCHLINE - SHEET L9-03
XX
300 E Second St. Suite 1210Reno, Nevada 89501(775) 329-4955 * Fax (775) 329-5098

TAHOE KEYS MARINA

REDEVELOPMENT

TAHOE KEYS SMI, LLC
17330 PRESTON ROAD
#220a
DESIGN
DALLAS, TX 75252

Irrigation Controller. Refer to Irrigation System Drawings.

Backflow Preventer. Refer to Irrigation System Drawings. 5 Final location to be determined in field by Landscape Architect.

Protect area drain from dogging during installation of plants and mulch.Maintain functionality and positive pitch to drain.

PLANTING KEYNOTES:

9.0 PLANTING AND LANDSCAPE

9.1 Lawn Turf9.2 Grass Planting9.39.4
Seed Mix Planting
Perennial Planting
1 / L11.01 -2 / L11.013 / L11.014 / L11.01
---
SPEC.

SECTION

DETAIL /
SHEET
Sht No
PLAN
L9.2

PLANTING
SITE

DOCK MASTER

BUILDING

VENICE DR

PLANTING LEGEND

PROPOSEDEVERGREEN TREESPROPOSEDDECIDUOUS TREES
TURF
4,660 SF
PLANTING TYPE 1: MEADOW
49,798 SF
PLANTING TYPE 2: STRUCTURED
22,780 SF
PLANTING TYPE 3: DRAINAGE
18,295 SF

EXISTINGEVERGREEN TREES
BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME TYPE SIZEDECIDUOUS TREESBetula populifolia Gray Birch B&B 2" Cal.Populus tremuloides Quaking Aspen B&B 2" Cal.EVERGREEN TREES Calocedrus decurrens Incense Cedar B&B 8' Ht.

Salix purpurea Purple Osier Willow Container 48" o.c.Spiraea betulifolia 'Tor' White Frost™ Birchleaf Spirea Container 24" o.c.

PERENNIALS
Achillea millefolium Common Yarrow Container 18" o.c.Athyrium filix-femina Common Lady Fern Container 18" o.c.

Lupinus albifrons Silver Lupine Container 18" o.c.

Muhlenbergia rigens Deer Grass Container 24" o.c.

Pennisetum alopecuroides 'Hameln' Hameln Fountain Grass Container 24" o.c.

PLANT SCHEDULE
ZONE 1: 0-5'

NONCOMBUSTABLE
AREA

LIMIT OF LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS

PUBLIC RESTROOMS
& TRASH FACILITY

NONCOMBUSTABLE AREA

NONCOMBUSTABLE AREA
117
82 85
720
NORTH 0
ORIGINAL SCALE:
15' 30' 60'
1"=30'
MATCHLINE - SHEET L9-02
XX
300 E Second St. Suite 1210Reno, Nevada 89501(775) 329-4955 * Fax (775) 329-5098

TAHOE KEYS MARINA

REDEVELOPMENT

TAHOE KEYS SMI, LLC
17330 PRESTON ROAD
#220a
DESIGN
DALLAS, TX 75252

PLANTING
SITE
4 PLANTING REFERENCE NOTES:
1 2
3 All areas disturbed due to construction activity, shall be revegetated with approved native seed mix. Refer to Specification Section 329300.

Irrigation Controller. Refer to Irrigation System Drawings.

Backflow Preventer. Refer to Irrigation System Drawings. 5 Final location to be determined in field by Landscape Architect.

Protect area drain from dogging during installation of plants and mulch.Maintain functionality and positive pitch to drain.

PLANTING KEYNOTES:

9.0 PLANTING AND LANDSCAPE

9.1 Lawn Turf9.2 Grass Planting9.39.4
Seed Mix Planting
Perennial Planting
1 / L11.01 -2 / L11.013 / L11.014 / L11.01
---
SPEC.

SECTION

DETAIL /
SHEET

BUILDING A

BUILDING B

BUILDING D

BUILDING C

PROPERTY LINE

PLANTING LEGEND

PROPOSEDEVERGREEN TREESPROPOSEDDECIDUOUS TREES
TURF
4,660 SF
PLANTING TYPE 1: MEADOW
49,798 SF
PLANTING TYPE 2: STRUCTURED
22,780 SF
PLANTING TYPE 3: DRAINAGE
18,295 SF

EXISTINGEVERGREEN TREES

BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME TYPE SIZEDECIDUOUS TREES
Betula populifolia Gray Birch B&B 2" Cal.

Populus tremuloides Quaking Aspen B&B 2" Cal.

EVERGREEN TREES
Calocedrus decurrens Incense CedarB&B 8' Ht.

Pinus jeffreyi Jeffrey Pine B&B 10' Ht.

Pinus jeffreyi Jeffrey Pine B&B 16' Ht.

BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME TYPE SPACING
SHRUBS
Amelanchier utahensis Utah Serviceberry Container 60" o.c.Artemisia tridentata Big Sagebrush Container 12" o.c.

Salix purpurea Purple Osier Willow Container 48" o.c.Spiraea betulifolia 'Tor' White Frost™ Birchleaf Spirea Container 24" o.c.

PERENNIALS
Achillea millefolium Common Yarrow Container 18" o.c.Athyrium filix-femina Common Lady Fern Container 18" o.c.

Lupinus albifrons Silver Lupine Container 18" o.c.

Muhlenbergia rigens Deer Grass Container 24" o.c.Pennisetum alopecuroides 'Hameln' Hameln Fountain Grass Container 24" o.c.

PLANT SCHEDULE
ZONE 1: 0-5'

NONCOMBUSTABLE
AREA

LIMIT OF LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS

NONCOMBUSTABLE AREA
118
83 85
721
85 300 E Second St. Suite 1210Reno, Nevada 89501(775) 329-4955 * Fax (775) 329-5098

TAHOE KEYS MARINA

REDEVELOPMENT

TAHOE KEYS SMI, LLC
17330 PRESTON ROAD
#220a
DALLAS, TX 75252
NORTH
C6.1
84 SLIP COUNT
DOCK
MATCHLINE SEE DRAWING C6.2
12/10/2025
119
722
85 300 E Second St. Suite 1210Reno, Nevada 89501(775) 329-4955 * Fax (775) 329-5098

TAHOE KEYS MARINA

REDEVELOPMENT

TAHOE KEYS SMI, LLC
17330 PRESTON ROAD
#220a
DALLAS, TX 75252
MATCHLINE SEE DRAWIN C6.2
SOUTH
C6.2
85 SLIP COUNT
DOCK
12/10/2025
120
723
SUP25-002 Tahoe Keys Water Company Water Main Improvement Project Page 1 of 3

MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL USE PERMIT & VARIANCE
Project Name: Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
File: DR25-007
Location: 2435 Venice Drive
Project APN: 022-210-032, 022-210-040, 022-210-041 & 022-210-042 Owner(s): Tahoe Keys SMI DE LLC
Applicant: Eric Metz, Vice President of Development
CONDITIONS of APPROVAL
1) This permit authorizes the demolition and reconstruction of the upland facilities at Tahoe Keys Marina. The permits allow the demolition of three (3) existing marina buildings, other ancillary structures on the site, and existing parking lots and utilities. Construction of landside facilities to include new buildings, parking lots, entrances, and utilities (including upgraded water connections to mains in Venice Drive East and Tahoe Keys Boulevard). New buildings include an approximately 52,600-square-foot indoor boat storage facility with indoor water tanks, three units of workforce housing (to replace the three [3] existing units that would be demolished as part of the project), and space for restaurants, retail, concessions, and boat sales. The existing boat launch and gantry crane would be relocated. This permit does not approve the replacement of the existing bulkhead that borders the lagoon, which requires a separate TRPA permit. 2) The permittee shall provide to the City a Notice of Determination filing fee of $3,068.75 made out to El Dorado County. The fee will cover the California Department of Fish and Wildlife environmental impact fee and the El Dorado County processing fee.
3) The City will file a Notice of Determination, pursuant to Section 150075 of the CEQA Guidelines, with the County Clerk's Office for posting, within five days of project approval, as required by CEQA. The filing of a Notice of Determination and the posting on the list of notices start a 30-day statute of limitations period on legal challenges to the City's approval decision under CEQA. 4) The City will file a Notice of Determination with the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation within five days of the project approval, as required by CEQA.
5) This approval is based on the permittee's representation that all plans and information contained in the subject application are true and correct. Should any information or representation submitted in connection with the project application be incorrect or untrue, the City may rescind this approval or take other appropriate action. Approval of this permit is limited to what is described herein, based on the approved plans and file materials.
6) The permittee shall obtain all necessary City of South Lake Tahoe building or other City improvement permits applicable to this project prior to commencement of any construction. An encroachment permit is required for any work in the City right-of-way.
724 121
DR25-007 Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project Page 2 of 3 7) The permittee shall obtain all necessary Tahoe Regional Planning Agency permits applicable to this project prior to the commencement of any construction.
8) All exterior coverings shall be consistent with Chapter 7A of the California Building Code and the California Fire Code.
9) All exterior lighting shall be consistent with the TRPA Code of Ordinances, Section 36.8, Exterior Lighting Standards, and City Code Section 6.10.160. The permittee shall submit exterior lighting specifications with the building permit application for review and approval by the Planning Division. 10) The permittee shall submit the final color palette with the building permit application for review and approval by the Planning Division.
11) The permittee shall select a darker earth-tone hue for the garage roll-up doors proposed for the trash facility and the public restrooms. The proposed color shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval.
12) The permittee shall revise the plan set submittal to install bicycle racks within the vicinity of the drop-off and loading plaza.
13) The approved building height in this permit is contingent upon TRPA amending the TRPA Code of Ordinances to permit additional height for marinas. If the TRPA Governing Board does not approve the amendment, the permittee shall revise the proposed building height to comply with the TRPA Code of Ordinances. 14) The permittee shall submit a snow storage plan with the building permit application submittal for review and approval by the Planning Division.
15) Pursuant to the parking mitigation outlined in the LSC Technical Memorandum dated March 30, 2026, the permittee shall submit an Employee Parking Program to the Planning Division for review and approval. 16) The permittee shall restripe Venic Drive East with a Class III Bike Lane. Restriping shall conform to City Public Works engineering standards, and all work shall be coordinated with the Public Works Department. 17) All construction activity and excavation equipment shall be limited to the foundation/construction footprint to minimize site disturbance.
18) Temporary/construction BMPs shall be installed and properly maintained at all times pursuant to the TRPA permit.
10) Prior to the commencement of any construction/grading, the permittee shall contact the City at least 48 hours in advance and arrange for a pre-grade inspection. 11) To mitigate the impacts on scenic vistas from the Cove East trail located east of the propose project, landscape plan for the commercial plaza and adjacent parking areas shall be revised to reduce or remove taller tress that may block views through the proposed buildings to the ridgeline views beyond, replacing them with shorter treess (e.g., flame maple or multi-stem aspen) and shrubs that will not block ridgeline views as viewed from the Cove East trail through the projec site. 725 122
DR25-007 Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project Page 3 of 3 19) The permittee shall implement Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration mitigation measures as outlined in the Mitigation Monitoring Report.

Prior to the Permit Acknowledgment
20) The property owner or authorized representative shall acknowledge this permit and the conditions contained within by satisfying all conditions of approval and signing below.

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

Approved by the Planning Commission on June 11, 2026

_________________________ _____________________
City Approval Signature Date
PERMITTEE'S ACCEPTANCE: I have read the permit and the conditions of approval and understand and accept them. I also understand that I am responsible for compliance with all the conditions of the permit and responsible for agents' and employees' compliance with the permit conditions. I understand that it is my sole responsibility to obtain any and all required approvals from any other state, local or federal agencies that may have jurisdiction over this project whether or not they are listed in this permit. _________________________ _____________________
Signature of owner or authorized representative Date
CITY ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The permittee has complied with all conditions of approval. _________________________ _____________________
City Approval Signature Date
726 123
June 11 2026 PC & ALUC Meeting - Page 2 of 2
727 124

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT - PLANNING DIVISION

NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE PLANNING COMMISSION
Proof of Service by Mail
SUBJECT: Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project, #DR25-007 ADDRESS: 2435 Venice Drive
APN: 022-210-032, 022-210-040, 022-210-41 & 022-210-042 DATE OF HEARING: June 11, 2026

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

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF EL DORADO

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

On May 19, 2026, I served the attached notice pursuant to Section 6.55.640 of the South Lake Tahoe Municipal Code and Government Code Sections 65090 and 65091 (Planning and Zoning Law) on the persons named thereon or attached thereto by placing a true copy thereof with postage thereon fully prepaid in the United States mail. I declare, under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true and correct.

Signature
Executed on 5/19/2026 , by John Hitchcock, Planning Manager Development Service Department
1052 Tata Lane
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150-6251
728 125
729 126

NOTICE OF A PUBLIC HEARING

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE PLANNING COMMISSION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that in accordance with Sections 65090 and 65091 (Planning and Zoning Law) of the Government Code, the City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission will conduct a public hearing on June 11, 2026, at 3:00 pm., or as soon thereafter as possible, in the City Council Chambers, 1901 Lisa Maloff Way, South Lake Tahoe Airport, to consider the following agenda items:
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project Major Design Review and Special Use Permit.

Summary: Tahoe Keys SMI, LLC (TKSMI) is proposing the redevelopment of the Tahoe Keys Marina (TKM) in order to revitalize the TKM landside facilities and operations. The Project would involve the demolition of 3 existing marina buildings, other ancillary structures on the site, and existing parking lots and utilities. Landside redevelopment would include new buildings, parking lots, entrances, and utilities (including upgraded water connections to mains in Venice Drive East and Tahoe Keys Boulevard). Buildings would include an approximately 52,600-square-foot indoor boat storage facility with indoor water tanks, 3 units of workforce housing (to replace the 3 existing units that would be demolished as part of the Project), and space for restaurants, retail, concessions, and boat sales. The existing boat launch and gantry crane would be relocated, and the existing bulkhead that borders the lagoon would be replaced. A significant element of the Project is bringing the site into compliance with water quality best management practices (BMPs) and assisting in controlling aquatic invasive species (AIS).
[email protected]).

Any interested person may appear at the public hearing and present written testimony or speak in favor of or against the project proposal. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65009(b)(2), if you challenge the above application in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you, or someone else, raised at the public hearing described in this notice or written correspondence delivered to the City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. Written testimony may be addressed to the Planning Commission in care of the City Clerk to [email protected] or mailed to 1901 Lisa Maloff Way, Suite 206, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150.

The Planning Commission agenda and related staff reports are available at least 72 hours in advance of regular meetings on the City’s website https://cityofslt.us/84/Watch-CityCouncilCommission-Meetings or by contacting the City Clerk at (530) 542-6005. 730 127
Project Location Map
Project Proposed Site Plan
j
731 128

TAHOE PUBLIC UTIL DT SOUTH
1275 MEADOW CREST DR
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

RICHARD BROWN

TAHOE KEYS PROP OWNERS
ASSOC
PO BOX 10470
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96158

ROBERT & SOLIS LUZ MARIA

SEGOVIA
R T & J M 2019 REV 3/15 / 2019
GINLEY
JAMES C & SARAH L WHARTON JASON & NATALIE COLLIN MCKINNEY FAM TRUST 8/2/2023

MATTHEW R & RUTH L

STEFANAC
DICKER LIV TR 8/27/2019 &

JOSHUA IRA & CHRISTINA B

ROBERT M & LUKINS MARGO L

HENDERSON

JASON & ANNING RAIA WILSON

TAHOE KEYS PPTY OWNERS
ASSN
PO BOX 10470
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96158

MICHAEL PHILLIP & MADONNA

ANN MARIE DOYLE BENJAMIN & DEBORAH GEERTS

DEANE TONI L TR & SURV
TRUST 6/11/86

MARIA & MAZEN ZABANEH KENNETH A & KEVIN A GONG

GORMAN THOMAS R TR & T

FAM LIV REV TRUST
ANGELO/MAY REV LIV TR 10/
31/2024 & JOHN FRANK CO T

ZAMZOW MARK G CO TR &

PATRICIA H CO TR

DAVID & FONG RAYMOND S T
LIU

ANGELA & STIRLING EDWARD P

FRAGOMENI

CARTER THOMAS & SHARMA

NITASHA SCHLANK

DONALD E & DEBRA M

MACQUARRIE

MARK MURIEL A TR & FAM LIV

TRUST SURV TRUST

SHIELD ANDREA MARIE SURV
TR & FAM TR OF 4/3/1992 NORINE HEGY
732 129

HETENIAK CHARLES J CO TR &

CATHERINE M CO TR EVANS RENTALS KEYS LLC PAUL & BENI SHANNON MCGILL

KEYS POA TAHOE
356 ALA WAI BLVD
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-

TAHOE KEYS SMI DE LLC
2435 VENICE DR E
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-

TAHOE KEYS PROP OWN ASSN

TAHOE KEYS PROP OWN ASSN
PO BOX 1239
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96156

TKV PROPERTIES HOLDINGS LLC TAHOE KEYS SMI DE LLC
17330 PRESTON RD #220A
DALLAS TX 75260

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PO BOX 778
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96158

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PO BOX 7758
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96158

TAHOE KEYS SMI DE LLC
2435 VENICE DR E
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-

TAHOE KEYS SMI DE LLC
17330 PRESTON RD STE 100C
DALLAS TX 75252

TAHOE KEYS BEACH & HARBOR
ASSN
PO BOX 10199
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96158-

TAHOE KEYS SMI DE LLC
2435 VENICE DR E
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-

STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PO BOX 7758
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96158

TAHOE KEYS PROP OWN ASSN
PO BOX 1239
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96151

MARJORIE SUGAKO & ELARDO

MAYUMI MICHELLE NAKAJI

JESUS DIAZ

ANTHONY WON HYUNG & IK

EDA PATRICIA REIKO LEE

VICTOR L & CHARMAINE M

BRANDSTETTER

MARLYSS MAE SUCC DAMATO

HANKERMEYER KENNETH G CO

TR & CAROL M CO TR

CARROLL STEVEN C & LU

BELINDA CO TR
BOETTCHER TR 10/14/2024 DOUGLAS B & PAMELA J BAILEY

VICTOR T & JENNIFER F

AUVINEN

MOSBY & ERIN PARISI SIMMONS A & B YIM LTD ALVAREZ REALTY LLC OR LLC 733 130
734 131

RICHARD CADWELL & SCOTT

CADWELL GREENWOOD BRANDON HUGHES TAHOE KEYS PROP OWN ASSN PO BOX 1239
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96156

FACTOR JONATHAN SYLVAN &

KIMBERLY ANN CO TR

JOHN J & CONSTANCE E

HAVERTY

DUSTIN W & LAWLOR CA

THERINE M KIESCHNICK

JOSHUA C & ALAYNNA D ELLIOT

MICHAEL J & MARGARET

RHYMES RYAN ABELINO HERNANDEZ

BARRY C & CHRISTY F SLOCUM KATJA LANGE ROBERTA MARIE WALLACE

MARI KVINSLAND

PROVASI LIV FAM TRUST
10/29/1986 SEAN & MICHAEL COYLE
ROBERTF & KAY M AMOS KLEINER LIV TR 5/29/2024 SHIN S REV 2015

LYNN & OKI H JAMES THULL ANNETTE P LACHAPELLE PETER & ANGELA BELAFSKY

GINA M WYNEKEN TERRY NUNLEY KHINH & SHINYEE HOANG

JAMES S & EVELYN M GAY

MILLER ANN CHRISTINE TR & A
C LIV TRUST 02/25/14

BERTRAND & CHRISTINE

CHEVALIER

KENNETH W & CARLA J

LUKHARD MOURA BORISOVA GLEE L CALL
735 132

JOHN E MCMAKIN

SHANNON M & DANIEL R

MAINWARING
1 ELIZABETH A & SMOTHERS

EDWARD M HANSEN

SHARON THOMPSON

ALLEN GENE & DOROTHY ANN

WOODALL KEVIN M MUSANTE

LORETTA & LORETTA JEAN LIV

REV STEIN

MATTHEW & INGWELL KRISTA

MOSES MARY A SEELEY

TERRAPIN HOLDINGS NV LLC MICHAEL B & RITA R PASKOW CHARLES & ANNA WHALEY

WAYNE & SHIZUKO ADACHI

RAYMOND N & HAGEMAN

BONTE F JOHNSON

ZACHARY & GOLLNICK JESSICA

PETERSON

GHANDI H SHEMDEAN

CENTERLINE GROUP RENO II

LLC, NV DAREK J & CARRIE A BORBA

ROBERT J & SARAH M SULLIVAN WILLIAM D & PAMELA M JABIN

JAIME SAMUEL CAMHI & FUEN

TES VIVIANA LORE ESPINOZA

LAURA & RODRIGUEZ REGULO

URIBE ORTIZ PATRICK & DESIREE HAMBEL

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA &

U S FOREST SERVICE
35 COLLEGE DR
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150-
IAN & CHRISTINA MERWIN RODNEY & KRIS RIDDLE KEELER REV TRUST 2/4/97

JON & GERLINDE TOPZAND SCOTT HENG

PAUL P & BRENDA L

RICONSCENTE
736 133

DANIEL J & NEWMYER SHERRI
LTR MASLYAR KOHS M N REV TRUST 09/12/2002 NICK J & ALLISON M ZUVELA

JESSE & BYRNES PATTERSON

NICOLE PATTERSON

KOENIG EDWARD MILES

ESTATE OF D E & A M REV LIV B MONCUS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA & CAL

IFORNIA TAHOE
1061 3RD ST
SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CA 96150

CHU STALIN CO TR & GAIL A CO

TR JEFFEREY & KIMBERLY ASHLEY
D & KARET J 5/27 / 2004 WARD J & D LIV 3/8 / 2023 MACIA

HURWITZ COLLEEN CARR TR &

AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
State of Florida, County of Orange, ss:

Anjana Bhadoriya, being first duly sworn, deposes and says: That (s)he is a duly authorized signatory of Column Software, PBC, duly authorized agent of Tahoe Daily Tribune now is, and during all times herein named, was a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of California, and now is, and during all times herein named was the printer of Tahoe Daily Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation, as defined by section 6000 of the Government Code of the State of California, printed and published daily (Sundays excepted) in the City of South Lake Tahoe, County of El Dorado, State of California, and that affiant is the principal clerk of said Nevada County Publishing Co.

That the printed advertisement hereto annexed was published in the said Tahoe Daily Tribune, for the full required period of 1 time(s) commencing on May. 1, 2026, and ending on May. 1, 2026, all days inclusive.

PUBLICATION DATES: May. 1, 2026
NOTICE ID: LLN9rlRNkOXrfzXxWdjw
PUBLISHER ID: 401637
NOTICE NAME: June 11 2026 Planning Commission Meeting
Publication Fee: $312.66
I certify, under penalty of perjury, the forgoing is true and correct. [$signersig ]
(Signed)______________________________________ [$seal]

VERIFICATION
State of Florida
County of Orange
Subscribed in my presence and sworn to before me on this: [$date] [$notarysig ]
______________________________
Notary Public
[$disclosure]
See Proof on Next Page
June 11 2026 Planning Commission Meeting - Page 1 of 2
05/01/2026
Notarized remotely online using communication technology via Proof. ________________
738 135
June 11 2026 Planning Commission Meeting - Page 2 of 2
739 136
Resolution 2026-010 June 11, 2026 Page 1 of 3
Resolution 2026- 010
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe
Planning Commission
June 11, 2026

ADOPT THE TAHOE KEYS MARINA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (SCH #2026040227) AND

APPROVE THE MAJOR DESIGN REVIEW, SPECIAL USE PERMIT, AND VARIANCE, FILE #DR25-007

BACKGROUND
A. On May 8, 2025, the City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Division received an application from the Tahoe Keys SMI DE LLC for a proposed project to redevelop and modernize the Tahoe Keys Marina property.

B. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15070, an Initial Study was prepared for the proposed project in compliance with CEQA.

C. In accordance with Government Code Section 65352, the City prepared and published a Notice of Availability and Notice of Intent to adopt an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ( IS/MND) for the proposed project and circulated the Initial Study for public review on April 3, 2026.

D. On April 4, 2026, the Notice of Availability, Notice of Intent, Notice of Completion, and the IS/MND were posted on the website of the Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (SCH # 2062040227), and circulated to State agencies.

E. Due to a typographical error in the conclusion of the public review period, the City reinitiated the public review period of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and published a revised Notice of Availability and Notice of Intent on May 1, 2026, with a public review period ending June 1, 2026. All comments previously submitted to the City on the IS/MND were accepted.

F. On May 19, 2026, the City mailed a notice of a public hearing to all affected properties within 300 feet of the project area, providing the date, time, and location 740
Resolution 2026-010 June 11, 2026 Page 2 of 3
of the June 11, 2026, Planning Commission meeting, at which the Planning Commission will consider the Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project.

G. On May 29, 2026, the City published a notice of a public hearing of the date, time, and location of the June 11, 2026 Planning Commission meeting in the Tahoe Daily Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of South Lake Tahoe.

H. The City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission conducted a duly noticed public hearing on June 11, 2026, took public comment, and deliberated.

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

1. Finds that the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis.

2. Finds, on the basis of the whole record before it (including the IS/MND and any comments received), that there is no substantial evidence that the proposed Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project will have a significant effect on the environment.

3. Finds that the proposed Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project will not result in a safety hazard or noise problem for persons using the Lake Tahoe Airport or for persons residing or working in the project area.

4. The Development Services Department is the custodian of the documents or other material that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission’s decision is based and can be found at 1052 Tata Lane, South Lake Tahoe, California, 96150.

5. Finds that the lesser improvements will lessen the environmental impact, will enhance traffic safety for vehicles and pedestrians, and will substantially meet the intent of City Code Section 6.10.350.A for reduced driveway width.

6. Finds that there is adequate off-street parking as determined by the parking analysis, that the environmental impact will be lessened by the reduction in parking spaces, that the safety of other vehicles and pedestrians will be enhanced by the lesser requirement, and that the parking analysis evaluated different peak periods, determined that the parking demand did not overlap, and that the parking facility will meet peak demand.

7. Finds that due to special circumstances applicable to the property, including size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the regulation deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under an identical plan area.
741
Resolution 2026-010 June 11, 2026 Page 3 of 3

8. Finds the foregoing recitals are true and correct and are made part of this resolution.

9. Amends City Permit # DR25-007 to require the applicant to add at least 15 additional onsite parking spaces, with no fewer than 10.

10. Adopts the Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and the mitigation and monitoring reporting program, or MMRP.

11. Approves the Major Design Review, Special Use Permit, and Variance, File DR25-007
Adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission on June 11, 2026, by the following vote:

Yes: Lucksinger, Imhoff, Williams

Absent: Feiger, Gonzalez
Date:_________
Julia Lucksinger, Chair
Attest:

Yvette Miranda, Administrative Clerk II
The presence of an electronic signature certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy as approved by the South Lake Tahoe City Council.

Julia Lucksinger ( Jun 18, 2026 10:05:26 PDT)
06/ 18/ 2026
742
Resolution 2026-010_Tahoe Keys Marina
Redevelopment Project #DR25-007
Final Audit Report 2026- 06-18
Created: 2026- 06-15
By: Yvette Miranda ( ymiranda@cityofslt. gov)
Status: Signed
Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAAI6_ a72tzCWQmXDr78Xhv__ jcvw5ET2FD Resolution 2026-010_Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Proje ct #DR25-007" History
Document created by Yvette Miranda ([email protected]) 2026- 06- 15 - 6:24:25 PM GMT
Document e-signed by Yvette Miranda ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2026- 06-15 - 6:25:06 PM GMT - Time Source: server - Signature Appearance Selected: IMAGE Document emailed to jlucksinger@cityofslt. us for signature 2026- 06- 15 - 6:25:07 PM GMT
Email viewed by [email protected]
2026- 06- 18 - 5:04:49 PM GMT
Signer [email protected] entered name at signing as Julia Lucksinger 2026- 06- 18 - 5:05:24 PM GMT
Document e-signed by Julia Lucksinger ([email protected]) Signature Date: 2026- 06-18 - 5:05:26 PM GMT - Time Source: server - Signature Appearance Selected: MOBILE_ DRAW Agreement completed.
2026- 06- 18 - 5:05:26 PM GMT
743
744
745
746
747
560 Mission Street, Suite 1900 | San Francisco, CA 94105 | T 415.743.6900 | F 415.743.6910 Holland & Knight LLP | www.hklaw.com
Ryan M. Leaderman
+1 213-896-2405
[email protected]
Deborah Brundy
+1 415-743-6983
[email protected]
Algiers | Atlanta | Austin | Birmingham | Bogotá | Boston | Century City | Charlotte | Chattanooga Chicago | Dallas | Denver | Fort Lauderdale | Houston | Jacksonville | London | Los Angeles | Mexico City Miami | Monterrey | Nashville | Newport Beach | New York | Orlando | Philadelphia | Portland | Richmond San Francisco | Seattle | Stamford | Tallahassee | Tampa | Tysons | Washington, D.C. | West Palm Beach July 20, 2026
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of South Lake Tahoe
901 Lisa Maloff Way, Suite 206
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Re: Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Approval of the Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project File # DR25-007
Dear Honorable Mayor and City Council:

This firm, along with Feldman Thiel LLP, represents Tahoe Keys SMI, LLC (the “Applicant”) with respect to land use permitting for the redevelopment of the Tahoe Keys Marina in the City of South Lake Tahoe, California (the “City”). On June 11, 2026, the City’s Planning Commission approved the Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project (file # DR25-007) (the “Project”). Even though the Project would greatly improve the Tahoe Keys Marina, the Sierra Club Tahoe Area Group and Tahoe Sierra Clean Air Coalition (collectively, the “Appellants”) filed a joint appeal (“Joint Appeal”) on June 23, 2026 that would effectively halt critical improvements at the Tahoe Keys Marina. The Joint Appeal challenges the Project’s compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and if granted, would result in the lack of investment in the community necessary to improve existing conditions. This letter and enclosed attachment respond to the Joint Appeal’s statement of grounds for appeal.

The Tahoe Keys Marina redevelopment Project would revitalize and improve the existing marina by demolishing the marina buildings and other ancillary structures for landside redevelopment of the site with new buildings, public amenities, waterfront promenade, parking lots, entrances, and utilities. The Project proposes three units of workforce housing, restaurants, retail, concessions, boat sales, and boat storage and will bring the site into compliance with environmental regulations and standards, providing increased protection through best management practices (“BMPs”) and aquatic invasive species (“AIS”) controls. As noted on page 5 of the Project’s Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”), Project objectives include the following:
748
Honorable Mayor and City Council
July 20, 2026

Page 2 ends

▪ Enhance environmental protections through stormwater BMPs and AIS controls. ▪ Provide public amenities, including a waterfront promenade, non-motorized recreation access, public restrooms, and community gathering spaces. ▪ Construct new and modern commercial and marina support buildings while preserving scenic views.
▪ Replace an aging bulkhead.
▪ Provide on-site boat storage to reduce the need for vessels to be towed to off-site storage locations.

Granting the Joint Appeal as the Appellants demand would reduce environmental protections; reduce public amenities; would not create a new and modern marina; would not replace an aging bulkhead; would not provide on-site boat storage that would reduce the need for towing to off-site storage; and would not protect the environment because the existing unabated conditions of the marina would continue to defeat the presumed lofty goals of the Appellants. Instead of granting the Appellants’ desire for more paperwork and proceduralism in the purported name of the environment, the City Council should deny the appeal outright since the IS/MND is legally adequate and the Project would provide substantial environmental and community benefits. Please see the enclosed “Responses to Principal Grounds for Appeal by Tahoe Sierra Clean Air Coalition and Sierra Club Tahoe Area Group” for point-by-point responses to the Joint Appeal, incorporated herein by reference.

I. Summary of the Joint Appeal’s Claims
The Joint Appeal asserts that “substantial evidence in the record supports a fair argument that the Project may have significant environmental effects, requiring preparation of a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under CEQA Guidelines §15064 and a coordinated Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact.” According to the Joint Appeal, the Project’s IS/MND purportedly requires further analysis of the following impacts, the demands for which are not supported by substantial evidence as explained below. • Wildfire evacuation, public safety, and transportation impacts • Hydrology, water quality, and aquatic resources
• Hazardous materials and cumulative impacts
• Scenic, visual, and other resources
• Piecemealing, alternatives, and TRPA coordination
Even though there is no substantial evidence supporting a fair argument of a significant impact, the Joint Appeal requests reversal of the Project approvals and “preparation of a full EIR with coordinated TRPA EIS,” including specified modeling and evaluation of a reasonable range of alternatives.
749
Honorable Mayor and City Council
July 20, 2026

Page 3 ends

II. Speculation Does Not Constitute Substantial Evidence nor a Fair Argument The mere assertion that the record provides substantial evidence that the Project may have a significant impact is not sufficient grounds for requiring preparation of an environmental impact report (“EIR”). CEQA requires a jurisdiction to adopt a negative declaration if the “lead agency determines that a proposed project . . . would not have a significant effect on the environment.” Pub. Res. Code § 21080(c). However, “[i]f there is substantial evidence, in light of the whole record before the lead agency, that the project may have a significant effect on the environment,” CEQA requires a jurisdiction to prepare an EIR. Pub. Res. Code § 21080(d). The legal test for determining which document is required turns on whether “substantial evidence in the record supports a ‘fair argument’” that “significant impacts or effects may occur.” Quail Botanical Gardens Foundation, Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.App.4th 1597, 1602, as modified on denial of reh’g (Nov. 29, 1994); CEQA Guidelines § 15064(f)(1). Substantial evidence is demonstrated through facts, in particular “expert opinion supported by fact” or “a reasonable assumption predicated upon fact.” Pub. Res. Code § 21080(e)(1). Speculation, argument and “unsubstantiated opinion or narrative” does not constitute substantial evidence nor a “fair argument” that an EIR is required. Pub. Res. Code § 21080(e)(2).

Courts hold that “framing of the fair argument test in terms of the project having ‘potentially significant impacts on resident safety and emergency evacuation’ is erroneous.” Newtown Preservation Society v. County of El Dorado (2021) 65 Cal.App.5th 771, 775. “The test is instead whether the record contains substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment or may exacerbate existing environmental hazards.” Id. As recently explained by the Third District Court of Appeal, “[m]embers of the public may . . . provide opinion evidence where special expertise is not required.” Id. at 781 (internal citations and quotations omitted). “However, [i]nterpretation of technical or scientific information requires an expert evaluation.

Testimony by members of the public on such issues does not qualify as substantial evidence. [I]n the absence of a specific factual foundation in the record, dire predictions by nonexperts regarding the consequences of a project do not constitute substantial evidence.” Id. (internal citations and quotations omitted) (citing Joshua Tree Downtown Business Alliance v. County of San Bernardino (2016) 1 Cal.App.5th 677, 691 (rejecting a community member’s assertions that a project would cause urban decay)). Here, the Joint Appellants engage in speculation, and do not provide substantial evidence on any of their claims, as noted below and in the incorporated responses. 750
Honorable Mayor and City Council
July 20, 2026

Page 4 ends

III. The Joint Appeal Relies on Speculation and Lacks Expert Testimony Here, even though the Project site consists of an existing marina, the Joint Appeal claims that the improvements would result in dire predictions related to hazardous waste materials, water quality impacts and wildfire evacuation – all lacking expert testimony. Appellants demand an EIR because the IS/MND did not perform the specific data modeling, simulations, or technical analysis insisted upon by the Appellants. CEQA does not require further technical reportsto analyze Project impacts nor to refute the speculative claims of the Joint Appellants. The comments do not lay an adequate factual foundation demonstrating why the requested technical analysis is necessary to provide the City or public with a meaningful understanding of the Project’s impact on the environment.

Appellants’ correspondence and testimony at the Planning Commission do not impeach the IS/MND’s analysis and do not constitute substantial evidence that the Project’s analysis and mitigation measures are inadequate. Gentry v. City of Murrieta (1995) 36 Cal.App.4th 1359, 1410- 11, as modified on denial of reh’g (Aug. 17, 1995). Although the City must consider the public’s views, the City “must still determine whether environmental change itself might be substantial” before an EIR may be required. CEQA Guidelines § 15064(c). “The existence of public controversy over the environmental effects of a project will not require preparation of an EIR if there is no substantial evidence before the agency that the project may have a significant effect on the environment.” CEQA Guidelines § 15064(f)(4).

IV. The IS/MND Properly Analyzed Impacts Against the Existing Baseline Appellants’ speculation that further analysis is needed because the IS/MND did not adequately analyze AIS risks, wildfire evacuation, and stormwater performance in high water-table conditions fails to acknowledge that Tahoe Keys Marina is an operating marina subject to ongoing permitting, which provides the baseline for the analysis of the Project’s impact on the environment. Pursuant to the City’s discretion, the City analyzed the impact of the Project in comparison to the existing operations. Hollywoodians Encouraging Rental Opportunities v. City of Los Angeles (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 768, 779 (“[A]n agency enjoys the discretion to decide, in the first instance, exactly how the existing physical conditions without the project can most realistically be measured, subject to review, as with all CEQA factual determinations, for support by substantial evidence.” (internal citations and quotations omitted)). Appellants do not impeach this methodology. Instead, Appellants contend that the Project must analyze historical water quality impacts to the lagoon, basin-wide AIS, water clarity, shoreline redevelopment and recreational capacity, impermissibly conflating historical impacts. The Joint Appeal fails to distinguish between the larger basin-wide conditions and the impacts resulting from the Project. El Dorado County Taxpayers for Quality Growth v. County of El Dorado (2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1591, 1595, as modified (Oct. 14, 2004).

V. CEQA Does Not Require Cumulative Hazards or Alternatives Analyses for this Project
The Joint Appeal also impermissibly demands a cumulative analysis of hazardous materials.

CEQA does not require a cumulative analysis when the lead agency determines that the Project 751
Honorable Mayor and City Council
July 20, 2026

Page 5 ends

will not have a project-level significant impact. Sierra Club v. West Side Irrigation Dist. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 690, 701–702 (“When there is no substantial evidence of any individual potentially significant effect by a project under review, the lead agency may reasonably conclude the effects of the project will not be cumulatively considerable, and it need not require an EIR on this basis.” (citation omitted).) Here, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 provides mitigation that would reduce the potential for disturbance or accidental release of hazardous materials to less than significant in accordance with regulatory requirements. Appellants have not demonstrated that the record supports a fair argument that the Project will have significant impacts on hazardous materials that will not be mitigated by appropriate remediation of the site under regulatory oversight. Therefore, Appellants have failed to demonstrate why further cumulative analysis of the Project’s hazardous materials impact is necessary.

The Joint Appeal’s demand for an alternatives analysis is equally without merit. An alternatives analysis is an exclusive requirement of an EIR, not a mitigated negative declaration. Pub. Res.

Code § 21100(b)(4). Because the IS/MND was the appropriate level of CEQA review for this Project, no alternatives analysis is required. Appellants may not speculate as to the Project’s impacts in order to force an analysis not required by CEQA. Pub. Res. Code § 21168.5 (it is an abuse of the City’s discretion to proceed in a manner not required by law or to make a determination not supported by substantial evidence).

VI. The City Did Not Impermissibly Piecemeal Environmental Analysis of the Project Appellants assert that the Project’s environmental analysis is impermissibly piecemealed because it was not conducted as a coordinated EIR/EIS review between the City and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (“TRPA”). While “[a] Lead Agency under CEQA may work with” another agency governed by other environmental review legislation, such as the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”), to prepare a joint document meeting the requirements of both CEQA and the other legislation, CEQA does not mandate it. CEQA Guidelines § 15170 (emphasis added).

Similarly, in conducting its own environmental review, TRPA may rely on information contained in a CEQA or NEPA document, but a joint document is not mandated. TRPA Code of Ordinances § 3.7.3. To this end, there is no legal obligation to coordinate environmental review between the City and TRPA. Having the City’s review in an IS/MND and TRPA’s separate review is not impermissible piecemealing, as the IS/MND analyzed the whole of the action. CEQA Guidelines § 15378.

Supporting their demand for more proceduralism and paperwork, Appellants also demand that an EIR include TRPA-level visual simulations of the Project. This demand is misplaced. The IS/MND analyzed the Project’s aesthetic impacts, including height and view corridor impacts, pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Appendix G thresholds. The IS/MND includes renderings of the Project and analyzes its impact on specified view corridors. Moreover, TRPA separately analyzed the Project’s environmental impacts in compliance with TRPA’s own environmental review requirements, culminating in permits approved by the TRPA Governing Board on June 24, 2026. CEQA does not require the City to duplicate TRPA’s analysis or defer its approvals pending TRPA review. 752
Honorable Mayor and City Council
July 20, 2026

Page 6 ends

VII. Conclusion
We respectfully request that the City Council recognize the many environmental and community benefits that the Project would provide and, therefore, uphold the Planning Commission’s approval of the Project by denying the Joint Appeal.

Sincerely yours,

HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP
Ryan M. Leaderman
Bradley Brownlow
Deborah Brundy
cc: Eric Metz
Jason Drew
Chris Mundhenk
Kara Thiel, Esq.

Lewis Feldman, Esq.

Enclosure
753
155 Highway 50, Suite 204
Stateline, NV 89449
(775) 588-2505

MEMORANDUM
Date: July 20, 2026 Project Number: 1903.03.25
To: John Hitchcock, City of South Lake Tahoe
From: Chris Mundhenk
Subject: Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project – Responses to principal grounds for appeal On June 23, 2026, the Tahoe Sierra Clean Air Coalition (TSCAC) and Sierra Club Tahoe Area Group submitted a statement of grounds for appeal to the approval by the City of South Lake Tahoe (City) Planning Commission of the Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project (Project). In general, the information presented in the comments identified below reiterates comments for which responses were previously provided during and following public review of the Draft IS/MND. This document provides substantive responses to the five principal grounds for appeal addressed in the June 23rd submittal.

Based on the responses provided below, as well as responses provided as part of the Final IS/MND and responses to subsequent comment letters provided to the City, the analysis and findings of the IS/MND prepared for the Project are considered valid, appropriate, and in accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements.

Comment 1:

The Planning Commission’s approval is not supported by substantial evidence, fails to proceed in the manner required by law under CEQA, and is inconsistent with applicable TRPA requirements. The following principal grounds demonstrate that a full EIR/EIS is required.

1. Wildfire Evacuation, Public Safety, and Transportation Impacts (IS/MND §§4.17 Transportation and

4.20.3(a) Wildfire): The IS/MND contains no adequate evacuation demand analysis, throughput modeling, emergency traffic simulation, roadway clearance times, or cumulative evacuation assessment for a Basin with documented severe bottlenecks. The Project’s expansion (additional slips, visitor-serving uses, increased boat storage) exacerbates life-safety risks. This fails CEQA’s fair argument standard and the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact’s mandates for public health and safety protection. (See TSAC June 10 letter, Sections on Public Health/Safety and Evacuation; Bonta v. County of Lake) Response 1:

The comment reiterates wildfire evacuation, public safety, and transportation impact concerns that were addressed in responses to comments included in the Final IS/MND (refer to Comments and Responses O3-6, O3- 9, and O3-11 of the Final IS/MND, as well as responses to Section III of the June 10, 2026 letter from TSCAC). As noted in those responses and in Section 4.9 of the IS/MND, the Project area is located within a mix of locallydesignated Moderate, High, and Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZs), trending higher in terms of risk 754
Page | 2
from west to east (CAL FIRE 2025). As noted on page 81 of the Draft IS/MND (as amended through responses to comments), evacuation routes in the vicinity of the Project are SR 89 and US 50, and the Project area does not extend or include either roadway. As such, the Project would not modify existing evacuation routes. Tahoe Keys Boulevard is an existing evacuation route and would remain accessible during both construction (with traffic control and coordination with SLT Fire Rescue and Public Works) and operation. The Project would participate in the CodeRED notification system, an evacuation map has been adopted for the Tahoe Keys area, and continued implementation of the City’s evacuation plan was considered as part of baseline conditions during preparation of the IS/MND.

The Project is required to meet the 2022 California Fire Code (CCR Title 24, Part 9), which establishes regulations to safeguard against the hazards of fire, explosion, or dangerous conditions in new and existing buildings, structures, and premises. The Fire Code also establishes requirements intended to provide safety for and assistance to firefighters and emergency responders during emergency operations. The provisions of the Fire Code apply to the construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal, and demolition of every building or structure throughout California.

Chapter 33 (Fire Safety During Construction and Demolition) of the California Fire Code outlines general fire safety precautions to maintain required levels of fire protection, limit fire spread, establish the appropriate operation of equipment and promote prompt response to fire emergencies. The Fire Code includes regulations regarding fire-resistance-rated construction, fire protection systems such as alarm and sprinkler systems, fire services features such as fire apparatus access roads, means of egress, and fire safety during construction and demolition. The Project complies with current fire and building codes, and includes ignition-resistant construction, fire sprinklers, adequate hydrant flows, emergency/fire apparatus access, defensible space, and TRPA native vegetation requirements. The Project includes water storage tanks (up to 500,000 gallons) for fire flow and proposes to underground electrical lines, reducing ignition risk.

The site is flat and already fully developed, and is surrounded by water along the shoreline of Lake Tahoe. In addition, the Project would reduce on-site parking from 325 to 251 spaces, which would reduce the number of vehicles capable of being present within the Project area. If some employees and visitors were to not shelter in place due to the shoreline location due to an emergency event, such as a wildfire, the number of vehicles that may attempt to exit the Project area at any given time (including during an evacuation event) would be equivalent to or less than under existing conditions, and as a result, the Project would not exacerbate evacuation timing or vehicle delays along evacuation routes in the area. Refer to page 7 of Appendix D of the Draft IS/MND, which states that AM peak hour trips would remain the same and that PM peak hour trips would decrease by 37. With respect to the additional boat slips, the Project would not increase the number of in-water boat slips, contrary to assertions made by the commenter in this and prior comment letters. As explained in the final IS/MND, the IS/MND, and the Transportation Study prepared for the project (Appendix D), no change in operational intensity of the marina is anticipated. Refer to Response to Comment 01-6.

Further, the commenter asserts that the IS/MND is required to prepare a quantitative evacuation analysis citing Bonta v. County of Lake (2024) 105 Cal.Ap.5th 1222. Refer to Response to Comment 03-6. The People ex rel.

Bonta v. County of Lake (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1222 is distinguishable from the Project on several grounds. The Guenoc Valley EIR (not an IS/MND, as inaccurately claimed by the appellants) was found deficient for several reasons, including its wildfire analysis. That EIR evaluated the development of a 16,000-acre largely undeveloped site with a mixed-use community that would generate approximately 6,500 new daily vehicle trips and more than 4,000 new residents. Portions of the Guenoc Valley site had also experienced wildfire events three times 755
Page | 3
since 2010. In contrast, the Project is a 16.5-acre commercial redevelopment project on a site that is already fully developed and has never burned with anticipated levels of use similar to existing conditions. Thus, a CEQA evaluation of a large, mixed-use project on an undeveloped site that has repeatedly burned in recent history is not comparable. Based on the evidence provided in Section 4.20 of the Draft IS/MND and taking into account the evidence presented above regarding the number of people/vehicles on-site at any given time being equivalent to or less than existing conditions under the Project, the Project would not increase wildfire-related impacts as a result of its implementation. Section 4.9.4 analyzes the Project’s impact on evacuation routes and on-site ignition risks. Therefore, the wildfire risk analysis presented in the IS/MND is considered appropriate and valid and does not require amendment.

With respect to the TRPA Bi-State Compact, the comment refers to the initial declarations of the need to maintain public health values. However, contrary to this statement, the Project is considered consistent with the TRPA Bi-State Compact as it would provide a modernized facility that meets current Building Code requirements, including those related to fire safety and would increase water storage for use in responding to fire events in the area, should the need arise. Additionally, the Project includes space for on-site fire response services.

Appellants’ Comment 1 claims should be disregarded.

Comment 2:

2. Hydrology, Water Quality, and Aquatic Resources (IS/MND §§4.10 and 4.4): The IS/MND lacks sufficient site-specific hydrogeologic data, groundwater analysis, infiltration testing, and evaluation of stormwater performance in high water-table conditions with direct connectivity to the Tahoe Keys lagoons and Lake Tahoe. It also inadequately addresses aquatic invasive species (AIS) transport risks from in-water work and increased operations. Mitigation is vague, deferred, and unenforceable. The Project is inconsistent with Lake Tahoe’s Tier 3 Outstanding National Resource Water (ONRW) antidegradation requirements, TRPA thresholds, the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL), and CEQA Appendix G. (See both letters for detailed analysis and precedents such as Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino.) Response 2:

The comment reiterates prior comments provided on the IS/MND related to technical data and detailed design calculations not being presented in the IS/MND. Responses to this comment were provided in the Final IS/MND (refer to Responses to Comments L1-6, O2-2 through O2-4, and O3-3 through O3-7), as well as responses to Section IV of the June 10, 2026 letter from TSCAC). As noted in those responses, the IS/MND Section 4.10 appropriately evaluates hydrology and water quality impacts. The Project would install new stormwater infrastructure including permeable pavers, bioswales, surface infiltration basins, pervious landscaping, and underground stormwater storage/infiltration facilities designed to infiltrate the 20-year, 1-inch-per-hour storm event as required by TRPA Code Section 60.4. All proposed infiltration facilities also meet the groundwater separation requirements. The Project is also required to enroll in and comply with applicable Lahontan RWQCB permits, including preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) by a qualified professional.

The Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) had provided comments on the Draft IS/MND (refer to Comment Letter L1 of the Final IS/MND) and acknowledged that water-quality impacts would be less than significant as a result of the Project’s need to comply with applicable RWQCB permits. The Project must also comply with Marina General Permit R6T-2016-0038. The commenter does not identify a specific inadequacy in the stormwater design supported by substantial evidence; general assertions regarding groundwater conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a significant impact. 756
Page | 4
With respect to AIS, no increases in the operational intensity of the marina is anticipated. Refer to Response to Comment O1-6. During construction, Mitigation Measure BIO-4 requires the inspection for and secure removal of any AIS detected during construction and is consistent with CEQA requirements in terms of adequacy and enforceability. The comment does not provide factual evidence impeaching the IS/MND’s analysis or efficacy of Mitigation Measure BIO-4. General assertions unsupported by expert testimony do not meet the burden to demonstrate a fair argument of a significant impact.

As it pertains to the adopted mitigation measures from the IS/MND and as noted in the response to Section XV of the June 10, 2026 letter from TSCAC, the mitigation measures in the IS/MND are specific, enforceable, and tied to defined performance standards or regulatory requirements. Where measures reference compliance with applicable regulations (e.g., SWPPP preparation, Marina General Permit compliance, AIS HACCP requirements), these are existing, independently enforceable regulatory programs with defined standards and not vague future commitments. “[A] condition requiring compliance with regulations is a common and reasonable mitigation measure, and may be proper where it is reasonable to expect compliance.” Oakland Heritage Alliance v. City of Oakland (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 884, 906. The regulatory agencies will require (and it is reasonable for the City to anticipate) compliance with regulations/standards applicable to the agencies’ jurisdictions. The MMRP ensures implementation through identified responsible parties, timing requirements, and monitoring provisions.

Mitigation is adopted as enforceable conditions of project approval. The commenter’s general characterization of compliance-based mitigation as “deferred” does not accurately reflect the specificity of the measures as written and does not constitute substantial evidence warranting preparation of an EIR.

With respect to the commenter’s statement that the Project is inconsistent with CEQA Appendix G, the environmental checklist questions provided in Appendix G were provided verbatim in the IS/MND and addressed in accordance with CEQA requirements. Appellants’ Comment 2 claims should be disregarded.

Comment 3:

3. Hazardous Materials and Cumulative Impacts: (Reliance on a 2021 Phase I ESA without Phase II sampling, combined with reactive mitigation (HAZ-1), is insufficient for a site with historic fueling operations and known contaminants. Cumulative impacts analysis is impermissibly narrow and fails to address basin-wide AIS, water clarity, recreation capacity, and South Shore redevelopment. (See Sierra Club letter citing Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond and related cases.) Response 3:

The comment reiterates prior comments provided on the IS/MND related to the need for a Phase II environmental site assessment (ESA) and cumulative impacts. With respect to the need for a Phase II ESA and as noted in Response to Comments O1-4, O2-6, and O3-2 of the Final IS/MND, the Phase I ESA did not identify any recognized or controlled recognized environmental conditions. Further, the findings of the 2021 Phase I ESA were reverified in 2025, as documented on page 80 of the Draft IS/MND. The Draft IS/MND also provided reference to the determination of No Further Action by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) as further evidence that no significant impacts would occur, contrary to the statement made in this comment. The comment does not present evidence of a subsurface soil condition but speculates about the potential existence of impacted soils based on the historic presence of on-site tanks.

With respect to cumulative impacts and as addressed in Responses to Comments O1-7, O2-9, I2-2, and I4-14 of the Final IS/MND and the response to Section XIII of the June 10, 2026 letter from TSCAC, the cumulative impact analysis used reasonably foreseeable past, present, and future projects within 1,000 feet of the project area and 757
Page | 5
is considered appropriate under CEQA Guidelines § 15130. The commenter’s assertion that the cumulative analysis should encompass a broader geographic scope or additional projects reflects a preference rather than an identified CEQA deficiency supported by substantial evidence. Further, the stated items in this comment that the commenter asserts should have been considered in the IS/MND’s cumulative analysis are either ongoing/completed activities that were considered part of the baseline conditions against which the Project was evaluated or do not constitute a reasonably foreseeable project under CEQA, as stated (e.g., the comment’s broad statement of South Shore redevelopment.) Appellants’ Comment 3 claims should be disregarded.

Comment 4:

4. Scenic, Visual, and Other Resources: The 42-foot boat storage building and shoreline alterations lack adequate visual simulations and cumulative scenic assessment required for TRPA Chapter 66 compliance. (See Sierra Club letter.)
Response 4:

As noted in Response to Comment O2-8 of the Final IS/MND and the response to Appendix A, Section 5 of the June 10, 2026 letter from TSCAC, renderings were presented in the Draft IS/MND on pages 14 and 15. For purposes of CEQA, visual simulations are not a requirement for all visual analyses but can be used as a tool to further demonstrate with-project conditions. Additionally, and contrary to statements made in this comment, the applicant did prepare a scenic assessment report in compliance with TRPA Chapter 66. The report was considered by TRPA as part of its evaluation of the Project and consideration of an amendment to the TRPA Code of Ordinances with respect to building height. As noted in the Final IS/MND, the Project would partially modify views from the east, however the change in visual conditions at the Project area would not be considered a substantial adverse change, as it would be limited to views in close proximity to the Project area and would be partially obscured by existing vegetation and landscaping. Further, the Project provides a consistent design/aesthetic within the Project area, consistent with other development in the area and in contrast to existing development within the Project area. Appellants’ Comment 4 claims should be disregarded.

Comment 5:

5. Piecemealing, Alternatives, and TRPA Coordination: The review improperly segments upland and water-dependent elements requiring TRPA approvals/amendments. A full range of alternatives (including reduced intensity and restoration-focused options) was not evaluated. A coordinated EIR/EIS review is required. (See both letters citing CEQA anti-piecemealing principals and precedents such as Laurel Heights and Vineyard Area Citizens.)
Response 5:

CEQA requires review of the “whole of the action” that is the subject of the agency approval, but CEQA does not require the City analyze separate approvals, ongoing maintenance activities, speculative future activities, or independent regulatory actions that are not a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the City’s approval as appellants’ comments demand. Refer to CEQA Guidelines §§ 15378(a), (b)(2), (c), (d). In Comment 5 the appellants’ assert that the Project’s IS/MND improperly segments upland and water-dependent elements requiring TRPA approvals and amendments. The comment doesn’t specify which TPRA approvals and amendments are at issue. To the extent appellants claim that the TRPA approvals related to the marina’s boat slips should have been analyzed as part of the Project in the IS/MND, appellants are wrong. The marina boat 758
Page | 6
slips constitute a separate project with independent utility that would have been completed irrespective of the Project and were properly excluded from the IS/MND.

Confusingly, Comment 5 cross references “letters” without specifying which letters are to be referenced, making it impossible to confidently discern the issues appellants are objecting to. To the extent the ambiguous cross reference refers to appellants’ prior comment letters submitted on the IS/MND and to the Planning Commission, those comments do not identify areas of analysis that meet the legal standard for piecemealing. As noted in Responses to Comments O1-8 and I4-5, the Project (as evaluated in the IS/MND) reflects an application for redevelopment of the Project area, as considered by the Planning Commission on June 11, 2026. The whole of this action was analyzed in the IS/MND, despite appellants’ non-specific, confusing and ambiguous claims to the contrary.

In any case, the City provided responses to each of appellants’ comments submitted to the Planning Commission, explaining why the appellants’ claims do not raise a foreseeable consequence of the Project not analyzed in the IS/MND. Refer to Responses to Comment Letters 01, 02, and 03, as well as responses provided to the City on June 11th related to TSCAC’s June 10th letter. • To the extent appellants claim that the IS/MND improperly piecemealed analysis of the Project’s cumulative operational impacts related to AIS maintenance, please see Response to Comment O1-8, which explains that CEQA Guidelines § 15378(b)(2) provides that the definition of “project” does not include “[c]ontinuing maintenance activities.” Please also see Response to Comment 01-7, which explains that basin-wide AIS management and the Lake Tahoe TMDL Program are existing programs that are part of the baseline conditions against which the IS/MND’s analysis was conducted. In fact, appellants’ Comment 01-3 admits that the TKPOA weed-control program is defunct and not moving forward. It necessarily follows that the TKPOA weed-control cannot be a Project component that must be analyzed in the IS/MND.
• To the extent appellants claim the IS/MND improperly piecemealed analysis of Project impacts related to aquatic invasive species, please Response to Comment 01-6. That response explains that MM BIO-4 identifies steps to be taken in the event of invasive species being detected during construction to ensure that their future spread is controlled and limited and requires inspections for and secure removal of any AIS. This impact was analyzed in the IS/MND despite appellant’s claim to the contrary. Additionally, as noted in the IS/MND and in the Transportation Study prepared for the project (Appendix D), no change in operational intensity of the marina is anticipated as part of the proposed Project. The Project would not modify the number of slips or charters associated with marina operations. As such, no increase in marina operations are anticipated as a result of Project implementation despite appellants’ claims to the contrary. The IS/MND properly analyzed the Project’s reasonably foreseeable levels of operation and the impacts on aquatic invasive species disturbance from the Project’s operations. It did not piecemeal these impacts from environmental review.
• To the extent appellants claim the IS/MND improperly piecemealed analysis of the Project’s stormwater and hydrological impacts, please see Response to Comment 02-4, which explains that the IS/MND determined that stormwater would be treated within the Project area consistent with applicable federal, state, and local requirements (including TRPA). This was not improperly piecemealed analysis. It was included in the IS/MND.
759
Page | 7
• To the extent appellants claim the IS/MND improperly piecemealed analysis of the in-kind bulkhead replacement, please see Section 4.4 of the IS/MND (beginning on page 45), which analyzes the in-kind bulkhead replacement as part of the Project.
• To the extent appellants claim that the IS/MND improperly piecemealed analysis of the TRPA’s code amendments to height provisions and road classifications, appellants are incorrect. With respect to TRPA’s amendments to code provisions governing height, by its terms such amendment only applies to the Project site. The IS/MND fully analyzed Project impacts related to its height in Section 4.1 of the IS/MND (beginning on page 26). To the extent appellants claim that the IS/MND improperly piecemealed analysis of the TRPA’s code amendments related to road classifications, the IS/MND fully analyzed the potential physical impacts of the Project related to roadways and transportation in Section

4.17, beginning on page 117. These impact analyses were not piecemealed.

Regarding appellants’ claim that CEQA required the IS/MND to analyze a range of Project alternatives, please see Response to Comment 01-12, which explains that CEQA does not require an IS/MND to include an alternatives analysis. CEQA only requires an alternatives analysis to be included in a full environmental impact report, which is not required here because the Project’s impacts are less than significant or can be reduced to less than significant with mitigation. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21064.5, 21080(c)(2).

With respect to appellants’ claim that the Project required a combined EIR/EIS, appellants are mistaken.

Although CEQA encourages combined CEQA/NEPA documents in certain instances, they are not mandated and, in any case, TRPA is not subject to NEPA. TRPA is subject to its own environmental review requirements as set forth in the Bi-State Compact and it too does not require a combined environmental review document for this Project. While “[a] Lead Agency under CEQA may work with” another agency governed by other environmental review legislation, such as NEPA, to prepare a joint document meeting the requirements of both CEQA and the other legislation, CEQA does not mandate it as demonstrated in CEQA Guidelines § 15170. Similarly, in conducting its own environmental review, TRPA may rely on information contained in a CEQA or NEPA document, but a joint document is not mandated per TRPA Code Section 3.7.3. To this end, there is no legal obligation to coordinate environmental review between the City and TRPA. Having the City’s review in an IS/MND and TRPA’s separate review is not impermissible piecemealing, as the IS/MND analyzed the whole of the action, consistent with CEQA Guidelines § 15378.

For the reasons set forth above, appellants’ Comment 5 should be disregarded. 760
From: John Hitchcock
To: [email protected]
Subject: Notice of Appeal
Date: Monday, July 6, 2026 4:31:00 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Dear Appellant,
The City Clerk has forwarded the appeal of the Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project to our Department. The appeal is scheduled for consideration by the City Council at its August 11, 2026, meeting. This is a day meeting, and the meeting begins at 8:30 a.m. The agenda and staff reports will be available on the Wednesday before the meeting at this link https://www.cityofslt.gov/84/Watch-City-CouncilCommission-Meetings I have provided the City Council protocols for the appeal below.

Respectfully,
John Hitchcock
Planning Manager
City of South Lake Tahoe, CA
o/ (530) 542-7472
[email protected]
www.cityofslt.us
The Development Services counter service is open to the public during the following business hours:

Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday: 8:00am -12:00pm and 1:00pm – 3:30pm.

As the Development Services Department continuously works to improve our services, we would appreciate your feedback. Please take a moment to complete our customer service survey available at: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/LSWQV5N.

Please visit the Planning Division homepage at https://cityofslt.us/142/Planning-Division.

To submit a Planning Application, please visit the City's permitting portal at eTRAKiT.

V. APPEALS

1. General Procedure - The Council procedure for the conduct of appeals is generally as 761
follows:
a. The Mayor explains the Council is considering the appeal of ___regarding___, and confirms that notice of the appeal hearing has been given to the Appellant. b. Council hears evidence and testimony in the following order:
i. Any opening statement or remarks by the Appellant and/or Appellant's attorney and evidence or testimony from the Appellant (requested time limit - 10 minutes) followed by any questions by Councilmembers or others (including staff) who wish to ask questions (suggested time - 3 minutes per Councilmember). ii. Any evidence or testimony from staff members concerning any issues raised surrounding this matter (time scheduled - 10 minutes), followed by comments by the applicant, if the applicant and Appellant are different parties. (requested time limit – 10 minutes), followed by any questions by the Appellant and Councilmembers (suggested time - 3 minutes per speaker).
iii. Any evidence or testimony from the appellant and/or appellants attorney in rebuttal to or in clarification of any other evidence or testimony presented, and any closing statement or remarks that the Appellant wishes to make (requested time limit - 5 minutes).
iv. Public Comment (time limit – 3 minutes per speaker) c. The Mayor shall conduct the appeal in such a manner as to afford due process to the Appellant.
d. Following the presentation of testimony, the Council deliberates on the evidence and testimony presented, and votes on whether to grant the appeal, provided they have all the necessary information. If issues are raised during the appeal hearing that cannot be immediately responded to by Staff, the Hearing should be continued to have such information available for the appeal process.
e. The City Clerk announces the final decision of the Council. 762
Notice of Public Hearing
City of South Lake Tahoe City Council
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that in accordance with Sections 65090, 65091 and 65856 (Planning and Zoning Law) of the Government Code: the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council will conduct a public hearing on August 11, 2026, at 9:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as possible, at City Hall, City Council Chambers, 1901 Lisa Maloff Way,South Lake Tahoe, to consider the following agenda tiem:

Appeal of the Planning Commission decision approving File #DR25-007 (Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project), Granting Major Design Review, Special Use Permit, and a variance for a setback encroachment, and adoption of the project’s IS/MND under CEQA.

Any interested person may appear at the public hearing and present written testimony or speak in favor or against the project proposal. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65009(b)(2), if you challenge the above application in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues, you, or someone else, raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the South Lake Tahoe City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing. Written testimony may be addressed to the City Council in care of the City Clerk gov or at the address listed below.

City Council agendas and related staff reports are available at least 72 hours in advance of regular meetings on the City Council page of the City’s website www.cityofslt.us or by contacting the City Clerk.

Susan Blankenship, City Clerk
City of South Lake Tahoe
1901 Lisa Maloff Way, Ste 206
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
(530) 542-6005
763
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
South Lake Tahoe, California
June 2026
764
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
South Lake Tahoe, California
June 2026
Prepared for:

City of South Lake Tahoe
Development Services Department
1052 Tata Lane
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Contact:

John Hitchcock
City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Division
(530) 542-7472
[email protected]
NCE
P.O. Box 1760
Zephyr Cove, NV 89448
(775) 588-2505
NCE Project No. 1259.03.25
765
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Table of Contents South Lake Tahoe, California
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1 2 Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses.......................................................2

2.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 2

2.2 Public Comments on the Draft IS/MND.................................................................................... 3 3 Text Revisions to Draft IS/MND............................................................................................69 List of Appendices
Appendix A
Draft IS/MND (As Amended Through Responses to Comments) 766
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Introduction South Lake Tahoe, California
Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 1 1 Introduction
The Final Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is an informational document intended to disclose the environmental consequences of approving and implementing the Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project (Project). This document has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as outlined below. The City of South Lake Tahoe (City) is the lead agency under CEQA. This document, together with the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) that was separately prepared and the Draft IS/MND (as amended through responses to comments), constitutes the Final IS/MND.

Pursuant to Section 15085 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the City submitted a Notice of Intent to Adopt (NOI), a Notice of Completion, and a Public Review Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) to the California State Clearinghouse for the proposed Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project (Project) on April 3, 2026. In addition, and consistent with Section 15072 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City posted the NOI with the El Dorado County Clerk. Due to a typographical error regarding the conclusion of public review for the IS/MND, a revised NOI was released on May 1, 2026, with public review concluding on June 1, 2026. Therefore, consistent with the requirements of Section 15105(b) of the CEQA Guidelines, the Draft IS/MND and NOI were available for public review for no less than 30 days. All comments received by the City between April 3, 2026, and June 1, 2026, were accepted and are addressed in this document. During the public review period for the Draft IS/MND, 2 agency comment letters, 3 organization comment letters, and 4 comment letters from individuals were received. These comment letters are presented and responded to in this document.

As discussed in the responses below, the comments received did not identify any additional significant effect(s), any increase in the severity of an impact identified in the Draft IS/MND, or any significant new information.

Consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5, recirculation of the Draft IS/MND is not required (CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5).
767
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 2 2 Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses

2.1 Introduction
This section includes transcriptions of the comments received during the public review period on the Draft IS/MND and responses to those comments. Changes to the Draft IS/MND based on the City’s consideration of public comments address are outlined in Section 3. The comments and responses plus the Public Review Draft IS/MND (as amended) and the MMRP comprise the Final IS/MND.

Several comments were received during public review of the Draft IS/MND that indicated a preference for or opposition to the proposed Project or elements of the Project. These types of comments addressing the Project’s merits do not allege inadequacies in the Draft IS/MND or otherwise comment on the physical environmental conditions or impacts disclosed and evaluated as part of the Public Review Draft IS/MND and, therefore, do not warrant a response under CEQA. If the comment raises an environmental issue or question, this document provides a response directly. Regardless, all comments submitted on the Public Review Draft IS/MND that address the merits of the Project or Project elements will be part of the overall record for the Project, which will be provided to the decision-making body for their review. Where a comment raises a preference for or against the Project or an element of the Project, that fact is noted in the response, or the commenter is referred to this response.

The comment letters are transcribed in the responses and numbered in order of receipt by the City as listed in Table 1.

Table 1. List of Commenters
Letter
Number Agency/Organization Commenter Date
State
S1 South Lake Tahoe Conservancy Stuart Roll 05/04/2026
Local/
Regional
L1
Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control
Board
Organization
O1 Friends of the West Shore James Lyon May 30, 2026
O2 Sierra Club Tahoe Area Group Tobi Tyler June 1, 2026 O3 Tahoe Sierra Clean Air Coalition Doug Flaherty June 1, 2026 Individual
I1 N/A Jesus Diaz April 17, 2026
I2 N/A Alan Miller April 21, 2026
I3 N/A Lisa Hodges April 26, 2026
I4 N/A Alan Miller May 30, 2026
768
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 3 2.2 Public Comments on the Draft IS/MND
Comment letters and responses are numbered per the order they were received by the City, as identified in Table 1, above. They are ordered by sender affiliation and by date received.

Comment Letter S1: South Lake Tahoe Conservancy – May 4, 2026 Comment S1-1:

Hope all is well.

Please find the attached Conservancy comment letter for the Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment CEQA document. As we say in the letter, we would be happy to share any biological documentation from the Marsh project, if that could be helpful.

Response to Comment S1-1:

The comment provides introductory information regarding the comment letter and offers to send biological documentation that the Conservancy conducted from the Upper Truckee River and Marsh Restoration Project, Sailing Lagoon Project Site. The comment does not address the adequacy of the environmental analysis provided in the IS/MND, and no further response is required. As noted below, the data referred to in this comment was reviewed during preparation of the Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) of the Project.

Comment S1-2:

The California Tahoe Conservancy (Conservancy), as a State Reviewing Agency, has the following comment on the Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project (Project) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND).

A California endangered species, the willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii), is present within the Biological Study Area however the species is not mentioned in the Project CEQA document.

The willow flycatcher is listed under the California Endangered Species Act, and the Conservancy has documented its presence in the Upper Truckee Marsh within half a mile of the proposed Project. As part of the Conservancy’s Upper Truckee Marsh Restoration Project, biologists surveyed for and identified the presence of willow flycatchers, with potential breeding activity in dense willow vegetation, at the confluence of Trout Creek and the mouth of the Upper Truckee River within the Upper Truckee Marsh.

Please consider including this information in the Project’s final CEQA document. The Conservancy can provide the wildlife survey information that documents the willow flycatcher detections and habitat in the Upper Truckee Marsh, to the City of South Lake Tahoe.

In summary, we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the public draft IS/MND. Please feel free to reach out to my staff with any questions regarding this comment.

Response to Comment S1-2:

The comment states that the willow flycatcher is not mentioned in the Tahoe Keys Marina IS/MND and requests consideration of the species as part of the Final IS/MND. Willow flycatcher was considered as part of the environmental analysis for the IS/MND, as shown in the BRA provided as Appendix B to the IS/MND. On Table 2 on pages 15 and 16 of the BRA, it is noted that willow flycatcher was not observed during surveys of the Project area, and the Project area does not present suitable habitat for the species. Based on the surveys and background research conducted, the potential for willow flycatcher to be affected by the Project was 769
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 4 determined to be “Unlikely.” The BRA does include information, as confirmed by the attachment to this comment, that the Conservancy noted recent detections within 1,500 feet of the Project area. With respect to consideration of this information as part of the Final IS/MND, the IS/MND does acknowledge the potential for disturbance of special status birds, which would include willow flycatcher, during construction and provides mitigation measures that require preconstruction surveys and establishment of no disturbance buffers, as necessary. MM BIO-2 requires a preconstruction survey for species identified in the BRA/LSAA. MM BIO-3 requires training of construction personnel by a qualified biologist in visual identification of special status species. MM BIO-5 requires weekly monitoring (or at another interval otherwise specified in permits) of special status species by a qualified biologist to ensure no take of special status species occurs during Project implementation. The biologist is authorized by BIO-5 to stop any Project activity that may impact special status species in the Project area. Based on the lack of suitable habitat within the Project area and the mitigation measures presented within the Draft IS/MND related to the disturbance of special status birds, further consideration of willow flycatcher is not considered necessary.

Comment Letter L1: Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board – June 1, 2026 Comment L1-1:

The Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Board) staff have reviewed the draft Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND), for the Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project (Project). The draft IS/MND was prepared by Nichols Consulting Engineers (NCE) and submitted in compliance with provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Water Board staff, acting as a responsible agency, is providing these comments to specify the scope and content of the environmental information germane to our statutory responsibilities pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations (CCR), title 14, section 15096. Water Board comments are outlined below.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Project site is located at 2435 Venice Drive East, South Lake Tahoe, El Dorado County and within the Lake Tahoe Hydrologic Unit. The Project area is 16.5 acres and proposes redeveloping the existing Tahoe Keys Marina (TKM). The Project includes demolishing three existing marina buildings, ancillary structures, parking lots, and utilities, and constructing new buildings, parking areas, entrances, and upgraded utilities, including improved water connections to Venice Drive East and Tahoe Keys Boulevard. New facilities would include a 52,600-squarefoot indoor boat storage building with water tanks, three workforce housing units to replace those removed, and space for restaurants, retail, concessions, and boat sales. The boat launch and gantry crane would be relocated, and the lagoon-side bulkhead would be replaced. A major component of the Project is bringing the site into compliance with water quality best management practices (BMPs) and supporting aquatic invasive species (AIS) control.

POTENTIAL PROJECT IMPACTS
The draft IS/MND states that the project will have a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated.

Impacts to water quality will be mitigated through enrollment and compliance with all applicable Water Board permits as discussed in the Permits Required section below.

WATER BOARD AUTHORITY
770
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 5 All groundwater and surface waters are considered waters of the state. All waters of the state are protected under California law. State law assigns responsibility for protection of water quality in the Lahontan Region to the Water Board. Some waters of the state are also waters of the U.S. The Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) provides additional protection for those waters of the state that are also waters of the U.S.

The Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (Basin Plan) contains policies that the Water Board uses with other laws and regulations to protect the quality of waters of the State within the Lahontan Region. The Basin Plan sets forth water quality standards for surface water and groundwater of the Region, which include designated beneficial uses as well as narrative and numerical objectives which must be maintained or attained to protect those uses. The Basin Plan can be accessed via the Water Board’s web site at: Basin Plan - References | Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (ca.gov) Section 13243 of the California Water Code gives Regional Boards, in Basin Plans or waste discharge requirements, authority to “specify certain conditions or areas where the discharge of waste, or certain types of waste, will not be permitted.”
Response to Comment L1-1:

The comment provides introductory information regarding the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s (RWQCB’s) jurisdiction and understanding of the Project as evaluated in the IS/MND. The comment does not address the adequacy of the environmental analysis provided in the IS/MND, and no further response is required. As noted below, the data referred to in this comment was reviewed during preparation of the Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) of the Project.

Comment L1-2:

PERMITS REQUIRED
The following Water Board permits apply to the following activities:
• Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification for impacts to federal waters (waters of the U.S.), or dredge and fill WDR for impacts to waters of the state, both issued by the Water Board. • The NPDES stormwater program regulates stormwater discharges from construction activities that disturb one or more acres of soil, or whose projects disturb less than one acre but are part of a larger common plan of development that in total disturbs one or more acres, are required to obtain coverage under the NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity, Order 2022-0057-DWQ. Construction activity subject to this permit includes demolition, clearing, grading and disturbances to the ground such as staging areas, stockpiling or excavation. A completed application should be submitted through the State Water Board’s Storm Water Multi-Application and Report Tracking System (SMARTS) at: https://smarts.waterboards.ca.gov.

Response to Comment L1-2:

The comment provides a summary of the anticipated permitting needs for the Project. The information presented in this comment is consistent with the Draft IS/MND’s identification of responsible agencies, as presented on page 22 of the Draft IS/MND. The comment is noted, and no further response is required.

Comment L1-3:

LAHONTAN BASIN PLAN WASTE DISCHARGE PROHIBITIONS
771
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 6 For the Lake Tahoe Hydrologic Unit, the Basin Plan at page 5.2-1 specifies waste discharge prohibitions that apply to the Project:
a) The discharge, attributable to human activities of any waste or deleterious material to surface waters of the Lake Tahoe HU is prohibited.
b) The discharge attributable to human activities of any waste or deleterious material to land below the highwater rim of Lake Tahoe or within the 100-year floodplain of any tributary to Lake Tahoe is prohibited.

The Water Board may grant exemptions to these waste discharge prohibitions for certain categories of projects and when certain findings can be made.

To grant an exemption to prohibition 1, above, the Water Board must find that:
a) The discharge of waste will not, individually or collectively, directly or indirectly, adversely affect beneficial uses, and
b) There is no reasonable alternative to the waste discharge, and c) All applicable and practicable control and mitigation measures have been incorporated to minimize potential adverse impacts to water quality and beneficial uses.

For prohibition 2, above, the Water Board may grant exemptions under the following circumstances:
a) For repair or replacement of existing structures, provided that the repair or replacement does not involve the loss of additional lake habitat, or SEZ or floodplain function. Prior to granting any such exemption, the Regional Board shall require that all applicable and practicable control and mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to minimize any discharges of wastes to surface waters during or following construction.

Water Board Comment: The Project proponent should ensure that the Project meets the Basin Plan exemption criteria and adequate information is provided to support the Water Board’s development of these findings, which must be included in Project permits issued by the Water Board, such as Clean Water Act section 401 Water Quality Certification or Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR).

Response to Comment L1-3:

The comment requests review of the Project’s consistency with the Basin Plan exemption. As noted in this comment, the application process for the exemption requires additional information related to how the Project qualifies for the exemption under prohibition 1 to be provided as part of its application packages for consideration, review, and approval by the RWQCB, pending approval of the Project by the City Planning Commission. Information regarding the Project’s eligibility for the exemption will be provided at the time of application.

Comment L1-4:

OTHER CONCERNS
In addition to the requirements described above, Water Board staff concerns include the following:
• Marina Dredging: Maintenance dredging is a recurring activity that has occurred at the Tahoe Keys Marina and is regulated under Waste Discharge Requirements. Locations within the Project area that 772
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 7 are proposed to be developed have historically been used as a dewatering and temporary storage location for dredge spoils. If dewatering is expected to occur within the Project area in the future, a comprehensive analysis should be conducted to ensure this activity is compatible with the current design plans and should be included in the IS/MND.

Response to Comment L1-4:

The comment requests consideration of the potential dewatering of dredged material from Tahoe Keys Marina if appropriate, as part of the IS/MND. Routine/periodic dredging of the Tahoe Keys Marina is not a component of the Project, and dewatering of dredged material from Tahoe Keys Marina is not anticipated to be conducted within the Project area during construction or operation of the Project. Dredging within the lagoon is an ongoing and periodic activity undertaken by the TKPOA, which is separate from the Project, and the activity is permitted by the RWQCB and TRPA. Should later lagoon maintenance activities require consideration of dewatering of dredged material within the Project area, the Project area has adequate storage space within paved parking areas to manage and to treat marina related dredging material before it is hauled off-site to an appropriate/approved location. It should be noted that as part of the Project, excavation of some soil material may be required to construct the new boat launch, which would be appropriately stored on-site until such time as it is hauled off-site to an appropriate/approved location.

As described in the Project Description in the IS/MND, construction of the new boat launch will likely require a temporary sheet pile perimeter to control turbidity and allow for the excavation of material to create the terminal slope into the water. Turbidity curtains would be installed around the temporary wall as secondary containment. The pre-cast ramps would be slid into place and secured with sheets and/or steel beams. Large rock or gravel would then be installed as a revetment to ensure the shoreline is stabilized. In water work would require an LSAA from CDFW, 404 permit from USACE, and 401 certification from the Lahontan RWQCB. In compliance with the Construction General Permit, a SWPPP would be developed for the Project by a qualified SWPPP professional. The SWPPP, consistent with the Construction General Permit, would identify and require temporary BMPs (e.g., tarping of any stockpiled materials or soil; use of silt fences, fiber rolls, dust control, tracking control, etc.) and permanent BMPs (e.g., structural containment, revegetation, stabilization) for use in all construction areas to reduce or eliminate the discharge of soil, surface water runoff, and pollutants during all excavation, grading, trenching, repaving, or other ground-disturbing activities. “[A] condition requiring compliance with regulations is a common and reasonable mitigation measure, and may be proper where it is reasonable to expect compliance.” Oakland Heritage Alliance v. City of Oakland (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 884, 906.

Comment L1-5:
• Marina General Permit: The Tahoe Keys Marina is currently enrolled under Order No. R6T-2016-0038, General Waste Discharge Requirements and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit for Storm Water Runoff Associated with Marina Operations. Changes implemented under this Project may require the update and resubmittal of management plans required under the Order including a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) or a BMP Project Plan for construction storm water activities involving less than one acre of disturbance, a Marina Pollution Prevention Plan (MPPP), a Discharger Monitoring Plan (DMP), and a Marina Surface Water Monitoring Plan (MSWMP). 773
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 8 Response to Comment L1-5:

The comment notes that implementation of the Project may require updates to current coverage for Tahoe Keys Marina under Order No. R6T-2016-0038, General Waste Discharge Requirements and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit for Storm Water Runoff Associated with Marina Operations. As part of the permitting for the Project and prior to initiation of construction, the applicant would work with the RWQCB to prepare any necessary updates to the plans identified in this comment, including a MPPP, DMP, and MSWMP.

Comment L1-6:
• Stormwater: The Project proposes stormwater upgrades that would improve stormwater capture systems on site, including a new drainage system, permeable pavement, landscaping/bioswales for stormwater retention, and an underground stormwater storage and infiltration system. Design specifications indicate on-site storm drain facilities would be designed to infiltrate the 20-year 1 inch per hour storm event, however site plans are not included. The Water Board supports the use of Low Impact Development (LID) techniques and Green Infrastructure (GI) in order to improve site hydrology.

Response to Comment L1-6:

The comment requests consideration of LID and GI as part of on-site drainage improvements that would be implemented as part of the Project. As development plans are refined and as part of future permit packages to the RWQCB, additional details regarding how and where site drainage and storm drain facilities will be placed and how they will be managed will be provided to the RWQCB. The RWQCB’s preference for the use of LID and GI is noted and will be considered with future design and planning of the Project. Of note, the currently proposed design of stormwater facilities uses GI as the primary means of treatment, consistent with the commenter’s request.

As explained in the IS/MND, the Project would modernize and improve existing on-site stormwater collection and treatment infrastructure to comply with City Code, NPDES and TRPA requirements. The Project would replace existing pavement with permeable pavement, and areas not covered by pavement or facilities would include landscaping and be designed to capture stormwater and facilitate groundwater recharge. On-site storm drain facilities would be designed to infiltrate the 20-year 1 inch per hour storm event as required by TRPA Code Section 60.4. Additionally, the Project is required to prepare a SWPPP as described in response to Comment L1-

4. Through compliance with existing regulations, including the Clean Water Act, TRPA Code, NPDES requirements, and the South Lake Tahoe City Code, the Project would improve stormwater capture systems within the Project area, compared to existing site conditions, including the provision of an underground infiltration basin, landscaping, and permeable pavement.

Comment L1-7:
• Bulkhead and Boat Ramp: Construction of the replacement bulkhead and boat launch will impact surface waters of Lake Tahoe which are Waters of the US/Waters of the State. As stated above, 401 Water Quality Certification will be required. As part of the certification process, an Aquatic Invasive Species Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point Plan (AIS HACCP) will need to be submitted and approved by the Water Board. This is a preventive management plan that identifies and controls the steps in a project where aquatic invasive species could be introduced or spread. 774
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 9 Response to Comment L1-7:

The comment notes that an AIS HACCP will be required as part of the Project’s 401 Water Quality Certification application package. The comment is noted, and if approved, the applicant will submit an AIS HACCP as part of its application for 401 Certification under the Clean Water Act (CWA). The Project Description in the IS/MND explains, a significant element of the Project is bringing the site into compliance with water quality best management practices and assisting in controlling aquatic invasive species. In addition to the AIS HACCP, MM BIO-4 requires that any construction equipment and materials that enter or leave the lagoon will be inspected for AIS, and if needed, decontaminated prior to the start of the Project. Decontamination protocol will be implemented in a manner consistent with TRPA’s Aquatic Invasive Species Management Program. Equipment and materials will be cleaned, free of dirt, vegetation material, and other debris prior to entering the lagoon. Reinspection and decontamination of equipment and materials at the end of the Project will also be conducted to avoid spreading AIS from TKM to other locations. MM BIO-2 includes measures to prevent contamination during removal of the bulkhead, including secure disposal of plants or invertebrates. Any drainage inlets near bulkhead materials will be modified to prevent AIS contaminated water from flowing back into the lagoon.

Comment L1-8:
• Snow storage capacity: Storage needs and capacity of all infrastructure should be evaluated for peak snow events during peak snow years, as well as for rain on snow events. Snow storage capacity needs should be assessed in volume rather than surface area to ensure that the designated storage locations contain the capacity required for peak snowstorms during peak snow years. Best Management Practices (BMP) include:
o Prevent discharges of excess pollutants to watercourses from snow removal and storage practices.
o Snow storage must not be near or within drainage ways, including surface waters, ephemeral drainages, permanent stormwater BMPs, and stormwater conveyance/inlet infrastructure, unless a berm or other BMP has been constructed to protect sensitive areas. o Snow storage areas must be paved, sited and sized to accommodate the expected volume of snow, visibly delineated, and with appropriate BMP installed to minimize pollutant and runoff impacts. If a storage area cannot be paved, BMP must be implemented for unpaved storage areas to prevent soil disturbance and compaction.
o Inspect and maintain designated snow storage areas to ensure effective infiltration rates and remove accumulated sediment, traction sand, trash, and debris.

Response to Comment L1-8:

The comment requests that the Project assess snow storage capacity needs. Based on current design plans for the Project, adequate snow storage is available within the proposed landscape areas of the Project area, including those located along Venice Drive East and central to the proposed parking lot to be located east of the proposed boat storage facility. Consistent with the comment’s request, the snow storage needs were determined based on the projected volume of snow and the capacity of the proposed snow storage areas to accommodate the projected volume. The BMPs identified in this comment are noted and would be implemented as part of the Project, as appropriate.
775
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 10 Comment Letter O1: Friends of the West Shore – May 30, 2026 Comment O1-1:

Friends of the West Shore (“FOWS”) submits these comments on the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for the Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project (“Project”). FOWS works to protect the water quality, clarity, and ecological health of Lake Tahoe. Because the Tahoe Keys lagoon system is the documented epicenter of aquatic invasive species (“AIS”) in Lake Tahoe and the source population for infestations that threaten the entire shoreline—including the West Shore—FOWS has a direct and substantial interest in any project that disturbs the Keys, its bulkheads, and its waters.

For the reasons below, the record contains substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may have significant effects on the environment. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), the City may not adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and must prepare a full Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”).

For the same reasons, FOWS requests that the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (“TRPA”) prepare a full Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) under Article VII of the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact rather than processing the Project on an Initial Environmental Checklist.

FOWS has reviewed the comments submitted by the Sierra Club Tahoe Area Group and concurs with and incorporates them by reference—particularly its technical analysis of stormwater-treatment feasibility in shallow groundwater, Lake Tahoe’s Outstanding National Resource Water (Tier 3) antidegradation status, scenic and building-massing impacts, transportation and wildfire-evacuation impacts, and special-status species including Tahoe yellow cress. To avoid duplication, FOWS does not repeat those points and instead directs these comments to the legal sufficiency of the City’s chosen review pathway and to site-specific conditions not otherwise developed.

Response to Comment O1-1
The comment provides introductory information related to its subsequent comments and refers to additional comments purportedly submitted by the Sierra Club Tahoe Area Group (Letter O2), even though those comments by the Sierra Club Tahoe Area Group (Comment Letter O2) were not submitted to the City at the time that the commenter submitted its comment letter. The comment also broadly requests preparation of an EIR by the City and an EIS by TRPA. With respect to this comment’s incorporation by reference of Letter O2, please refer to the specific responses provided for Letter O2. Additionally, and as demonstrated below in the specific comments that are summarized here, the IS/MND issued by the City is considered appropriate, adequate, and in accordance with CEQA requirements, contrary to the statements made in this comment.

Comment O1-2:

I. The Governing Standard Is the “Fair Argument” Test, Not the City’s Own Conclusion.

An MND is permissible only where there is no substantial evidence that the project, as revised, may have a significant effect on the environment. (CEQA Guidelines § 15070.) Where substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the project may have a significant effect—even if other evidence supports the opposite conclusion—the lead agency must prepare an EIR. (Guidelines § 15064(f)(1); No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68; Friends of “B” Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988.) This is a low threshold and a question of law; the contrary opinions of the City and the Project proponent’s consultants do not defeat a fair argument. Comments and factual observations from the public and organizations, including lay testimony, constitute substantial evidence. (Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903.) 776
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 11 Response to Comment O1-2
The comment provides a definition of when an EIR is required under CEQA and is noted. The comment does not address the adequacy or conclusions of the Draft IS/MND; therefore, no further response is required.

Comment O1-3:

II. The Responsible Agencies and a Controlling Court Decision Have Already Determined That Environmental Work in the Tahoe Keys Lagoons Requires Full Environmental Review.

The Tahoe Keys were created in the late 1950s and 1960s by dredging and filling roughly half of the 1,600-acre Upper Truckee Marsh—historically Lake Tahoe’s single largest and most effective natural filter, fed by the Upper Truckee River and Trout Creek, which together deliver more than one-third of the lake’s tributary inflow. The destruction of that marsh is widely regarded by scientists as a pivot point in the decline of Lake Tahoe’s clarity.

Today the Keys lagoons are the documented epicenter of AIS in the basin: invasive aquatic plants cover more than 90 percent of the 172-acre lagoon system and serve as the source population for infestations lakewide, including Emerald Bay. The California Tahoe Conservancy is concurrently expending public funds to restore the adjacent marsh and to wall off and convert an AIS-infested lagoon back to functional wetland. This is among the most studied, most contested, and most ecologically sensitive water bodies in the Tahoe Basin—the antithesis of a setting in which redevelopment impacts are self-evidently insignificant.

More directly, the responsible agencies have already confronted the adequacy of streamlined review in these exact waters. When the Tahoe Keys Property Owners Association (“TKPOA”) sought to address the lagoon weeds, TRPA and the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (“Lahontan”) initially prepared the same kind of streamlined documents the City relies on here—a TRPA Initial Environmental Checklist and a CEQA Initial Study—and expressly found that those documents lacked sufficient data to determine the project’s environmental effects. The agencies escalated to a full Joint EIR/EIS, which they certified in January 2022. In other words, the agencies with the deepest expertise in these lagoons have already determined that a checklist and initial study are inadequate to evaluate in-water work in the Tahoe Keys.

That Joint EIR/EIS and its approvals were then set aside by the courts. In Sierra Club Tahoe Area Group and California Sportfishing Protection Alliance v. Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (El Dorado County Superior Court, Hon. Gary Slossberg), the court issued a writ of mandate on April 25, 2024, finding that the Board “abused its discretion,” vacating the project approvals, and ordering the Board to withdraw its certification of the Final EIR because it failed to analyze the reasonably foreseeable consequences of repeated future herbicide applications. Lahontan formally rescinded the approvals in 2025 (Resolution No. R6-2025-0015).

The implication for this Project is decisive. The City proposes to approve landside and inwater redevelopment of the very marina embedded in these lagoons—including replacement of approximately 1,600 linear feet of sheetpile bulkhead and other in-water work—on nothing more than an MND. It cannot credibly find no potentially significant effect when the responsible agencies have already concluded that a checklist and initial study are insufficient for this lagoon system, and when a court has held that even a full EIR for work in these waters was legally inadequate. At a minimum, this record is itself substantial evidence of a fair argument that compels an EIR
Response to Comment O1-3
The comment states that preparation of an IS/MND should be considered improper based on a separately prepared document related to treatment of AIS within the broader Tahoe Keys development. However, the 777
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 12 EIR/EIS to which the comment refers is not applicable to the Project. The project evaluated in that EIR/EIS involved a much broader but distinctly separate area (refer to Figure 2-4 on page 2-10 of the Draft EIR/EIS).

Further, the document was found deficient due to its lack of analysis regarding the application of herbicides and did not hold that all projects with in-water work require an EIR/EIS. The Project as evaluated in the IS/MND would involve the placement of a new bulkhead in front of the existing bulkhead to minimize potential in-water work and protect water quality. No application of herbicides is proposed. The IS/MND includes mitigation measures to prevent significant impacts from removal of the bulkhead. BIO-4 requires inspections for and secure removal of any AIS. The proposed bulkhead is an in-kind replacement subject to an LSAA from CDFW, 404 permit from USACE, and 401 certification from the Lahontan RWQCB. These permits require measures to maintain water quality standards through on-site BMPs and waste discharge requirements. The replacement boat ramp and bulkhead would not modify existing drainage patterns. All in-water work will have deployed turbidity curtains surrounding specific work areas. Turbidity monitoring will be required within and outside the turbidity curtains. If turbidity levels exceed the threshold established by the RWQCB during the permitting process, then the construction approach and BMPs will be modified so the Project can proceed within the compliance threshold. The comment provides no evidence that these controls are insufficient to mitigate any potential impact from replacement of the bulkhead. The comment is speculative. CEQA requires analysis of reasonably foreseeable indirect impacts. “A change which is speculative or unlikely to occur is not reasonably foreseeable.” CEQA Guidelines § 15064. No further response is required.

Comment O1-4:

III. Independent Substantial Evidence Likewise Supports a Fair Argument of Significant Effects.

1. The site has never been subsurface-characterized, and hazardous-materials mitigation is improperly deferred. Beyond the asbestos and lead in the buildings to be demolished, the IS/MND discloses that the marina has operated since approximately 1970, that five boat fueling stations sit immediately adjacent to the bulkhead, and that gasoline is stored on site in a 12,000- gallon aboveground tank— yet the only investigation in the record is a 2021 Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, a records review with no soil or groundwater sampling. No Phase II investigation has been performed. The sole hazards measure, HAZ-1, is purely reactive:
stop work only “if stained soil, hydrocarbon odor, or other indicators of contamination are encountered” during excavation. Deferring the very investigation that would establish whether contamination exists—and tying the response to what a contractor happens to notice—is impermissible deferred mitigation and an inadequate baseline. (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296; Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70; Save Our Peninsula Committee v. Monterey County (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99; Guidelines § 15126.4(a)(1)(B).) The risk is acute precisely because the site discharges to a Tier 3 Outstanding National Resource Water: the City cannot certify that excavation and in-water work will have a less-than-significant effect on lake water quality without first characterizing the contaminants that work may mobilize.

Response to Comment O1-4
The comment expresses concern that the mitigation provided in the IS/MND is deferred and subsurface testing should be conducted. However, preparation of a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) is considered standard practice with respect to determining whether or not potential hazardous conditions exist both above 778
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 13 and below ground. As noted on page 80 of the IS/MND, the Phase I ESA did not identify any recognized or controlled recognized environmental conditions. Additionally, this evaluation was updated and confirmed in 2025 to ensure its validity. Had evidence of potential recognized environmental conditions been identified, preparation of a Phase II ESA would be warranted. However, no such evidence was encountered, and as a result, preparation of a Phase II ESA is not warranted. The comment does not present evidence of a subsurface soil condition but speculates about the existence of impacted soils based on the presence of on-site tanks and attempts to draw a connection between inclusion of the mitigation measure and an acknowledgement of a potential impact. However, this is an improper connection and invalid for the purposes of fair argument. As noted on page 85 of the Draft IS/MND, the RWQCB issued a No Further Action determination for the entire site, based on evidence. Out of an abundance of caution and understanding the sensitivity of the area, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 was included as part of the IS/MND. The comment does not present evidence to support its conclusion, and is based on speculation. The conclusions of the IS/MND with respect to hazardous materials are considered appropriate, valid, and based on substantial record evidence.

Comment O1-5:

2. In-water and shoreline impacts are analyzed by deferral to future permits, not on the merits.

Replacement of approximately 1,600 linear feet of sheet-pile bulkhead with new 34-foot piles, relocation of the boat launch and gantry crane, and management of dredged sediment all occur within waters of the State and of the United States. The IS/MND resolves every water-quality question to “less than significant” by pointing to compliance with future regulatory processes (a CWA Section 404 permit, a CDFW 1602 agreement, an NPDES SWPPP, and the TRPA Code).

Reliance on the existence of other agencies’ permit programs is not a substitute for the projectspecific impact analysis CEQA requires; it improperly defers both the analysis and the formulation of enforceable mitigation to a later, nonpublic stage.

Response to Comment O1-5
The comment states that the IS/MND improperly defers analysis by pointing to future regulatory processes.

However, compliance with the requirements of various regulations, including the Clean Water Act, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, and TRPA Code, would ensure that no significant impacts would occur.

The reference to the regulations and the potential requirements that they would place on the Project is considered appropriate and in accordance with CEQA’s mandate. “[A] condition requiring compliance with regulations is a common and reasonable mitigation measure, and may be proper where it is reasonable to expect compliance.” Oakland Heritage Alliance v. City of Oakland (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 884, 906. The comment does not present any evidence of impacts that would not be addressed through regulatory compliance, and no further response is required.

Comment O1-6:

3. The construction-phase AIS risk—distinct from operational intensity—is unanalyzed.

Independent of the boating-intensity concerns addressed in the Sierra Club’s comments, the IS/MND reduces the AIS risk of the construction itself to a single measure (BIO-4) relying on equipment inspection and a “dry/freeze” period during bulkhead removal. Invasive plants in these lagoons spread by fragmentation; prolonged, large-scale in-water disturbance of a system where invasives cover more than 90 percent of the surface presents an obvious risk of fragmenting and mobilizing AIS—into waters that are themselves the subject of the active, 779
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 14 litigated lagoon weed-control program. The adequacy and enforceability of BIO-4, and the Project’s reasonably foreseeable long-term operations, are disputed technical questions that constitute substantial evidence of a fair argument. (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v.

Regents (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376.)
Response to Comment O1-6
The comment states that further analysis of AIS risk is necessary. The comment also refers to a purported increase in operational intensity as a result of the Project. However, as noted in the IS/MND and in the Transportation Study prepared for the project (Appendix D), no change in operational intensity of the marina is anticipated. As shown on page 5 of the Transportation Study prepared by LSC, the Project would not modify the number of slips or charters associated with marina operations, and as such, no increase in marina operations are anticipated as a result of implementation of the Project. With respect to Mitigation Measure BIO-4 the comment broadly questions the enforceability of the proposed mitigation measure but does not state why it should be considered inadequate or unenforceable, and no further response regarding its adequacy or enforceability is required. MM BIO-4 identifies steps to be taken in the event of invasive species being detected during construction to ensure that their future spread is controlled and limited. MM BIO-4 also requires inspections for and secure removal of any AIS. The proposed bulkhead is an in-kind replacement subject to an LSAA from CDFW, 404 permit from USACE, and 401 certification from the Lahontan RWQCB. The Project may expect the agencies issuing these permits to comply with all measures related to reducing the risk of AIS. Oakland Heritage Alliance v. City of Oakland (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 884, 906. Further and more broadly with respect to the control of AIS within the Tahoe Basin, the IS/MND assumes that all watercraft coming to the Project area would submit themselves for AIS inspection at an existing inspection station operated as part of TRPA’s existing AIS Inspection Program and consistent with TRPA Code requirements. The Project’s improved and regulatory compliant processes will reduce the risk of AIS in comparison to existing conditions.

Comment O1-7:

4. The cumulative-impacts analysis is unlawfully narrow. The IS/MND limits the cumulative universe to a single nearby waterline project roughly 850 feet away and concludes the Project is in a “relatively isolated location.” That framing ignores the reasonably foreseeable context that defines these waters: the Upper Truckee Marsh restoration, the Tahoe Keys lagoon weedcontrol program, basin-wide AIS management, and the Lake Tahoe Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for fine sediment and nutrients that governs clarity. (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692.)
Response to Comment O1-7
The comment states that the cumulative impact analysis of the IS/MND is inadequate and refers to the Upper Truckee Marsh restoration, the Tahoe Keys lagoon weed-control program, basin-wide AIS management, the Lake Tahoe TMDL Program. In general and with the exception of the weed-control program, the efforts referred to in this comment are existing programs that are considered part of the baseline condition against which the IS/MND’s analysis was conducted. With respect to the weed-control program, a prior comment (O1-3) identified how that program is not currently moving forward after an adverse court decision. As such, it is not considered a reasonably foreseeable project, pursuant to Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines. All four listed efforts were considered during development of the IS/MND but do not constitute cumulative projects for the purposes of CEQA. The IS/MND’s evaluation of cumulative impacts took into consideration past, present, and future 780
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 15 projects that were reasonably foreseeable within 1,000 feet of the Project area. The cumulative impact analysis presented in the IS/MND is considered appropriate and valid and does not require amendment.

Comment O1-8:

5. The IS/MND improperly piecemeals a single project. CEQA prohibits dividing a larger course of action into smaller pieces that individually escape full review. The Marina shares one hydrologic system with the broader Tahoe Keys lagoons and the TKPOA weed-control program; its bulkhead, circulation, sediment, and AIS effects function as a unit with the lagoon system and cannot lawfully be evaluated as if the Marina were a stand-alone parcel. Reviewing the Marina in isolation understates the very impacts an EIR/EIS must disclose. (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376.)
Response to Comment O1-8
The comment states that the IS/MND attempts to piecemeal a larger project. However, the proposed Project as evaluated in the IS/MND reflects a pending application for development under consideration by the City. As such and consistent with the definition of a project under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the whole of the action to be considered by the City is the Project described in the IS/MND Project Description, as this reflects the whole of the action. The commenter states that the TKPOA weed-control program must be evaluated with this Project, even though CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(2) states that the definition of a project does not include continuing maintenance activities. It is unclear what other action the commenter feels should be evaluated as part of the IS/MND, and no further response is possible. The IS/MND evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the Project, as presented in the pending development application, and is considered appropriate, valid, and consistent with CEQA requirements.

Comment O1-9:

IV. TRPA Must Prepare an Independent Environmental Impact Statement.

The IS/MND correctly lists TRPA as a Responsible Agency with jurisdiction over the Project’s effects on adopted threshold standards for water quality, soils, fisheries, vegetation, wildlife, scenic quality, noise, air quality, and recreation. Article VII(a)(2) of the Bi-State Compact requires TRPA, when acting on a matter that may have a significant effect on the environment, to prepare and consider a detailed EIS before approving the project. That obligation is independent of the City’s; the City’s adoption of an MND neither binds TRPA nor satisfies TRPA’s duty. FOWS concurs with the Sierra Club’s threshold-by-threshold showing and adds only that, given the agencies’ own prior determination that a checklist is inadequate for this lagoon system, processing the Project on a TRPA Initial Environmental Checklist and a Finding of No Significant Effect would be improper. FOWS requests that TRPA prepare a full EIS.

Response to Comment O1-9
The comment requests that TRPA prepare an independent EIS for the Project. The comment’s request is considered outside the scope of the IS/MND and the City’s jurisdiction. The comment does not address the adequacy or conclusions of the Draft IS/MND; therefore, no further response is required. However, this comment is noted and has been included in the record for consideration by the City Planning Commission as part of its consideration of the Project.
781
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 16 Comment O1-10:

V. The Document Is Procedurally Defective and Should Not Be Patched.

The City’s own revised notice concedes that the initial public-review notice was defective, and the underlying analysis dates to 2023. A stale, twice-noticed checklist is not a sound foundation for approving a project of this magnitude in this setting. The appropriate course is not to adopt and defend an MND, but to prepare a full EIR and circulate it for public review.

Response to Comment O1-10
The comment states that the reissuance of the NOI is an indication that a full EIR is required. The comment presents opinion and does not directly address the adequacy or conclusions of the Draft IS/MND. As noted in the revised NOI and this Final IS/MND, the NOI was reissued due to a typographical error pertaining to the conclusion of public review and not related to the analysis presented therein. The IS/MND was circulated for a combined total of 60 days in compliance with CEQA’s noticing and public review requirements. No evidence is presented in this comment that would indicate the need to prepare an EIR.

Comment O1-11:

VI. Approving an Inadequate MND Creates Avoidable Legal and Financial Exposure.

FOWS notes, for the record, that adopting an MND unsupported by the evidence exposes the City to a petition for writ of mandate and, if successful, to an award of attorney’s fees under Code of Civil Procedure section 1021.5, and that any in-water or shoreline work undertaken without complete environmental review and the required permits may carry independent civil penalties under the Clean Water Act, the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and the TRPA Compact. Preparing a full EIR/EIS now is the course that avoids that exposure.

Response to Comment O1-11
The comment speculates about potential legal risk associated with adoption of an IS/MND for the Project.

However, as referred to in Comment O1-3 above, preparation of an EIR/EIS does not avoid legal exposure. The comment does not directly address the adequacy or conclusions of the Draft IS/MND; therefore, no further response is required. However, this comment is noted and has been included in the record for consideration by the City Planning Commission as part of its consideration of the Project.

Comment O1-12:

VII. Recommendations and Requested Action.

FOWS respectfully requests that the City of South Lake Tahoe:

1. Decline to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration.

2. Prepare and circulate a full Environmental Impact Report that, at a minimum, addresses:
a) complete site characterization, including a Phase II Environmental Site Assessment with soil and groundwater sampling, completed and circulated before any approval; b) in-water and shoreline water-quality impacts, including sediment disturbance, turbidity, and resuspension of contaminants from bulkhead replacement and boat-launch relocation; 782
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 17 c) aquatic invasive species disturbance and spread during construction and operation, including reasonably foreseeable long-term and repeated activities; d) cumulative effects analyzed together with the Upper Truckee Marsh restoration, the Tahoe Keys lagoon weed-control program, and the Lake Tahoe TMDL, and the Marina evaluated as a unit with the broader Tahoe Keys lagoon system; and
e) a reasonable range of alternatives, including reduced-intensity and reconfigured-bulkhead alternatives.

3. Coordinate with TRPA so that TRPA prepares an independent Environmental Impact Statement under Article VII of the Compact rather than an Initial Environmental Checklist and Finding of No Significant Effect.

4. Add FOWS to the interested-parties list to receive all future notices regarding the Project.

FOWS appreciates the opportunity to comment and is prepared to provide supporting materials on any of the points above.

Response to Comment O1-12
The comment requests that the City set aside the IS/MND, prepare an EIR, coordinate with TRPA, and provide notice to the commenter of any further actions regarding the Project. As noted in the responses above, evidence has not been presented that would necessitate preparation of an EIR for the Project. Additionally, the City has been coordinating with TRPA regarding the Project but can not direct TRPA (an independent agency) to prepare an EIS. The commenter will be provided further notices regarding the Project. As discussed in responses to Comments L1-4, L1-6, L1-7, and 01-3, the IS/MND includes measures to mitigate impacts from the removal of the bulkhead, reduce the risk of AIS, and protect and maintain water quality during construction and operation of the Project. Response to Comment 01-7 explains that the listed programs, with the exception of the Tahoe Keys lagoon weed-control program, are considered as part of the Project’s baseline within the analysis. Because the Project’s impacts are less than significant or can be reduced to less than significant with mitigation, an EIR including analysis of a range of alternatives is not required. Pub. Res. Code §§ 21064.5, 21080(c)(2).

Comment Letter O2: Sierra Club Tahoe Area Group – May 30, 2026 Comment O2-1:

The Sierra Club Tahoe Area Group submits these comments on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Tahoe Keys Marina Project. After review, we conclude that the project – a major expansion that replaced 49,800 sq ft across three buildings with 153,200 sq ft across seven buildings, plus full bulkhead and boat ramp replacement – requires a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under CEQA and an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under TRPA requirements. The Draft IS/MND does not satisfy CEQA’s fair argument standard (CEQA Guidelines §15064(f)(1)), as substantial evidence supports the potential for significant environmental effects.

Response to Comment O2-1
The comment is an introductory comment that states that the commenter has concluded that an EIR and EIS are required for the project. As demonstrated below in the responses to specific comments, the IS/MND issued by 783
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 18 the City is considered appropriate, adequate, and in accordance with CEQA requirements, contrary to the statements made in this comment. No further response is required.

Comment O2-2:

Project Context and Need for Full EIR/EIS Review: The project is located in one of the most environmentally impaired areas of the Lake Tahoe Basin. The Tahoe Keys lagoons were created through the destruction and dredging of the historic Upper Truckee Marsh, formerly Lake Tahoe's largest natural filtration system. Today, the resulting 172-acre lagoon complex is recognized by TRPA1 and other resource agencies as the largest and most persistent aquatic invasive plant infestation in the Lake Tahoe Basin, with invasive weeds covering approximately 85 to 90 percent of the lagoon system during peak growing seasons. The Tahoe Keys are widely regarded as the primary source area for the spread of aquatic invasive species throughout Lake Tahoe. The Tahoe Keys Marina cannot be analyzed as a separate and independent environmental setting from the Tahoe Keys lagoons.

CEQA requires a project to be evaluated in the context of existing environmental conditions and cumulative degradation, not in isolation from the broader ecosystem in which it operates. (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 720-721).

This area contributes to ongoing issues with water quality, nutrient loading, and AIS spread. Prior agency efforts for similar in-water work in the adjacent TKPOA lagoons required a full Joint EIR/EIS after initial streamlined documents proved inadequate, followed by successful litigation (Sierra Club Tahoe Area Group and California Sportfishing Protection Alliance v. Lahontan). This history provides substantial evidence that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is insufficient here.

In addition to requiring an EIR under CEQA, the project warrants preparation of a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact and TRPA's environmental review regulations.

Under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and analogous TRPA standards, an EIS is required whenever substantial questions are raised as to whether a project may cause significant environmental effects. An agency may not avoid preparation of an EIS merely because impacts are uncertain or because mitigation is proposed.

Rather, uncertainty itself often supports the preparation of a full environmental impact statement. Due to the potential significant effects on multiple environmental thresholds, including water quality, scenic resources, recreation, transportation, and fisheries, an EIS is required. (Foundation for North American Wild Sheep v. USDA, 681 F.2d 1172, 1178 (9th Cir. 1982).)
Federal courts have repeatedly held that agencies must prepare an EIS when a project may contribute to cumulative environmental impacts, affect unique or ecologically sensitive areas, involve uncertain environmental consequences, or establish precedents for future actions. (40 C.F.R. § 1501.3; 40 C.F.R. § 1508.1(g); National Parks & Conservation Ass'n v. Babbitt (9th Cir. 2001) 241 F.3d 722, 731-737; Ocean Advocates, supra, 402 F.3d at 865-871.)
Those factors are plainly present here. The project is located within the Tahoe Keys, one of the most environmentally sensitive and ecologically impaired aquatic systems in the Lake Tahoe Basin. The project involves substantial shoreline and in-water construction, expansion of marina facilities, increased boat storage and recreational activity, underground stormwater treatment in shallow groundwater conditions, and potential impacts to water quality, aquatic invasive species management, scenic resources, transportation, recreation, and environmental threshold attainment.
784
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 19 Moreover, TRPA's own governing framework places special emphasis on protecting environmental threshold carrying capacities and preventing incremental degradation of Lake Tahoe's unique resources. Projects raising substantial questions regarding threshold attainment, cumulative impacts, water quality, scenic quality, recreation capacity, or aquatic ecosystem health warrant the highest level of environmental review.

Because substantial questions exist regarding the project's potential effects on multiple threshold categories, preparation of a full EIS is required in addition to EIR.

Response to Comment O2-2
The comment states that a full EIR and a full EIS are required for the Project. With respect to the 2022 Final EIR/EIS prepared for the Tahoe Keys Lagoons Aquatic Weed Control Methods Test and its ability to demonstrate fair argument with respect to the Project, refer to Response to Comment O1-3. As noted in that response, the type of document prepared for a separate project that does not resemble the proposed development except due to general location is not and should not be considered fair argument of a need to prepare an EIR nor an EIS.

With respect to the factors noted, the comment does not identify issues that were not evaluated as part of the IS/MND. The IS/MND provided a comprehensive evaluation in accordance with CEQA requirements of the potential physical environmental impacts of the Project, taking into consideration existing and historic conditions within the Project area. The Project’s impacts are reduced to less than significant through compliance with regulatory requirements and the identified mitigation measures.

Comment O2-3:

Lake Tahoe’s Outstanding National Resource Water (ONRW) Status: Lake Tahoe’s Tier 3 ONRW designation under the Clean Water Act requires the highest level of protection against any degradation of existing water quality. The Draft IS/MND fails to demonstrate that the project is consistent with Lake Tahoe's Tier 3 antidegradation requirements and does not provide sufficient analysis to conclude that existing high-quality waters will be protected, particularly given the site’s direct hydrologic connection to the lagoons and Lake Tahoe, shallow groundwater, and history of nutrient loading and clarity decline.

Response to Comment O2-3
The comment states that the IS/MND fails to demonstrate consistency with Lake Tahoe’s ONRW status. As noted in multiple locations in the IS/MND, including page 89, the Project would comply with applicable standards and requirements that protect water quality. As noted in the comment itself, the ONRW designation results in additional standards and “antidegradation requirements” with which future development must comply, and as such, a demonstration of consistency is not required. The City can rely on the agencies with jurisdiction over Lake Tahoe to fulfill their legal duties under federal, state, and local laws and regulations.

Oakland Heritage Alliance v. City of Oakland (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 884, 906.

Comment O2-4:

Key Inadequacies in the Draft IS/MND
• Stormwater Treatment Feasibility: The proposed underground infiltration and treatment systems are in an area with seasonally high groundwater and direct connectivity to surface waters. The IS/MND lacks site-specific hydrogeologic data, groundwater elevation monitoring, infiltration testing, or analysis of performance under wet conditions and climate-driven variability. This prevents a supported conclusion of less-than-significant impacts. The absence of site-specific hydrogeologic data and groundwater 785
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 20 analysis deprives decision-makers of the information necessary to determine whether impacts can be mitigated below a level of significance. CEQA does not permit agencies to defer environmental analysis until after project approval. (Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 307-311; Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 431- 435).

Response to Comment O2-4
The comment states that without additional site-specific hydrogeologic data, the conclusions of the IS/MND related to stormwater collection and treatment represent deferred analysis. As evaluated in the IS/MND, the proposed infiltration basins would be located within existing landscaped areas, as well as three subsurface infiltration facilities located within the Project area. Two subsurface facilities would be located in the northern portion of the site at the proposed drop-off/loading plaza and at the Basin Plaza (as shown on Figure 5 on page 13 of the IS/MND). The third subsurface facility would be located immediately south of the proposed boat storage facility. The capacity of the subsurface facilities exceeds water quality requirements and are designed to meet the separation requirements from groundwater stipulated by applicable regulations. The capacity of these facilities would be 2,800 cubic feet (cf), 4,600 cf, and 900 cf, respectively. The design and placement of these proposed components of the Project took into consideration groundwater conditions and other factors that could affect the feasibility of such facilities. The Project’s stormwater drainage system would be subject to a SWPPP approved by the Lahontan RWQCB. As explained in Section 4.10 (Hydrology and Water Quality) and Section 4.19 (Utilities and Service Systems) of the IS/MND, stormwater would be treated within the Project area consistent with applicable federal, state, and local requirements (including TRPA). The City can rely on the agencies with jurisdiction over groundwater connectivity to Lake Tahoe to fulfill their legal duties under federal, state, and local laws and regulations. Oakland Heritage Alliance v. City of Oakland (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 884, 906.The comment attempts to link design feasibility to deferred analysis, which is improper within the context of CEQA. The IS/MND appropriately evaluates the Project, as proposed and determined to be feasible.

Comment O2-5:
• Aquatic Invasive Species: The project involves prolonged in-water construction (bulkhead replacement, pile driving, sediment disturbance) and operational intensification (increased boating and vessel traffic) in a heavily infested area. The IS/MND defers analysis to pre-construction surveys and relies on the generalized Mitigation Measure BIO-4 (equipment inspection and dry/freeze protocol), which does not address fragmentation risks, transport, or cumulative spread as supported by the documented AIS conditions in the Tahoe Keys. The IS/MND improperly limits its review to immediate construction effects while failing to adequately evaluate reasonably foreseeable operational impacts associated with increased boating activity and marina intensification. CEQA requires analysis of reasonably foreseeable indirect and future environmental consequences. (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 396-398).

Response to Comment O2-5
The comment states that the Project involves “prolonged in-water construction” and increased boating and vessel traffic. Refer to Response to Comment O1-6. As noted in that response, the Project would not result in an increase in in-water operational conditions, and as such, evaluation of potential increased boating activity is not required. Response to Comments 01-3, L1-4, L1-6, and L1-7 explain that compliance with the Project design features, mitigation measures, and regulatory requirements will reduce the Project’s construction and 786
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 21 operational impacts to less than significant. The comment does not provide evidence that compliance with these requirements will not reduce the Project’s impacts to less than significant. The IS/MND is not required to analyze “[a] change which is speculative or unlikely to occur” because such a change is considered “not reasonably foreseeable.” CEQA Guidelines § 15064.

Comment O2-6:
• Hazardous Materials: The marina has operated since ~1970 with fueling infrastructure. The sole document is a 2021 Phase I ESA (records review and visual inspection only). No Phase II sampling of soil, sediment, or groundwater has been conducted despite the known presence of asbestos, lead-based paint, PCBs, and mercury in structures slated for demolition. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 (stop work if contamination is observed) is reactive and defers baseline characterization, contrary to CEQA requirements (see e.g., Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988)). CEQA requires environmental conditions to be adequately characterized before project approval and does not permit agencies to rely on future studies to determine whether significant impacts exist. (Communities for a Better Environment v. City of Richmond (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 70, 92-99; Save Our Peninsula Committee v.

Monterey County (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 99, 128-141.)
Response to Comment O2-6
The comment states that Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 represents deferral of analysis. Refer to Response to Comment O1-4. The IS/MND explained that the site received a No Further Action determination in 2020 from the Lahontan RWQCB after years of sampling determined that remediation of the site met requirements for reducing risk to human health and safety, the environment, and water quality objectives. Implementation of HAZ-1 addresses any discovery of impacted soils or groundwater during Project implementation. The comment provides no evidence that HAZ-1 would not address any need for remediation of the site if residual contamination is discovered. The comment is speculative and no further response is required. CEQA Guidelines § 15064.

Comment O2-7:
• Transportation and VMT: The project more than triples the developed footprint and significantly expands boat storage (up to 430 boats in winter vs. the existing 200-250). The IS/MND’s estimate of 218 additional daily VMT and conclusion of no significant impact fails to adequately address cumulative South Shore congestion, peak-season recreation traffic, parking spillover, emergency evacuation, or consistency with TRPA and CEQA VMT standards.

Response to Comment O2-7
The comment expresses concern regarding the VMT analysis presented and that it may not have properly evaluated existing and future transportation conditions. Contrary to statements made in this comment, the transportation analysis was based on validated trip generation estimates, taking into consideration existing conditions (including peak summer day conditions). The transportation analysis, which was included as Appendix D of the Draft IS/MND, was prepared in accordance with CEQA, TRPA, and City requirements. Section 4.17.4 of the IS/MND explains that the Project would generate approximately 1,839 daily vehicle trips, which would represent an increase of 175 daily vehicle trips compared to existing conditions. Morning peak-hour trips would remain unchanged, and evening peak-hour trips would increase by 37. Taking into consideration trip capture and what uses associated with the Project would generate vehicle trips, daily VMT is anticipated to increase by 787
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 22 218, which would be below the low-VMT screening criteria established by TRPA of 715 daily VMT (LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2026). As the Project would not exceed the low-VMT screening threshold, it would not conflict with TRPA or City plans, policies, or regulations (including the Regional Transportation Plan) as it would not represent a substantial increase in daily VMT. As the Project would not exceed screening criteria, it would not be considered in conflict or inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines 15064.3 subdivision (b) related to the generation of VMT. The comment does not present evidence contrary to this analysis and the analysis presented in Appendix D, and no further response is required.

Comment O2-8:
• Scenic and Visual Impacts: The proposed 42-foot-tall boat storage building exceeds the prevailing 20 to 25-foot heights in the area. The IS/MND lacks detailed visual simulations, viewshed analysis from land and water, or cumulative scenic assessment required for TRPA Chapter 66 compliance and threshold attainment. Substantial evidence supporting a fair argument regarding visual or aesthetic impacts requires preparation of an EIR, particularly where scenic resources are a protected environmental resource. (Ocean View Estates Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Montecito Water District (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 396; Georgetown Preservation Society v. County of El Dorado (2019) 30 Cal. App.5th 358.) Response to Comment O2-8
The comment states that the visual impact analysis presented in the IS/MND is deficient. However, the comment does not present evidence to support its assertion that a significant aesthetic impact would occur, nor does it dispute the individual findings presented in Section 4.1 (Aesthetics) of the Draft IS/MND. The renderings presented on pages 14 and 15 of the Draft IS/MND are visual simulations of the Project, as they place the proposed structures among the existing marina facilities, Tahoe Keys development, and existing landscaping.

Section 4.1 explains that although the Project would modify the visual conditions, the modifications would enclose outdoor storage of boats and provide on-site structures such that visual conditions would be more uniform. The Project would not be visible from either the eligible scenic highway segment of US 50 or the designated scenic highway segment of SR 89 located nearby. Additionally, the Project area would not be visible from Shoreline Unit 1, and the existing open space and CTC Cove East Trail located east of the Project area are not designated as scenic resources, part of a scenic highway corridor, nor as scenic public recreation areas by TRPA or the City (TRPA 1993).The IS/MND discloses that the Project would modify views of and through the Project area from the east (along Venice Drive East and from portions of the Cove East Trail, neither of which are designated as scenic resources or roadways) but only to the extent that such views are available in close proximity to the Project area. These views are already partially obscured by existing vegetation and landscaping.

As noted above, the Project would remove existing outdoor storage of boats and provide an enclosed boat storage facility that would provide a more consistent design/aesthetic for the Project area, which varies substantially and based on the number and type of boats currently stored outside. For this reason, and although the Project would partially modify views from the east, the change in visual conditions at the Project area would not be considered a substantial adverse change, as it would provide a consistent design/aesthetic within the Project area. No further response is required.

Comment O2-9:
• Cumulative Impacts: The analysis is too narrow, focusing primarily on one nearby project and deeming the site “isolated.” It fails to address the project’s contribution to basin-wide conditions, including AIS management, clarity decline, TMDL implementation, recreation capacity, and ongoing South Shore 788
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 23 redevelopment. CEQA requires a meaningful analysis of a project's incremental contribution to existing and reasonably foreseeable cumulative environmental conditions. An agency may not artificially narrow the scope of cumulative review in a manner that obscures basin-wide impacts. (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 720-721.) Response to Comment O2-9
The comment states that the cumulative impact analysis provided in the IS/MND is too narrow. Refer to Response to Comment O1-7. The conclusions of the IS/MND with respect to cumulative impacts are considered appropriate, valid, and based on evidence. The cumulative impact analysis presented in the IS/MND is considered appropriate and valid and does not require amendment.

Comment O2-10:

Alternatives Analysis: An EIR/EIS is required to evaluate feasible alternatives, including reduced-intensity options, lower marina capacity, restoration-focused designs, reduced parking/traffic configurations, and the environmentally superior alternative. One of the principal purposes of an EIR is to evaluate feasible alternatives that can reduce environmental impacts while meeting project objectives. A mitigated negative declaration cannot serve as a substitute for this analysis. (Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal.3d 553, 564-566.)
Response to Comment O2-10
The comment refers to an evaluation of alternatives that is required during preparation of an EIR and/or EIS.

Evaluation of alternatives is not required under CEQA when preparing an IS/MND, including those related to lesser intensity development. As an IS/MND was prepared for the Project, an evaluation of alternatives is not required under CEQA.

Comment O2-11:

Conclusion and Request: The Draft IS/MND relies on deferred analysis and mitigation, unsupported assumptions, deficiencies in baseline characterization, cumulative impacts review, and consideration of reasonably foreseeable consequences, both independently and collectively. Taken together, these deficiencies satisfy CEQA's fair argument standard, requiring preparation of a full EIR, and NEPA’s substantial questions and uncertainty argument, requiring a full EIS. We request that the City:

1. Withdraw the Draft IS/MND;

2. Prepare a full EIR/EIS with comprehensive technical analysis (including hydrogeologic, hydrodynamic, visual, and cumulative studies);

3. Fully evaluate alternatives and cumulative impacts; and

4. Provide meaningful public review consistent with CEQA and TRPA requirements.

Thank you for considering these comments. We appreciate the opportunity to engage and request notification of next steps.

Response to Comment O2-11
The comment requests that the City withdraw the IS/MND, prepare an EIR/EIS that fully evaluates alternatives and cumulative impacts, and provide an opportunity for public review consistent with CEQA and TRPA 789
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 24 requirements. As noted in the responses above, evidence has not been presented that would necessitate preparation of an EIR for the Project. Additionally, the City has been coordinating with TRPA regarding the Project but can not direct TRPA (an independent agency) to prepare an EIS. As preparation of an EIR is not considered warranted, evaluation of alternatives and further evaluation of cumulative impacts is not considered to be required. The Draft IS/MND was noticed and made available for public review for over 30 days, consistent with applicable requirements.

Comment Letter O3: Tahoe Sierra Clean Air Coalition – June 1, 2026 Comment O3-1:

Tahoe Sierra Clean Air Coalition (TSCAC) is a Nevada 501(c)(3) nonprofit registered to do business in the State of California.

TSCAC is dedicated to protecting air quality, water quality, in the Lake Tahoe Basin, and supporting safe and effective evacuation during wildfire and supporting transparency in government to ensure that our purpose and all things incidental to our specific and primary purposes are achieved. TSCAC requests that the City of South Lake Tahoe immediately withdraw the Draft IS/MND and prepare a joint full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under CEQA and a full Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) under TRPA requirements.

These comments expressly adopt and incorporate by reference the comments submitted to the City of South Lake Tahoe by the Sierra Club Tahoe Area Group, Friends of the West Shore, and the North Tahoe Preservation Alliance.

The proposed project replaces approximately 49,800 sq ft across three buildings with 153,200 sq ft across seven buildings, relocates the boat launch and gantry crane, replaces 1,600 linear feet of bulkhead, and expands winter boat storage to up to 430 boats. This major intensification in one of the most environmentally impaired areas of the Lake Tahoe Basin has the potential for significant environmental effects. The Draft IS/MND does not contain substantial evidence supporting its FONSI or less-than-significant impact findings. It relies on deferred mitigation, conclusory statements, and inadequate baseline data. This violates the fair argument standard under CEQA Guidelines §15064(f) and TRPA’s requirements for projects with potential significant effects on sensitive thresholds.

The proposed project involves demolition of existing marina facilities totaling approximately 49,800 sq ft and replacement with approximately 153,200 sq ft of new development across seven buildings, including a large 52,600 sq ft indoor boat storage facility. It also includes relocation of the boat launch and gantry crane, replacement of 1,600 linear feet of bulkhead, reconfiguration of parking and circulation, new utility connections, and expansion of winter boat storage capacity to up to 430 boats. This represents a major intensification on the

16.5-acre site located at 2435 Venice Drive East. The Draft IS/MND fails to provide substantial evidence supporting its less-than-significant impact findings and relies heavily on deferred mitigation, conclusory statements, and inadequate baseline data. This approach violates CEQA Guidelines §15064, Public Resources Code §§21082.2 and 21166, and TRPA Code of Ordinances requirements for projects with potential significant effects on environmental thresholds, public safety, and scenic resources.

Response to Comment O3-1
The comment provides introductory information related to its subsequent comments and refers to additional comments submitted by the Friends of the West Shore (Letter O1) and Sierra Club Tahoe Area Group/North 790
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 25 Tahoe Preservation Alliance (Letter O2). The comment also broadly requests preparation of an EIR by the City and an EIS by TRPA. With respect to this comment’s incorporation by reference of Letters O1 and O2, please refer to the specific responses provided for Letters O1 and O2. Additionally, and as demonstrated below in the specific comments that are summarized here, the Draft IS/MND issued by the City is appropriate, adequate, and in accordance with CEQA requirements, contrary to the statements made in this comment.

Comment O3-2:

I. Project Context and Impaired Baseline
The Tahoe Keys Marina is located at 2435 Venice Drive East within the City of South Lake Tahoe. The site lies in one of the most environmentally degraded portions of the Lake Tahoe Basin. The 1960s dredging and filling of the Upper Truckee Marsh destroyed Lake Tahoe’s largest natural filtration system, creating the 172-acre lagoon complex now recognized by TRPA as the largest and most persistent aquatic invasive species (AIS) infestation in the Basin, with invasive weeds covering 85–90% of the lagoons during peak seasons. The marina has direct hydrologic connectivity to the lagoons and Lake Tahoe, high seasonal groundwater, and a legacy of contamination from decades of marina operations. The IS/MND fails to adequately analyze the project against this impaired baseline.

Response to Comment O3-2
The comment states that the IS/MND fails to adequately analyze the Project, taking into consideration the history of the Tahoe Keys development and the presence of AIS. The connection of Tahoe Keys Marina to Lake Tahoe is acknowledged. However, the IS/MND refers to and reflects the conditions listed in this comment where appropriate and in several locations. For example, the first project objective listed on page 5 of the IS/MND states that the Project’s objective is to enhance environmental protections through stormwater BMPs and AIS controls. MM BIO-4 (as presented on page 52 of the Draft IS/MND) requires that any construction equipment and materials that enter or leave the lagoon will be inspected for AIS, and if needed, decontaminated prior to the start of the Project. Decontamination protocol will be implemented in a manner consistent with TRPA’s Aquatic Invasive Species Management Program. Equipment and materials will be cleaned, free of dirt, vegetation material, and other debris prior to entering the lagoon. Re-inspection and decontamination of equipment and materials at the end of the Project will also be conducted to avoid spreading AIS from TKM to other locations. MM BIO-2 includes measures to prevent contamination during removal of the bulkhead, including secure disposal of plants or invertebrates. Any drainage inlets near bulkhead materials will be modified to prevent AIS contaminated water from flowing back into the lagoon. The proposed bulkhead is an in-kind replacement subject to an LSAA from CDFW, 404 permit from USACE, and 401 certification from the Lahontan RWQCB. The Project may expect the agencies issuing these permits to comply with all measures related to reducing the risk of AIS. Oakland Heritage Alliance v. City of Oakland (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 884, 906. The comment does not provide evidences for the contention that marina operations have resulted in long-present contamination. The IS/MND evaluates the potential physical environmental impacts of the Project against baseline conditions, which include AIS and existing contamination. No further response is required.

Comment O3-3:

II. Stormwater Management, Hydrology, Water Quality, and Hazardous Materials The IS/MND asserts that upgraded BMPs and underground infiltration systems will result in less-than-significant impacts. However, it provides no site-specific hydrogeologic data, groundwater elevation monitoring, infiltration 791
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 26 testing, or analysis of system performance under high groundwater conditions or climate variability. In an area with seasonally high groundwater and direct connectivity to surface waters, these omissions prevent any supported conclusion that pollutant loading to the lagoons will not increase. The sole document addressing contamination is a 2021 Phase I ESA limited to records review and visual inspection. No Phase II sampling of soil, sediment, or groundwater has been conducted despite known risks from fueling infrastructure since ~1970, including asbestos, lead-based paint, PCBs, and mercury. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 is reactive only. These deficiencies violate CEQA’s requirement for substantial evidence.

Response to Comment O3-2
The comment states that the IS/MND does not provide adequate analysis of potential stormwater, hydrology/water quality, and hazardous materials impacts. Refer to Responses to Comments O2-4 and O1-4 with respect to the IS/MNDs analysis of on-site BMPs and the need for further sampling/analysis beyond a Phase I ESA, respectively. Refer to Response to Comment L1-6 regarding the Project’s modernization and improvements to existing on-site stormwater collection and treatment infrastructure that will comply with City Code, NPDES and TRPA requirements. Additionally, the Project is required to prepare a SWPPP as described in response to Comment L1-4. Through compliance with existing regulations, including the Clean Water Act, TRPA Code, NPDES requirements, and the South Lake Tahoe City Code, the Project would improve stormwater capture systems within the Project area, compared to existing site conditions, including the provision of an underground infiltration basin, landscaping, and permeable pavement. The City may expect that the agencies with jurisdiction over stormwater, hydrology/water quality and hazardous materials impacts will satisfy their legal obligations.

Oakland Heritage Alliance v. City of Oakland (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 884, 906.

Comment O3-4:

III. Aquatic Invasive Species and In-Water Construction Impacts Prolonged in-water construction (bulkhead replacement, pile driving, sediment disturbance) and increased boating in a heavily infested area risk AIS fragmentation and spread. The IS/MND relies on generalized BIO-4 measures without addressing documented conditions or cumulative effects. Prior similar work required full joint EIR/EIS.

Response to Comment O3-4
The comment expresses concern regarding AIS and the IS/MNDs evaluation of potential impacts related to AIS.

Refer to Response to Comments L1-7 and O1-6. Further and with respect to the comparison between the IS/MND and a prior EIR/EIS pertaining to the Tahoe Keys lagoons, refer to Response to Comment O1-3. The prior EIR/EIS was held deficient with respect to analysis of that project’s use of pesticides and did not hold that all projects with in-water work must prepare an EIR/EIS.

Comment O3-5:

IV. Transportation, VMT, Scenic Resources, and Cumulative Impacts The project triples the developed footprint. The IS/MND’s 218 additional daily VMT estimate ignores peakseason congestion, parking spillover, and cumulative South Shore effects. The 42-foot boat storage building lacks detailed visual simulations or TRPA Chapter 66 analysis. Cumulative impacts analysis is impermissibly narrow.
792
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 27 Response to Comment O3-5
The comment briefly states concerns regarding the IS/MND’s transportation analysis, visual impact analysis, and cumulative impact assessment. Refer to Responses to Comments O2-7, O2-8, and O1-7, respectively. The IS/MND analyzed the impacts from the conditions identified in the comment and found the impacts to be less than significant and less than significant with mitigation. The comment does not provide any substantial evidence to support a fair argument of a significant impact. Therefore, the transportation, visual, and cumulative impact analysis presented in the IS/MND is considered appropriate and valid and does not require amendment.

Comment O3-6:

V. Wildfire Risk, Emergency Access, Evacuation, and Public Services – Critical Deficiency Lacking Substantial Evidence
South Lake Tahoe Fire Rescue (SLTFR) provides primary fire protection for the project.

CAL FIRE supports the broader wildland interface. The project is subject to California Fire Code (Title 24, Part 9) and State Fire Marshal roadway standards requiring minimum 20-foot-wide all-weather roads, 13'6" vertical clearance, adequate turning radii, and grades for fire apparatus. The area is designated a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (VHFHSZ).

The IS/MND references general California Fire Code compliance and public services but lacks substantial evidence in the form of detailed site-specific fire access roadway analysis, capacity, evacuation modeling, evacuation timing, or full fire hazard assessment.

The Draft IS/MND concludes that less-than-significant impacts for relevant wildfire-related CEQA checklist items.

This finding lacks substantial evidence.

Specific IS/MND Language (Sections 4.9 and 4.20) (Link here) and Allegations of Insufficient Substantial Evidence:
a) Would the Project substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The IS/MND states: “The Project would involve redevelopment of existing marina facilities and would not result in the modification of existing adjacent roadways or emergency access routes. ... As the Project would not modify existing emergency evacuation routes or plans and would participate in the CodeRED emergency notification service, the Project would not substantially impair implementation of the emergency evacuation plan for Tahoe Keys... Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.” The overall FONSI and Less than Significant impact finding is not supported by substantial evidence. The IS/MND provides no quantitative analysis of how the project’s increased traffic demand (from expanded boat storage, visitation, parking, and construction), reconfigured site access, or peak-season boating activity will affect roadway capacity or clearance times on US 50 and SR 89. Simply stating that the project “would not modify existing routes” is meaningless when project-generated demand clearly increases. The 2014 Tahoe Keys evacuation map is outdated. CodeRED is only a notification system and does not address physical capacity. No modeling of emergency clearance times under combined project + wildfire scenarios was performed. This fails AB 747 (Gov. Code §65302.15) and CEQA Appendix G.
793
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 28 b) Would the Project, due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose Project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
The IS/MND states: “The Project does not include construction on steep slopes... Structures would be designed according to current City... codes... The Project area is generally surrounded by fire breaks... the Project would... alleviate current fire hazards... Impacts would be less than significant.” The overall FONSI and Less than Significant impact finding is not supported by substantial evidence. The IS/MND contains no fire spread modeling to support its conclusion, no project-specific ignition risk assessment (e.g., from intensified human presence, or project construction), and no comparison of post-project wildfire risk to existing baseline conditions in a VHFHSZ with legacy interface vegetation and AIS issues. General references to code compliance, water tanks, and “fire-resistant landscaping” are conclusory and lack the required analytical connection to the project’s specific contributions to risk.

The IS/MND’s overall Finding of No Significant Effect and less-than-significant impact findings are not supported by substantial evidence as required by CEQA Guidelines §§15064, 15064(f), and 15384. Substantial evidence means “facts, reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts, and expert opinion supported by facts” (CEQA Guidelines §15384). Conclusory statements, general references to code compliance, and deferred mitigation measures do not qualify as substantial evidence. The IS/MND provides no site-specific technical analysis, modeling, or data to support its conclusions on wildfire, evacuation, hydrology, AIS, or cumulative impacts. This fundamental failure renders the entire FONSI unlawful.

Why This Matters
Failure Under Bonta v. County of Lake (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1222 The Bonta decision raised the bar for CEQA wildfire analysis. The court held that an IS/MND must sufficiently discuss the project’s potential to increase human-caused ignitions and analyze in detail how mitigation would reduce risks. General references to plans or codes are insufficient without a clear analytical route from evidence to conclusion. The analysis must compare baseline to project conditions and appear in the Draft document. The IS/MND’s cursory treatment mirrors the deficiencies struck down in Bonta.

Combined with substantial evidence and new information of the 2024 Ladris AI / PyroAnalysis Independent Lake Tahoe Fire Evacuation Analysis – El Dorado Tahoe Pages 38-43. (Link here),and the cross jurisdictional Placer County Contra Flow Comparison (Link here)creates a strong fair argument of significant impacts requiring a full EIR. See also” Lake Tahoe Could be a Death Trap During Wildfires” ‘It will not be survivable’: Lake Tahoe could be a deathtrap during major wildfires” Author: Julie Cart, CalMatters Published: March 24, 2025 (Link here).

The October 23, 2024 Independent Lake Tahoe Basin Wildfire Evacuation Analysis by stellar subject matter experts John Messina, former CAL FIRE Regional CAL FIRE Chief and Incident Commander for the Paradise, CA Camp Fire and Shane Lauderdale, former Fire Chief of Chico, CA and Operations Section Chief for the Paradise, CA Camp Fire demonstrates severe South Shore bottlenecks and prolonged clearance times. The IS/MND ignores this evidence.

Response to Comment O3-6
The comment takes exception to the Draft IS/MND’s evaluation of potential impacts related to wildfire as presented in Section 4.20, beginning on page 135 of the Draft IS/MND. The comment is predicated upon the assumption that boat-related activities would increase with implementation of the Project. However, as 794
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 29 demonstrated in Responses to Comment O1-6, no increase in boat-related activities is anticipated as part of the Project. As shown on page 11 of the Transportation Report prepared by LSC (as included in Appendix D to the Draft IS/MND), the Project would generate approximately 175 daily vehicle trips in excess of existing conditions and no increase in boat-related activities is anticipated. Furthermore and as noted in the IS/MND in numerous locations (e.g., page 136), the Project would involve the redevelopment of an existing site to current code requirements, which are more stringent than the building code requirements in effect at the time of construction of the existing on-site structures. The Project would not constitute a substantial trip generator with an average of less than 20 vehicle trips per hour and would provide greater fire suppression/control at the proposed structures. Section 4.9.4 of the IS/MND analyzes whether the Project would impair implementation of an emergency response plan. The IS/MND discloses that the Project would temporarily impact Tahoe Keys Boulevard and Venice Drive East, which would result in temporary lane closures, but both roads would remain accessible with traffic controls during construction. Access for emergency vehicles and at least 1 lane of traffic with flaggers on either side of the lane closure would be maintained at all times in coordination with the South Lake Tahoe Fire Rescue and Public Works Department.

Additionally, Section 4.9.4 explains that Project would not require any modifications to existing evacuation routes. The Project represents a replacement/modernization of existing on-site uses and would not introduce new/different uses to the Project area. Construction of new on-site structures would also be required to implement other applicable requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and CBC, including ignition-resistant construction, automatic interior fire sprinklers, on-site fire hydrant minimum flows, and adequate emergency and fire apparatus access. Additionally, facilities constructed as part of the Project would be subject to design and defensible space requirements that are intended to protect development from loss due to wildfire included in Section 13.5.3.F.4.a of TRPA Code of Ordinances, which requires use of native vegetation whenever possible, consistent with fire defensible space requirements. Implementation of the Project would not exacerbate wildfire risks because defensible space would be maintained or improved within the Project area, and construction would comply with all applicable fire related codes and regulations. Although the Project would increase the number of people traveling to and from the Project area (based on the projected increase in daily vehicle trips of 175), the number of visitors exposed to wildfire risk would not be a substantial increase over existing conditions.

This constitutes “reasonable assumptions predicated upon facts” and qualifies as evidence (as stated in the comment), and the IS/MND’s evaluation of wildfire impacts is considered appropriate and in accordance with CEQA requirements.

Further, the comparisons drawn between the Draft IS/MND’s analysis and the CEQA decision referenced in this comment is not considered appropriate. The Guenoc Valley EIR (not IS/MND as stated in this comment) was found deficient in People ex rel. Bonta v. County of Lake (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1222 for several reasons (including its wildfire analysis). That EIR evaluated the development of a 16,000-acre site that was largely undeveloped with a mixed-use community that would generate approximately 6,500 daily vehicle trips and more than 4,000 new residents. Portions of the Guenoc Valley site had also experienced wildfire events three times since 2010. Thus, a CEQA evaluation of a large, mixed-use project on an undeveloped site that has repeatedly burned in recent history is not considered comparable to a 16.5-acre commercial redevelopment project on a site that has never burned. Further, the studies referenced in this comment refer to the need for communities to adapt to higher risk standards through compliance with stricter buildings codes (refer to the article authored by Julie Cart and referenced in this comment). The IS/MND does not ignore evidence related to wildfire risks in the area, but the Project (based on the evidence provided in Section 4.20 of the Draft IS/MND) would not increase wildfire-related impacts as a result of its implementation, which is the analysis required of 795
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 30 any project under CEQA. Section 4.9.4 analyzes the Project’s impact on evacuation routes and on-site ignition risks. Therefore, the wildfire risk analysis presented in the IS/MND is considered appropriate and valid and does not require amendment.

Comment O3-7:

VI. CEQA and TRPA Violations
The Draft IS/MND relies on deferred mitigation, unsupported assumptions, inadequate baseline data, and improper tiering. It does not satisfy CEQA or TRPA requirements. TRPA’s regional obligations under the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact further support the need for a full EIS.

Summary of CEQA Violations Requiring Full EIR
The Draft IS/MND suffers from multiple fundamental CEQA violations that collectively trigger the requirement for a full EIR. These include failure to disclose and analyze new information showing potentially significant impacts (CEQA Guidelines §§15064, 15064(f), 15162, 15163); improper use of an IS/MND where substantial evidence supports a fair argument of significant effects (§§15064(f), 15065, 15070); and failure to provide the reasoned analysis and logical, evidence-based connection between facts and conclusions required by Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502. The document also fails to analyze cross-jurisdictional evacuation impacts (§§15130, 15064(h)), cumulative impacts (§15130), hydrology/groundwater/contamination risks (§§15064, 15065), and AIS spread risks (§§15064, 15065). It further violates AB 747 and Government Code §65302.15 by omitting required evacuation modeling, as well as CEQA Appendix G Wildfire checklist items.

These deficiencies mirror those addressed in People ex rel. Bonta v. County of Lake (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1222 and require preparation of a full EIR.

Collectively, these deficiencies demonstrate that the IS/MND does not contain the required substantial evidence to support a Mitigated Negative Declaration. Under CEQA, when a fair argument of significant impacts exists based on the record — including expert studies, regulatory violations, and the absence of required analysis — the lead agency must prepare a full EIR. The city cannot lawfully adopt the current IS/MND.

Analysis of the Bi-State Compact, Article II
Article II of the Tahoe Regional Planning Bi-State Compact is central to TRPA’s authority and obligations. Article II(i) defines “environmental threshold carrying capacity” as “an environmental standard necessary to maintain a significant scenic, recreational, educational, scientific or natural value of the region or to maintain public health and safety within the region.” This definition explicitly includes standards for public health and safety. Wildfire evacuation capacity and timing directly implicate public health and safety, especially in a region with limited roadway infrastructure and known Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones.

The Compact requires TRPA to adopt and enforce a Regional Plan to achieve and maintain these thresholds (Article II). TRPA cannot approve or tier from documents that fail to analyze impacts to these thresholds. The IS/MND’s lack of cross-jurisdictional evacuation analysis, fire spread modeling, and quantitative roadway capacity assessment means it does not demonstrate maintenance of public safety thresholds.

Article II further empowers TRPA to ensure regional equilibrium and prevent local actions from undermining basin-wide safety. The marina project’s intensification in a constrained South Shore area with shared evacuation routes triggers TRPA’s duty to require comprehensive review through a full EIS. Fragmented analysis under an 796
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 31 IS/MND is inconsistent with the Compact’s mandate for coordinated, basin-wide planning that protects public health and safety across jurisdictional lines.

Response to Comment O3-7
The comment asserts that the IS/MND’s analysis is deficient and not consistent with CEQA or TRPA requirements. The comment identifies topical areas the comment claims are deficient but does not provide any substantial evidence to support the contention. Contrary to the opinions of the commenter, the Draft IS/MND presents evidence in support of its conclusions and in accordance with CEQA and TRPA requirements, as further supported by the Responses to Comments O3-1 through O3-6. The analysis presented the IS/MND is considered appropriate and valid and does not require amendment.

Comment O3-8:

Further Analysis of People ex rel. Bonta v. County of Lake (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1222 In Bonta, the Court of Appeal emphasized that CEQA requires a project-specific, quantitative, or detailed qualitative analysis of how a project increases human-caused ignition risk in high-fire-hazard areas. The EIR must compare baseline wildfire risk to post-project conditions, including the effects of added population, structures, electrical systems, and human activity. Conclusory statements that the project complies with the Fire Code, or general plans are insufficient because they do not disclose the actual increased risk or explain how mitigation measures reduce it to less-than-significant levels. The Court stressed that the analysis must appear in the Draft document so the public can meaningfully comment, and that late additions are prejudicial. While the opinion does not mandate any single modeling tool, it notes that industry-standard fire behavior models are appropriate tools to support conclusions in complex WUI settings. The fair argument standard under CEQA Guidelines §15064(f) was implicitly reinforced: where substantial evidence (such as expert studies or contrary modeling) supports potential significant effects, a full EIR is required.

Response to Comment O3-8
The comment asserts that further analysis consistent with the findings of the court in People ex rel. Bonta v.

County of Lake (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1222. Refer to Response to Comment O3-6.

Comment O3-9:

Here, the combination of the IS/MND’s omissions, the 2024 PyroAnalysis study (demonstrating severe South Shore bottlenecks and prolonged clearance times), expert credentials from Camp Fire Unified Command Officers (John Messina and Shane Lauderdale), Bonta precedent, violations of 14 CCR fire safe regulations, and Compact Article II public safety thresholds creates a strong fair argument of significant wildfire and evacuation impacts.

This mandates a full EIR / EIS rather than an MND.

Response to Comment O3-9
The comment summarizes its prior comments to further state that fair argument exists. As shown in Responses to Comments O3-1 through O3-6, the comments provided do not constitute new evidence that was not already 797
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 32 considered as part of the Draft IS/MND and taking into consideration the scope of the Project (e.g., boat-related activities would not increase with Project implementation.) As stated on page 135 of the IS/MND, “the City has an approved emergency evacuation map for or Tahoe Keys. As the Project would not modify existing emergency evacuation routes or plans and would participate in the CodeRED emergency notification service, the Project would not substantially impair implementation of the emergency evacuation plan for Tahoe Keys (refer to Section 4.9 [Hazards] above). Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.” The commenter has not provided any substantial evidence to support a fair argument that the Project would substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.

Comment O3-10:

Overall CEQA and TRPA Violations
The Draft IS/MND relies on deferred mitigation, unsupported assumptions, inadequate baseline data, and improper tiering. It does not satisfy CEQA or TRPA requirements. TRPA’s regional obligations under the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact further support the need for a full EIS.

Summary of CEQA Violations Requiring Full EIR The Draft IS/MND suffers from multiple fundamental CEQA violations that collectively trigger the requirement for a full EIR. These include failure to disclose and analyze new information showing potentially significant impacts (CEQA Guidelines §§15064, 15064(f), 15162, 15163); improper use of an IS/MND where substantial evidence supports a fair argument of significant effects (§§15064(f), 15065, 15070); and failure to provide the reasoned analysis and logical, evidence-based connection between facts and conclusions required by Sierra Club v. County of Fresno (2018) 6 Cal.5th 502. The document also fails to analyze cross-jurisdictional evacuation impacts (§§15130, 15064(h)), cumulative impacts (§15130), hydrology/groundwater/contamination risks (§§15064, 15065), and AIS spread risks (§§15064, 15065). It further violates AB 747 and Government Code §65302.15 by omitting required evacuation modeling, as well as CEQA Appendix G Wildfire checklist items. These deficiencies mirror those addressed in People ex rel. Bonta v. County of Lake (2024) 105 Cal.App.5th 1222 and require preparation of a full EIR.

The numerous deficiencies identified above — including the complete absence of substantial evidence for wildfire, evacuation, hydrology, and cumulative impacts findings — render the IS/MND’s conclusions arbitrary and capricious. Any TRPA approval premised on this fundamentally flawed document would fail the Compact’s judicial review standard (Article VI(j)(5)) and violate TRPA’s core obligation under Article II to protect public health and safety thresholds.

Response to Comment O3-10
The comment restates and summarizes prior comments that the Draft IS/MND violates CEQA and TRPA based on fair argument. Refer to Response to Comments L1-4, L1-6, L1-7, O1-3, and O3-9.

Comment O3-11:

Substantial new information — described herein demonstrates new or substantially more severe impacts on evacuation and wildfire risk not addressed in prior reviews. Changed circumstances (increased wildfire intensity, post-2021 visitation, climate data) require a full EIR (Pub. Resources Code §21166; CEQA Guidelines §15162; see also Friends of College of San Mateo Gardens v. San Mateo County Community College Dist. (2016) 1 Cal.5th 937). The IS/MND’s failure to prepare one is prejudicial. 798
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 33 Analysis of the Bi-State Compact, Article II Article II of the Tahoe Regional Planning Bi-State Compact is central to TRPA’s authority and obligations. Article II(i) defines “environmental threshold carrying capacity” as “an environmental standard necessary to maintain a significant scenic, recreational, educational, scientific or natural value of the region or to maintain public health and safety within the region.” This definition explicitly includes standards for public health and safety. Wildfire evacuation capacity and timing directly implicate public safety, especially in a region with limited roadway infrastructure and known Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones.

Response to Comment O3-11
The comment states that the information presented in Comment Letter O3 constitutes substantial new information related to wildfire risk and evacuation. However, this comment is predicated on the commenter’s supposition that the Project would generate substantial additional vehicle trips associated with increased marina operations and the commenter’s opinion regarding the adequacy of the Draft IS/MND’s wildfire impact analysis. Refer to Response to Comment O3-6. Contrary to statements made in this comment, the information presented in this comment letter does not rise to the level of substantial new information, as demonstrated in the responses provided. No further response is necessary.

Comment O3-12:

Compact
The Compact requires TRPA to adopt and enforce a Regional Plan to achieve and maintain these thresholds (Article II). TRPA cannot approve or tier from documents that fail to analyze impacts to these thresholds. The IS/MND’s lack of cross-jurisdictional evacuation analysis, fire spread modeling, and quantitative roadway capacity assessment means it does not demonstrate maintenance of public safety thresholds. Article II further empowers TRPA to ensure regional equilibrium and prevent local actions from undermining basin-wide safety.

The marina project’s intensification in a constrained South Shore area with shared evacuation routes triggers TRPA’s duty to require comprehensive review through a full EIS. Fragmented analysis under an IS/MND is inconsistent with the Compact’s mandate for coordinated, basin-wide planning that protects public health and safety across jurisdictional lines.

CEQA Fair Argument Standard Under the fair argument standard (CEQA Guidelines §15064(f)), an EIR is required if there is substantial evidence in the record supporting a fair argument that the project may have a significant effect on the environment — even if other evidence suggests otherwise. For an MND, there must be no substantial evidence supporting a fair argument of significant effects after mitigation. Here, the combination of the IS/MND’s omissions, the 2024 Independent Lake Tahoe Basin Wildfire Evacuation Analysis (demonstrating severe South Shore bottlenecks and prolonged clearance times), expert credentials from Camp Fire responders (John Messina and Shane Lauderdale), Bonta precedent, violations of 14 CCR fire safe regulations, and Compact Article II public safety thresholds creates a strong fair argument of significant wildfire and evacuation impacts.

This mandates a full EIR rather than an MND.

Response to Comment O3-12
The comment reiterates its objections to the analysis of the Draft IS/MND and the perception that the document was not prepared in accordance with TRPA and CEQA requirements. With respect to TRPA, the City has been coordinating with TRPA regarding the Project but can not direct TRPA (an independent agency) to prepare an EIS for the project as that is beyond the scope of the City’s jurisdiction. Furthermore and as shown above in the 799
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 34 responses to this letter, fair argument does not exist and preparation of an EIR is not mandated or required.

Refer to Response to Comments O3-6 and O3-9.

Comment O3-13:

Conclusion and Requests
Substantial evidence supports a fair argument of significant environmental effects. The City must:

1. Immediately withdraw the Draft IS/MND.

2. Prepare a full joint CEQA EIR and TRPA EIS with comprehensive technical studies, including quantitative wildfire/evacuation and fire spread modeling.

3. Fully evaluate alternatives and cumulative impacts.

4. Provide meaningful public review.

Because the IS/MND lacks substantial evidence for its less-than-significant findings and fails to proceed in the manner required by law, of which approval of the Project on the basis of this document would be an abuse of discretion.

These comments constitute substantial evidence for the administrative record and any future proceedings or litigation. I request written notification of all next steps.

Response to Comment O3-13
The comment requests that the City withdraw the IS/MND, prepare an EIR/EIS that fully evaluates alternatives and cumulative impacts, and provide an opportunity for public review consistent with CEQA and TRPA requirements. As noted in the responses above, evidence has not been presented that would necessitate preparation of an EIR for the Project or demonstrate that the conclusions of the IS/MND are not supported by substantial evidence. Additionally, the City has been coordinating with TRPA regarding the Project but can not direct TRPA (an independent agency) to prepare an EIS. As preparation of an EIR is not considered warranted, evaluation of alternatives and further evaluation of cumulative impacts is not considered to be required.

Further, the Draft IS/MND was noticed and made available for public review for a minimum of 30 days consistent with applicable requirements. The commenter will be provided further notices regarding the Project.

Comment Letter I1: Jesus Dias – April 17, 2026
Comment I1-1:

My wife and I own a vacation condo across from Tahoe Keys Marina (439 Ala Wai Blvd., Unit 93). We fully support the Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project. We believe the redevelopment of a dilapidated marina into a world class marina will be good for the environment and the community.

Response to Comment I1-1
The comment expresses support for the Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project. The comment does not address the adequacy or conclusions of the Draft IS/MND; therefore, no further response is required. However, this comment is noted and has been included in the record for consideration by the City Planning Commission as part of its consideration of the Project.
800
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 35 Comment Letter I2: Allan Miller – April 21, 2026
Verbal comments provided by Alan Miller as part of Public Communications at the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council Meeting on April 21st, 2026.

Comment I2-1:

Hello Members of the City Council and interested public. I’m Alan Miller, a professional civil and environmental engineer. I was employed by the Lahontan Water Quality Board for 25 years, where (among many duties) I oversaw the regulatory programs for the Lake Tahoe marinas in California, writing and issuing permits, conducting inspections, reviewing monitoring reports, taking enforcement actions, and supervising staff doing the same.

The subject I want to discuss tonight is the project to remodel and rebuild new structures on the existing Tahoe Keys Marina site. As I understand it, you have a meeting scheduled on May 14th to consider adopting a proposed Initial Study and a Mitigated Negative Declaration, based on a legal ad in the Tahoe Daily Tribune. I’m here to give you a preview of what I may comment on at that meeting.

First, I want to inform you that the Notice of Intent issued by the City staff for the environmental document was flawed. Fatally, in my view, by allowing a public comment period of only one or two days when 30 days is required under the California Environmental Quality Act. The apparent error was repeated in the public notice in the Tahoe Daily Tribune and the Notice of Intent on the City’s website. Thus a hearing on the matter and adoption is legally improper. Dated April 3rd, the NOI, the Notice of Intent, says the review period for the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration starts on April 3, 2026 and ends on May 5, 2026. Comments will be accepted on the Initial Study/Negative Declaration until 5 pm on April 5, 2026. That’s two days. So there’s no getting around the implication that the public gets two days to comment, while the City gets 30 (what… what…) 30, 40 days for administrative processing. The correction is simple. An environmental document must be reissued for public review with the hearing for adoption postponed accordingly.

Response to Comment I2-1:

This comment identifies a typographical error in the NOI pertaining to the public comment period for the IS/MND. The comment requests reissuance of the NOI and extension of the public review period for the Draft IS/MND. In response to this comment, the City reissued the NOI on May 1, 2026 and extended the public comment review period to allow for a minimum of 30 days for public comment, in accordance with CEQA Guidelines § 15105(b). No further response is required.

Comment I2-2:

I have substantial disagreements with the conclusions in the environmental document as well, but with two days to comment, I was foreclosed from commenting by the time I read the newspaper ad. There would be no point in commenting since the public comment period was legally closed. I would say that this project requires an environmental impact report anyway due to cumulative effects. You see, no person… no agency seems to understand anything about cumulative effects with respect to the physics and biology of Lake Tahoe. No agency has studied or issued any reports on cumulative effects. There is the UC Davis Research Group and the ongoing State of the Lake reports. And really that is all that is needed to show that Lake Tahoe has been and continues to be significantly affected by development and that many project effects, if not all, are cumulatively significant because Lake Tahoe water quality has only deteriorated significantly since measurements began. This despite all the thousands of projects that have been approved basin-wide with no findings of significant effects. It’s all a 801
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 36 failure to recognize Lake Tahoe restoration is less than zero. Far less. The only option under the law, I see it, requires that you’ll have to do an EIR, an Environmental Impact Report, and make findings of overriding considerations that the project, recreation and economic development, is more important than Lake Tahoe water quality and so some significant effects must be allowed. That’s the choice. Negative Declaration isn’t going to suffice. That’s the gist of what I came to tell you and to request that you postpone the May hearing.

Response to Comment I2-2:

The comment expresses concern that the Project may be cumulatively considerable with respect to water quality impacts to Lake Tahoe and requests preparation of an EIR. This comment precedes written correspondence from this commenter that is provided as Comment Letter I4 and refers to the Annual State of the Lake Report conducted by the Tahoe Environmental Research Center as evidence of significant deterioration. Contrary to statements made in this comment and including statements from the 2025 State of the Lake Report that are referred to more specifically in Comment Letter I4, the report states on page 11.1 that “the long-term trend over the past two decades suggests that lake clarity is neither significantly improving nor declining. The system appears to be in a relatively stable state….” In addition, the State of the Lake Report 2025 goes on to acknowledge that a variety of factors could affect lake clarity and other conditions (including water quality) like recent wildfires that result in ash and smoke deposition within the Tahoe Basin (see page 9.6). As such, this comment does not present evidence of a cumulatively significant impact that was not evaluated as part of the Draft IS/MND because the baseline analyzed in the IS/MND considers the long-term trends with respect to Lake Tahoe’s water quality and recent wildfires. In addition, a key purpose and objective of the Project is to enhance environmental protections in the area and for the Tahoe Basin. This includes both during construction and with operation of the Project and would be accomplished through compliance with existing regulations (e.g., regulatory permitting, the Tahoe Construction General Permit, a site-specific stormwater pollution prevention plan [SWPPP], etc.).

As no new significant or substantially more severe environmental impacts are identified in this comment, preparation of an EIR and/or amendment of the Draft IS/MND in response to this comment is not warranted.

Comment Letter I3: Lisa Hodges – May 26, 2026
Comment I3-1:

I am writing in regards to the Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project as a member of the South Lake Tahoe Windjammers Yacht Club. The South Lake Tahoe Windjammers Yacht Club supports responsible reinvestment and modernization of the marina. Our goal is to ensure that the local boating community remains part of the long-term vision for Tahoe Keys Marina. For decades, the Tahoe Keys Marina has been a cornerstone to boating access to Lake Tahoe from the south shore, providing a launch ramp and hoist, dock storage, fueling and pump out services, and access for competitors visiting from out of town during regattas. It is essential for the longevity of our organization that the redevelopment plan maintains or improves launch access for sailboats via a new ramp or crane. By preserving services for sailboat access to Lake Tahoe, Tahoe Keys Marina will support an active local boating community that provides stewardship, education, and camaraderie.

Response to Comment I3-1:

The comment expresses support for the modernization of TKM. The comment does not address the adequacy or conclusions of the Draft IS/MND; therefore, no further response is required. However, this comment is noted 802
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 37 and has been included in the record for consideration by the City Planning Commission as part of its consideration of the Project.

Comment Letter I4: Alan Miller – May 30, 2026
Comment I4-1:

Executive Summary:

An Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required due to significant and potentially significant adverse effects on the environment, reasonably foreseeable direct and indirect significant or potentially significant adverse effects and cumulative adverse effects with other projects. Mitigation for all significant effects is not always feasible, and that may be the case with this Project. The EIR process provides an avenue to approve of the Project despite the above if impacts and mitigation measures are further studied and developed and overriding circumstances are applicable, as found by the lead agency. The environmental documentation presented is legally deficient and insufficient to support a finding of no significant environmental effect, thus an EIR is required.

Response to Comment I4-1:

The comment expresses support for the modernization of TKM. The comment does not address the adequacy or conclusions of the Draft IS/MND; therefore, no further response is required. However, this comment is noted and has been included in the record for consideration by the City Planning Commission as part of its consideration of the Project.

Comment I4-2:

Planning Framework
The City of South Lake Tahoe (City/lead Agency) has presented an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for adoption by the City Planning Commission (PC) under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for some proposed changes at the existing Tahoe Keys Marina (TKM). The IS/MND was prepared by NCE, a private consultant for the City, and the City has made a Finding of No Significant Effect (FONZE) for the Project based on the IS/MND. Keep in mind the purpose of the IS/MND is to evaluate reasonably foreseeable potential adverse changes to the existing environment and mitigate any such direct and indirect effects so that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) entailing a greater level of analysis and mitigation measure development is not required. Thus, the City and NCE are soliciting input on the IS/MND and proposed FONZE from other agencies and interested members of the public such as me to assess whether all potentially significant impacts are identified and mitigated to support a FONZE. In my expert opinion I assert the FONZE is not supported under the requirements of CEQA and an EIR is thus required. I am happy to explain my views herein.

Commenter Credentials
I am Alan Miller, a professional civil and environmental engineer, a former Chief of the North Basin Regulatory Unit with the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board until my retirement in 2018. My specialties include water quality control and solid waste management. Among my many duties for those 25 years of public service on behalf of water quality was regulating the twelve marinas on the California side of Lake Tahoe, issuing and enforcing waste discharge requirements (permits) under state and federal laws applicable to the marina industry, issuing dredging permits, reviewing reports, conducting inspections and water monitoring, taking enforcement actions, responding to spills and emergencies, and reviewing project documentation much like this 803
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 38 for projects under CEQA, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) system of environmental review for projects in the Lake Tahoe basin (which is neither CEQA nor NEPA). I have over 49,000 hours of professional work as a water quality regulator for the Lahontan Water Quality Board, not including my five years at University and substantial post-retirement activist work since 2018.

At the outset, let me state that I am not against boating, in general, or fun on the water. My father owned a speedboat which we used on the Mississippi River and other large rivers and I later lived on the shore of Clear Lake, Iowa, with a private dock at my family house and recreational boats of all kinds. I was a water skier before I was a snow skier. I crewed and skippered on the Lahontan Water Board vessel and crewed on sailboats on Lake Tahoe.

At the same time, I know first-hand that recreational boating is not without its impacts. Marinas are the industrial side of it, including maintenance and repairs of various kinds involving industrial products like oils and hydraulic fluids, abrasives and hull paints, waxes, cleaning agents, fueling and spills, sanitary wastes, hydrocarbon emissions and discharges, aquatic invasive species proliferation and more. There is much to consider that generally goes unconsidered or that is discounted as “insignificant.” In addition, there is a lot of activity that occurs that is difficult to manage or control with the recreational boating public. Greater boater awareness of their impacts is needed so that they may be better managed and prevented or reduced. These would be things like impacts from cleaning and waxing boats on the water, discharges of contaminants in bilge water (there is no collection systems for treatment), improper sanitary waste disposal, sanding and painting vessels onsite, not reporting spills of fuel or other wastes to waters, litter and barbecue ash overboard, playing music at excessive volume to overcome engine noise, discharging heat from cooling water (i.e., from engine maintenance) to natural waters, etc., etc. The environmental documentation fails to describe management or other controls to reduce or prevent impacts for such foreseeable activities and that is needed.

Response to Comment I4-2
The comment presents the commenter’s understanding of the Project, as well as his professional background (including with CEQA/NEPA) and familiarity with boating. The comment also refers to a Finding of No Significant Effect or FONZE as the comment states. However, a FONSI is appropriate within the context of NEPA or a FONSE within the context of TRPA jurisdiction. A FONZE, as referred to in this comment, is not a document or formal determination within the context of CEQA and the IS/MND for the Project. The City has not made a FONZE determination with respect to the Project. Section 4.10 of the IS/MND analyzes hydrological and water quality impacts related to debris and stormwater runoff into Lake Tahoe. The commenter’s general opinion regarding the appropriateness of an IS/MND is noted, but the comment does not address the adequacy or conclusions of the Draft IS/MND. Therefore, no further response is required.

Comment I4-3:

Nature of the Comments
I am going to write a lot of comments with the objective of disclosing the significant and potentially significant effects of the Project as I see them, with the understanding that if the potential adverse effects are not known no mitigation will apply and so the adverse effects no one wants or anticipates are more likely to occur. I will mainly comment on what is missing from the document that makes it deficient rather than line-by-line nitpicking. I’m not seeking to “pile on” for bulk and if I don’t comment on something I probably don’t have a significant concern with it. My experience tells me this Project will be approved one way or another, so 804
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 39 whatever impacts occur may be long-lasting and widespread if not mitigated. I seek to prevent adverse effects before they occur so people aren’t harmed and so ad hoc and lame mitigations don’t have to be developed later, or not at all.

I will write from first-hand experience with the Tahoe marinas, including TKM, as well as a host of other related topics. For instance, I assisted to write the Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (Basin Plan) cited in the IS/MND and had thorough familiarity with the Lake Tahoe Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) regulations developed to reverse the ongoing and uninterrupted degradation of Lake Tahoe clarity, including since the regulations were adopted by the Lahontan Water Board in 2012. I supervised the staff that wrote the current operating permit for the Lake Tahoe marinas, Board Order No. R6T-2016-038, a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit for storm water discharges from industrial activities associated with marina operations (Marina General Permit). Thus, my opinions are based on expertise with engineering and water quality gained from my university education and state credentialing and service, as well as significant postretirement engagement on certain environmental issues.

Most notably issues that concern me here include microplastics from unaddressed sources within Lake Tahoe, namely, the plastics associated with shoreline structures, the marina industry and the recreational boating industry in general. I have also opposed the unfettered rollout of wireless technologies for telecommunications and internet service that has adversely altered the Tahoe basin ecology and environment in ways unexamined by any agency, most notably TRPA—which has legal jurisdiction over any “activity” that may adversely affect the Tahoe environment and has failed to exercise that authority over the telecommunications industry in an abject and unreasonable disregard for duty under law and abandonment of the public trust. The purpose of mentioning that here is not to revisit the past and TRPA’s many failings, but to bring the public record from the past forward with specific regard to this Project at the existing TKM. Most pointedly, the TKM is currently the site of a cellular macrotower as mentioned (but not rendered pictorially) in the IS/MND, probably because it is ugly and out-of-place except that TKM is an industrial site. It also happens to be adjacent to and adverse to the most important water quality feature in the entire Tahoe region, the scenic Upper Truckee River and Marsh, under active and ongoing restoration by the CA Lake Tahoe Conservancy (CTC) to protect Lake Tahoe.

Response to Comment I4-3
The comment presents additional information regarding the commenter’s professional background, and the commenter’s opinion regarding microplastics and existing operations at TKM. The comment does not address the adequacy or conclusions of the Draft IS/MND; therefore, no further response is required. However, this comment is noted and has been included in the record for consideration by the City Planning Commission as part of its consideration of the Project.

Comment I4-4:

Introductory Remarks on the Project and Documentation
I am going to make some introductory remarks to frame the issues as I see them for this Project and then review and comment on specific parts of the IS/MND I find to be deficient (less on its included effect Checklist). This may be with regard to objective standards, incomplete or missing relevant information, missing or dismissing adverse effects, or effects otherwise objectionable to me based on “fair argument” about “reasonably foreseeable adverse effects ” I will present. I will augment the public record with regard to the TKM, its past and history, and the predictable effects of continued operations under the proposal to expand the built 805
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 40 improvements at TKM as desired by the new owner/operator and boating public TKM serves. I will show the Project approval as proposed will have significant and potentially significant effects on water quality, public access, public recreation areas, and the ecology of Lake Tahoe and why the only legitimate avenue to legal approval of the Project, if there is one, is through completion of an EIR.

I have written, “Keep Tahoe pure; microplastics endure. Use wood, metal and stone in the shorezone.” I have a different vision for the TKM and boating in general at Lake Tahoe, which has a truly world-class level of contamination with microplastics based on sampling of open Lake areas; I suspect based on my expertise and sampling that microplastics levels in the Tahoe Keys are much worse, and the TKM Lagoon and sediments are loaded with some of the most toxic plastics such as polyvinyl chloride (PVC) from the plastic-composite docks recently replaced. On that basis I would like to encourage and see something like a return to boating in the 1950s era, before plastics saw widespread uses in the boating industry.

I want elegant wood, metal, stone and glass to replace the plastics in the shoreline structures and wooden and metal boats on the waters. The “classic” and beautiful wooden boats could be revived at Lake Tahoe, and metal like the steamships of old or modern steel and aluminum, to become the norm. The plastic has to be removed.

Lake Tahoe is already degraded by soil particles and algae but, as bad as that is, it is nothing compared to impairing the waters for drinking, wildlife and other purposes with long-lived toxic contaminants such as the microplastics at extraordinary levels. Such are the unexamined impacts from boating on water quality due to microplastics that will be very difficult to reverse in Lake Tahoe. My vision is a major tweak to what exists but not unattainable over time, even within the scope of the proposed Project. In that way the ongoing effects of plastics could be reduced and eventually eliminated as sources. The largest sources of microplastics at TKM, other than plastic boats, have been removed but the legacy of plastic mismanagement remains in the sediment and waters. These are all ideas to mitigate the past harms going forward.

Response to Comment I4-4
The comment expresses preference for the use of wood, metal, stone, and glass within shoreline structures, as well as wooden and metal boats, instead of plastic materials. The comment also states that significant environmental impacts will be identified in subsequent comments. However, this comment does not address the adequacy or conclusions of the Draft IS/MND; therefore, no further response is required. However, this comment is noted and has been included in the record for consideration by the City Planning Commission as part of its consideration of the Project.

Comment I4-5:

The IS/MND is somewhat to very misleading about what the PC is being asked to approve. I visited the TKM in May 2026 and saw that many redevelopment activities at TKM have already been completed. Examples include that floating dock surfaces and floats have been replaced with new concrete and plastic, respectively, all the gangways have been replaced, and this is described in IS/MND 2.1.1. The sheet-pile bulkheads have been replaced around much if not all of the TKM perimeter, new paving has been constructed in the boat storage and area and there are probably other things that have less obviously been “repaired and replaced” or modified. At the same time the closed Fresh Catch restaurant (slated for demolition, see below) is left to rot, its paint peeling and flaking off into the soil and waters adjacent the fueling dock—as it has for years. This approval under CEQA is not needed to demolish the Fresh Catch, as implied. I can understand that nothing appears sensitive in this environment which has been so heavily impacted for so long. As such there is a need to reconcile the former and existing conditions that have been changed piecemeal under City and TRPA approvals. 806
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 41 A general comment is that the IS/MND is not suitable to present in its present form for adoption due to errors, omissions, inconsistencies and contradictions; it is a rather incomplete and confusing jumble, as I’ll explain, with discrepancies between what exists and is proposed, impacts from continued and expanded marina operations unaddressed in any detail and questions on what specifically the PC is approving of with this Project, versus what’s already completed or may be changed later. There is much repetitive redundancy, not all of which is internally consistent. These deficiencies should be remedied with an EIR for the Project that is clear, current with existing conditions and development progress, and consistent.

Response to Comment I4-5
The comment expresses concern regarding the presentation of information in the Draft IS/MND and perceived implementation of components of the Project already. Contrary to statements made in this comment, none of the components of the Project have been implemented to date as they are awaiting consideration of approval by the City. That said, the Project area is an active site and does require maintenance, which may include targeted repaving and other repairs. It is also important to note that dock replacement is not part of the Project, nor is it evaluated as part of the Draft IS/MND. Some realignment of the existing docks may be necessary during construction of the replacement boat launch and was contemplated as part of the IS/MND.

The comment states that certain errors and redundancy are present in the Draft IS/MND that should be remedied through preparation of an EIR. However, this comment does not identify any perceived errors, omissions, or inconsistencies, and no further response is required. The Draft IS/MND has been prepared in accordance with CEQA requirements and reflects a consistent baseline of existing conditions against which the potential physical environmental impacts of the Project are evaluated.

Comment I4-6:

Storm Water Management
Construction Activity
The statewide Construction Activity Storm Water General Permit does not apply and should be stricken at several locations, along with supporting text if inapplicable. The correct permit is the Tahoe Construction Activity Storm Water General Permit also referenced in several locations in the IS/MND, an internal inconsistency that riddles the document. The Tahoe “CGP” is a zero-discharge permit with regard drainage leaving the construction site for the first inch of rain. How will that requirement be met during demolition and construction?
Response to Comment I4-6
The comment states that the General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction and Land Disturbance Activities does not apply to the Project. The comment does not identify specific references to this permit within the Draft IS/MND with which the comment disagrees. The only location within the IS/MND that refers to the statewide General Permit is Section 2.5.3 of the Draft IS/MND, which outlines construction controls that would be implemented as part of the Project. As the statewide General Permit was used as the basis for development of the General Permit for Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction in the Lake Tahoe Hydrologic Unit, it’s use in this context is considered appropriate. Further, the RWQCB in Comment L1-2 above identifies coverage under the statewide General Permit as one of the permits that would be required for the Project. Amendment of the text of the Draft IS/MND is not required. 807
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 42 Comment I4-7:

Marina General Permit
See https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/lahontan/water_issues/available_documents/#permits for the Marina General Permit. There is no indication that anybody on the developer side or consultant has any awareness of these Marina General Permit requirements, nor any indication that the current owner has obtained coverage by completing a notice of intent to comply. I can’t vouch for the prior owner of TKM, but assume it was covered.

The Permit is a shield from liability and discharges of industrial storm water as may have occurred without an NPDES Permit may be subject to substantial civil liability. The “discharger” may contact Lahontan Water Board staff, make an appointment to review files, get Marina General Permit coverage. They’ll work with the Project proponent.

The Marina General Permit wasn’t mentioned in the whole IS/MND write-up. It is a wonder to me that the IS/MND is touting improved storm water management as an objective of the Project—with no details provided—but the industrial storm water requirements have been in place for many years. The TKM had gravel trenches for the buildings and parking lots since the 1990s era anyway, and an area for managing dredged materials and associated wastewater. I have no doubt the existing “Best Management Practices” need maintenance and refurbishment/upgrades.

Response to Comment I4-7
The comment expresses concern regarding the lack of specific mention of the Marina General Permit (Order No.

R6T-2016-0038). The Draft IS/MND does refer to waste discharge requirements that would apply to the Project, which would include compliance with the Marina General Permit. Refer to Response to Comment L1-5. For clarity, the following text has been added after the third full paragraph on page 91 of the Draft IS/MND:

Marina General Permit
The Marina General Permit (R6T-2016-0038) regulates stormwater discharges and minor construction activities at commercial marinas within Lake Tahoe. The Marina General Permit regulates industrial stormwater discharges from marina operations, stormwater discharges from parking lots, and other activities associated with marina operation. The permit requires implementation of BMPs and may require additional documentation beyond the NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit for the Lake Tahoe Basin, including a Marina Pollution Prevention Plan (MPPP), a Discharger Monitoring Plan (DMP), and a Marina Surface Water Monitoring Plan (MSWMP).

The above-listed change does not constitute substantial new information, as defined by the State CEQA Guidelines Section 15073 as it does not result in a new or substantially more significant impact. Further, as noted by the RWQCB in Response to Comment L1-5, the Project would seek coverage under the Marina General Permit as part of the permitting for the Project and prior to initiation of construction. The applicant would work with the RWQCB to prepare any necessary updates to the plans identified in this comment, including a MPPP, DMP, and MSWMP. As such, recirculation of the Draft IS/MND is not required under CEQA.

Comment I4-8:

Storm Water Mitigation Lacks Details
I wrote that no details of storm water management and treatment systems are provided to describe how “mitigation” for pollutants will function to reduce impacts on the constrained site during and after build out. 808
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 43 Mere assertions that the developer will do this or that to comply with permits gives no assurance that requirements can actually be met, thus deficient mitigation is proposed based on assertions and no discussion of site constraints or how storm water requirements will be met, at least at a conceptual-design level. Given the proposal to import 3500 cubic yards (CY) of foreign fill material to raise the foundations of the building by 2.5 feet perhaps there will underground storage chambers for storm water retention but that is a pure guess because there is nothing other than assertions about improved storm water systems, and that is the extent of it.

I note that pdf p24 indicates TRPA has classed the Project site as Land Capability Class 6, the highest for development. The Project site is filled, compacted meadow. The Class 6 designation is artificial. In the area near the TKBHA parking lot and the Water Tank and Storage Facility I recently observed water levels two feet or less below grade. That is generally not consistent with Class 6 land. Class it how you want but the constraints with ground water are real, not artificial. Typically, five feet of separation is required from storm water system infiltration surfaces and potential ground water elevations and there is no indication in the IS/MND of how that will be met with two feet to ground water, at least in some areas.

The environmental documentation needs to demonstrate how and where the storm water will be managed on the site, including snow and snowmelt. No collection systems and flows paths for storm water are provided in the IS/MSD to demonstrate how applicable requirements will be met on the Project site such that impacts will be mitigated, versus just writing that “Best Management Practices” will be applied. Which BMPs and where is the question, at least enough to demonstrate impacts will be mitigated. It is another deficiency of the IS/MND that must be remedied.

Response to Comment I4-8
The comment requests additional information regarding stormwater facilities and notes that the lack thereof is a deficiency of the IS/MND. Contrary to statements made in this comment, the level of detail presented in the Draft IS/MND is consistent with the current level of design. Through compliance with applicable requirements, including NPDES, the Tahoe Construction General Permit (as referred to by the commenter), and the Marina General Permit, on-site stormwater flows will be collected and managed. The City may expect that the agencies with jurisdiction over stormwater, hydrology/water quality and hazardous materials impacts will satisfy their legal obligations. Oakland Heritage Alliance v. City of Oakland (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 884, 906. Refer to Response to Comment O2-4 for additional information regarding the proposed on-site stormwater collection system. Based on the current design drawings for the Project, adequate stormwater capacity would be available within the Project area to accommodate the projected stormwater flows associated with Project development.

This will be verified through further design and review by the City and RWQCB, as appropriate, and at such time, site-specific BMPs would be finalized and required during implementation of the Project. Further presentation within the context of the IS/MND is not required.

Comment I4-9:

With the Fresh Catch closed for years and little boating activity in the colder months the TKM has had limited need for plowing and storing snow. That is the existing environment. It appears that could all change to yearround operations even if boating activity is minimal in winter conditions. The Project needs a management plan for snow storage so that snow removal and storage does not adversely impact soil, groundwater or surface waters, and so that snowmelt either infiltrates the soil in designated areas. Will snow be removed from the piers for winter access? During construction? If so, in what manner, i.e., shoveled or blown into the water with a snowblower, “Bobcat” grader, other, and what are the potential impacts and mitigation measures? 809
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 44 In addition, consideration needs to be given to where snow is going to be stored with the changes proposed to paving and circulation patterns and year-round commercial operations. Dredging has often been conducted in the “off-season” when boaters are fewer. If that will occur, how will wastes, site access and public access be managed? It is not acceptable to bypass storm water treatment systems and push snow from the parking areas or building roofs into the TKM Lagoon. It is not acceptable to fill surface basins (with none shown) or other retention systems for storm water with snow and ice (or dredging wastes and wastewater) if capacity for treatment and or storage of liquid water is adversely affected. Cove East sees much use by winter visitors and with no sidewalks along Venice drive the environmental documentation needs to demonstrate how potential impacts to public health and safety will be mitigated during winter conditions while maintaining public access under the proposed changes to prevent significant effects. See additional comments related to parking/public access and dredging in sections that follow.

Response to Comment I4-9
The comment requests further information regarding snow storage within the Project area. With respect to snow storage within the Project area, refer to Response to Comment L1-8. With respect to dredging, refer to Response to Comment L1-4.

Comment I4-10:

Fire Water Storage and Management
With the water storage mentioned (pdf p24), my experience is that potable water tanks need to be drained at times for cleaning or maintenance or to refresh the contents or tested for fire flows. Where will the 500,000 gallons of water (or portion thereof) be discharged in that event? STPUD generally won’t accept that to the sanitary sewer due to pumping costs, dilution at the treatment plant, etc. Chlorinated water is toxic to aquatic life and can’t be discharged to surface waters unless dechlorinated. Certain “clear water” discharges can be covered under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit from the Lahontan Water Board that outlines requirements. What are the plans and mitigation measures? Such “clear water” waste discharges should not be to systems designed to store and treat storm water unless excess capacity is provided and they are designed for that joint function.

Response to Comment I4-10
The comment requests additional information regarding the maintenance of water tanks associated with the Project. The specific details regarding the manner in which stored water would be removed and appropriately discharged from the proposed on-site water storage tanks will be determined as part of the NPDES permit process. These details are an operational consideration to be determined if the Project is approved and in cooperation with the RWQCB and other entities, as appropriate.

Comment I4-11:

CEQA Exemptions
I want to write a few things about CEQA exemptions. They don’t necessarily imply “no adverse effect.” For example there are “Categorical” exemptions for things like “existing facilities” and there are plenty of those that have had, and continue to have, very significant adverse effects— not the least of which is the TKM. Whether statutory or categorical an exemption means simply the CEQA law does not apply. Even so, if there are impacts they are often mitigated under permits, etc., not CEQA. There are some cases where a categorical exemption 810
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 45 may not apply due to specific circumstances, subject to challenge against agency determinations. For instance, CEQA exemptions have been applied to past maintenance dredging activities. I no longer think that’s appropriate due to contamination problems as further discussed herein.

A discretionary project under CEQA requires evaluation of its potential environmental impacts under CEQA provisions and case law. If the developer wanted to be exempt from CEQA it could likely repair and replace the existing facilities and even build limited “new small structures” and operate the TKM much as TKM has operated for many decades. As stated, the new owner has already accomplished some of that and may continue to operate the TKM as such without approval of the Project.

I have concerns with the new plastic pier floats at TKM as the new ones are not unlike those replaced, a plastic shell filled with polystyrene plastic. My concern is due to relatively high levels of microplastics in Lake Tahoe but the replacements are already done under City exemptions from CEQA and/or as approved by TRPA as a settlement for violations of its Code or permit for TKM. The pier replacements were badly needed to abate rotting plastic piers and broken floats that persisted for many years, delivering microplastics directly to the waters, but only wood, metal and stone should have been used. There is no discussion of any of this in the IS/MND, nor any indication that the pier/dock replacements have already been made to abate plastic pollution effects. Such missing narratives are a part of the picture needed to evaluate effects based on the existing environment.

With the dockside improvements completed, the IS/MND focuses only, and improperly, on the “landside” improvements proposed on pdf p 3, except for the sheet-pile bulkheads mentioned; like the replaced piers the bulkheads are proposed as part of the Project, but have already been replaced with whatever environmental effects they carry under the exemptions granted or trespassed. It appears the metal sheet piles are painted.

Paint can flake off and may contain micro- and nanoplastics. The new bulkheads appear to be robust engineered structures but they do encroach on and have filled portions of the “waters of the state” within the TKM, and ordinarily the effects of such deletions of state waters are required to be “mitigated” and offset by creating permanent new “waters of the state” or restoring degraded WOS, e.g., by a factor of 1.5 or greater (see prohibitions in the Basin Plan). The IS/MND (pdf p17) indicates, “The Project would involve replacing approximately 1,600 linear feet of the existing sheet pile bulkhead. . .” six inches wide, so that is 800 square feet where critters may no longer dwell and natural processes cease. To offset, 1200 square feet of “new” state waters ordinarily must be provided for mitigation of the loss, at a minimum, and there are various means for that. The IS/MND is deficient for omitting mitigation requirements, and pdf p24 indicates there are still bulkheads to be installed with removal and relocation of the boat ramp. Will that involve additional loss of WOS? No mitigation is proposed for the temporal loss of functions in these areas. But again, the IS/MND does not disclose that the bulkheads in most areas are already done, without any mitigation requirement noted and no mitigation required. What is exempt and what is not, subject only to other required approvals? What is the PC being asked to approve from the IS/MND versus what is exempt? It’s hard to tell from the IS/MND. Can the PC disapprove the bulkheads or require mitigation, or leave it to some other agency to provide the mitigation somehow, piecemeal down the line? Did Lahontan Water Board and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers approve the bulkhead replacements? I suspect this bulkhead replacement without mitigation simply got overlooked without a thought and it’s doubtful that any other person/agency will notice a violation of a Basin Plan prohibition has occurred, including the Lahontan Water Board staff. See additional comments related to the Project Description below.
811
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 46 Response to Comment I4-11
The comment requests additional information regarding the replacement of the existing bulkhead. As noted in Section 2.4.8 on page 17 of the Draft IS/MND, the bulkhead replacement to be conducted as part of the Project would consist of placing new sheet piles in front of the existing sheet piles. It is unclear what the commenter is referring to, but no components of the Project have been implemented to date. The Tahoe Keys Property Owners Association who owns a majority of the bulkhead within the lagoon has separately, and completely unrelated to the Project, replaced bulkhead on property wholly owned by the Association. Should the Project be approved, the applicant will prepare permit applications that include the bulkhead replacement (only on land owned by the Tahoe Keys Marina) for review, negotiation, and approval by the RWQCB and USACE. Refer to Response to Comment I4-5 for additional information. Further, dock replacement is not a component of the Project and statements related to microplastics associated with existing and/or replacement docks do not pertain to the Draft IS/MND. Boating is a permitted use for the site and the Project does not include an amendment to that use. Therefore, the type of boating that should be allowed on Lake Tahoe is outside the scope of this IS/MND.

Comment I4-12:

Antidegradation Requirements and Wastes from Continuance and Expansion of Uses The Project is a major redo of the largest marina on Lake Tahoe, the developer “going BIG” with new large structures and expansions of commercial land uses, several eateries where one closed eatery exists, a boat sales showroom and other amenities not currently present on the Project site. Given the history, context and setting I think it is almost absurd to consider a FONSE for this Project on its face, with all the historic and ongoing OUTSIZED impacts of the Tahoe Keys and its Marina on the Upper Truckee Marsh, the Upper Truckee River, on Lake Tahoe—with its ever declining water quality. There is a huge legacy of unabated impact that will only cumulatively expand with the Project as planned. The IS/MND glosses over the history with a line or two as if only what is written is germane. I will go on to show why the past has further bearing on this Project and requires greater scrutiny than one might anticipate.

I acknowledge that I possess specialized and specific knowledge of the industrial facility the planners do not possess, and that is what I’m offering. I’m not faulting them on that account. I will add that I hold the developer harmless in all that follows, assuming good faith with the new owner of TKM, because the owner is not required by law to protect the environment other than by following the laws, agency directives and permits. I appreciate very much the steps that have been taken at TKM to abate the microplastics from the piers. However, the new owner purchased not only the assets but the liabilities and “due diligence” is on the prospective owner, “buyer beware” concerning other constraints and potential liabilities in pursuit of profits.

Response to Comment I4-12
The comment expresses concern regarding the preparation of an IS/MND, given the history of the Project area.

The comment expresses personal opinion regarding the documentation provided but does not directly address the adequacy or conclusions of the Draft IS/MND; therefore, no further response is required. As part of the applicant’s consideration of the Project, various efforts associated with due diligence, including a Phase I ESA, were conducted within the Project area.

Comment I4-13:

Antidegradation Policy For Lake Tahoe And Cumulative Loading 812
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 47 The following is an excerpt from “STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BOARD RESOLUTION NO, 68-16, STATEMENT OF POLICY WITH RESPECT TO MAINTAINING HIGH QUALITY OF WATERS IN CALIFORNIA”:

WHEREAS the California Legislature has declared that it is the policy of the State that the granting of permits and licenses for . . . the disposal of wastes into the waters of the State shall be so regulated as to achieve highest water quality consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the State and shall be controlled so as to promote the peace, health, safety and welfare of the people of the State; and . . . .

WHEREAS the quality of some waters of the State is higher than that established by the adopted policies and it is the intent and purpose of this Board that such higher quality shall be maintained to the maximum extent possible consistent with the declaration of the Legislature; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: l. Whenever the existing quality of water is better than the quality established in policies as of the date on which such policies become effective, such existing high quality will be maintained until it has been demonstrated to the State that any change will be consistent with maximum benefit to the people of the State, will not unreasonably affect present and anticipated beneficial use of such water and will not result in water quality less than that prescribed in the policies.

That official Policy was adopted the year prior to the original Tahoe Regional Planning Act adoption by Congress, aka the TRPA Compact, but State policies do not depend on the Compact or TRPA. Lake Tahoe indeed had existing water quality better than the established policies in 1968 and the Compact could not have been absent from legislative minds. Fifty-eight years on, it is not worth the ink to print the Policy with regard to Lake Tahoe.

The State has not determined that an adverse change would be to the maximum benefit of the people of the State, yet Lake Tahoe’s extraordinary water quality has NOT been maintained. Here follows the record of Lake Tahoe’s ever-declining clarity 1968-2025, a familiar graph as presented by the Tahoe Environmental Research Center. However, I made some additions to show another aspect of the problem we’ve looked at for a long time without seeing.
813
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 48 Namely, the graph may also serve conceptually as a rough record of the cumulative load of pollutants in suspension in the water column, in metric tons times some order-of-magnitude multiplier, specifically unknown.

These load elements would be sediment, nitrogen, phosphorus, algae and other minor constituents, a surrogate total of all, just as clarity is a surrogate measure of overall water quality. I just flipped the left axis to increase values going up. Cumulative graphs generally only increase but here the dips could be attributed to sediments settling between runoff seasons or off-gassing, so it’s a reasonable conceptual model showing the inverse relationship of clarity and cumulative load over the years: as the load increases by tonnage the clarity decreases by feet. Lake Tahoe has an average residence time for pollutants of 600 years and they accumulate faster than they leave, degrading water quality accordingly.

A Brief History related to Water Quality at Lake Tahoe
TRPA was formed in 1969 due to drastic declines in Lake Tahoe clarity based on history (100 feet or more prior to measurements). Also the Lahontan Water Board relocated its main office from Bishop to the City around those concerns. From 1970 to 1980 very little happened while TRPA was figuring out its way forward, enacting regulations, etc., and studying the problems. Then with the regulation enacted TRPA fell into difficulty with disagreements between CA and NV that nearly ended TRPA. The voting procedures for projects were amended in the early 1980s and then came the building moratorium in 1987. Every year since measurements began clarity declines further “on average” from what it was in 1968.

With things restarted the 1990s saw more growth and development, with Factory Stores, Embassy Suites at Stateline then at Ski Run Marina, marina Master Plans, etc., etc. Every year since measurements began clarity declined further “on average” from what it was in 1968. In the early years of the new century it was apparent to the public that more was needed and the laws demanded adoption of a TMDL regulation to restore water quality. During a decade of research to develop the TMDL, every year since measurements began clarity 814
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 49 declined further “on average” from what it was in 1968. When the TMDL was done and implemented circa 2013, many were hopeful it would lead to restored water quality. Every year since measurements began clarity declines further “on average” from what it was in 1968 to now.

The Lahontan Water Board, Nevada Dept. of Environmental Protection, USEPA, TRPA and many others (Congress) claim to be leading the effort to restore Lake Tahoe clarity but every year since measurements began clarity declines further “on average” from what it was in 1968. There is no restoration of water quality happening: Every year clarity declines further “on average” from what it was in 1968 at a rate of about 1.5 feet per year, year after year. That is the opposite of restoration and “antidegradation”: that is further degradation due to cumulative pollutants. At present rates of decline I give Lake Tahoe about 40 more years before clarity is zero based on extrapolating the data. How much longer the agency lies and propaganda can continue in the face of obvious and incontrovertible data is a wonder.

Response to Comment I4-13
The comment expresses concern regarding the commenter’s perceived decline of water quality and clarity within Lake Tahoe. Contrary to statements made in this comment, the report cited in this comment states on page 11.1 that “the long-term trend over the past two decades suggests that lake clarity is neither significantly improving nor declining. The system appears to be in a relatively stable state….” The commenter’s modification of data provided in the cited report is not considered appropriate or valid for the purpose of presenting evidence. No further response is necessary.

Comment I4-14:

Environmental Impact Report Requirements
I spoke to the City Council on April 21, 2026, saying I had some disagreements with the conclusions for this Project, the FONSE, and that an EIR would be required to comply with CEQA. This is due to the cumulative effects of the Project on Lake Tahoe with all the foregoing projects in the region (nearly all approved with a FONSE). The effects, however seemingly insignificant, are cumulatively considerable because every additional increment, however individually limited, is actively causing and contributing to impairment of Lake Tahoe water quality.

In many cases the IS/MND cites permits as “mitigation” measures. However, such permits also allow degradation by adding to cumulative effects. The permit requirements are typically based on so-called “best management practices” and those BMPs are seldom 100 percent effective.

The procedures to overlook or pay lip-service to policies on “antidegradation” and cumulative effects are longstanding agency lies by custom and convention in various guises—and all agencies do it at Lake Tahoe. It is so pervasive it is like a disease so I’ve developed an acronym for it: Governmental Institutional Blindness Syndrome; they’ve all got a bad case of the GIBS. This is how well meaning people are destroying Lake Tahoe without understanding how, though some know.

A permit is a license to degrade the environment in accordance with certain allowances (whether legal or not), just as with the proposed FONSE here accompanied by claims of “no significant effects.” A deficient IS/MND falls short of protection, as does a deficient permit. Issuing a permit doesn’t ensure mitigation. Holding agencies accountable (for proper environmental reviews or permit oversight) through the legal avenues provided is nearly impossible (as they know). Thus, the public is disenfranchised and the environment is not protected. TKM has just been a prime example over the decades of the types of impacts that can be expected even under 815
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 50 permits (also, only as good as enforcement of them). The toxic rotting plastic docks and pier ballasts, other sources of microplastics (e.g., boats), the fuel spills and boats sinking, the toxic dredging I’ll discuss, the bilge discharges, the aquatic invasive species introduced and “managed,” the litter, cleaning products and abrasives, etc., etc., persist despite mitigations and permits. Again, the ongoing impacts of boating at this marina are in general dismissed as insignificant with no analysis of indirect or cumulative effects, not even a word about them in the IS/MND.

Projects with significant environmental effects require evaluation under more stringent EIR requirements, as noted in the IS/MND (Cal. Code Regs. Tit. 14, § 15073.5(d)). With an EIR, if mitigation for some significant effect proves infeasible mitigation measures need not be required: the City can make a Statement of Overriding Considerations. In this case, the City would make an assertion something like, “we’ve done the best we can, as feasible, to limit adverse effects on the environment from the Project as we see them and the existing facilities, and the economic development and recreation fun desired with the Project approval is more important than the need to prevent further impairment of Lake Tahoe water quality and other adverse effects due to the Project.” That is the only defensively honest way to comply with CEQA for a project of this nature; it comes with warts. It won’t remedy the legacy of water quality impacts.

However, I expect the PC may ignore that EIR requirement for this Project and approve it as is with the asserted FONSE. That is because the City appointees and elected Council members can easily take that unlawful step as they and others have time and again, under the direction of their fine staff. It is all in a day’s work because I assert CEQA is badly broken law carried out poorly by planners with limited time and analytical skills serving decision makers who want to get things done under a CEQA law that is totally gamed against informed and concerned citizens such as myself. Public planners HATE EIRs with a passion for the extra time and work involved and so have developed various means to avoid them, namely, ignoring significant effects by ignoring great realities within Lake Tahoe. They also don’t value public input when it impedes their planning and development agendas, thus I may be considered a persona non gratis for expressing my independent views of the adverse effects because I care about Lake Tahoe becoming toxic more than recreational boating and the industry that serves it.

Response to Comment I4-14
The comment expresses personal opinion regarding the willingness of public agencies to prepare an EIR. As noted in Response to Comment I4-2, the City has not and would not prepare a FONSE for the Project with respect to CEQA requirements, as a FONSE is not a finding within the context of CEQA. The comment presents personal opinion regarding why an EIR was not prepared, but the comment does not directly address the adequacy or conclusions of the Draft IS/MND. Therefore, no further response is required.

Comment I4-15:

Predictions; Overview of Planning/Approval Processes
As stated, I know CEQA well and I know quite a bit about Lake Tahoe and the marinas on the CA side, and the other laws in play. I predict that won’t matter. My views presented here won’t be responded to and a Planning Commission and staff with no specific experience related to water quality or marina operations, let alone expertise, will overrule my objections and vote for approval under a FONSE. I can write all I want and the more I write here for the record the more it will be ignored, only to be filed away. I will get three minutes to express my 816
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 51 concerns orally, like others, in a public hearing. That’s just how it is with the GIBS afflictions and the desire to accommodate development and redevelopment.

I’ve described the essence of the City Planning process. The staff has done their thing, in this case with consultant aid, and the lay appointees on the PC will agree with the staff conclusions. One can lodge an appeal to the City Council, they likewise without water quality expertise, or knowledge of or concern for the law.

Appeal fees were recently raised to over three times what they were last year (over $1200). More ways to disenfranchise the public, City Council! BE OPAQUE. Let your City attorney run everything you won’t understand.

City Council will support the PC. When the Appeal is denied litigation can begin, in confidential arenas with merest reporting out to the public. As I see it all over with the GIBS, we have broken agencies implementing a broken law to the detriment of the environment and citizens.

Most people would likely view the IS/MND as credible and sufficient, consistent with practice anyway. While I disagree, I think the City and NCE are putting forth what they see as a diligent effort. That’s the problem at Lake Tahoe, asserting incorrectly that significant impacts are not occurring and accumulating with such FONZEs. The proof is in the water. The City will be on very shaky legal ground with this approval under a FONSE and will have to gamble with the developer that I or others won’t appeal or sue the City and seek a stay against the Project— and recover attorney fees if successful and government misfeasance is shown. This is how CEQA plays out, with the courts generally giving great deferential “weight” to the government decision makers, despite their lack of subject matter expertise. That is why the California environment has been substantially degraded in many ways since 1970 despite CEQA laws on the books. If no one challenges, then crap rules.

City resorts to this legal quicksand often anyway, knowing most people lack the resources and knowledge to sue the City. The best-case outcome of a citizen lawsuit would be a “remand”: a court order requiring the City to prepare an EIR. I support preparing an EIR but suspect an EIR may be as deficient as is this; however, City could make the Findings of Overriding circumstances for legal cover. An EIR is needed, not only to study issues and develop additional mitigations as required, but also to simply stop the lying. Illegal actions and corruption can perhaps be altered if desired, noting the impending and welcomed departure of City Attorney Stroud, but a fundamental lack of suitable analytical skills on the part of all concerned is not fixable by the public under the broken CEQA process and GIBS, with people who don’t listen, understand or care, and that is the reason for the declining clarity graph above.

Response to Comment I4-15
The comment presents the commenter’s personal opinion regarding the process moving forward and the commenter’s belief that an EIR is necessary for the Project. The comment presents personal opinion regarding the City process and does not directly address the adequacy or conclusions of the Draft IS/MND. Therefore, no further response is required. However, this comment is noted and has been included in the record for consideration by the City Planning Commission as part of its consideration of the Project.

Comment I4-16:

Related Planning Efforts
I stated earlier this Project documentation is confusing. At the TRPA Advisory Planning Commission (APC) meeting of May 13, 2026 the APC reviewed and recommend the TRPA Governing Board approve Code amendments based on a staff review of a checklist for environmental effects the agency deems potentially significant, and stating its FONSE to: 1) allow structures with additional height at existing marinas (TKM only) 817
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 52 under stated conditions (with no justification given) and 2) reclassify as “non-arterial” roadway the cul-de-sac end of Venice Drive east of Tahoe Keys Blvd. serving the Tahoe Keys Marina and providing public shoreline access to the Lake Tahoe Conservancy’s Cove East property. These approval recommendations will be forwarded to the TRPA Governing Board for approval, together the TKM Project, at some time in “summer” 2026.

I don’t understand why the City is proposing to approve a project with two-story building heights while TRPA is amending its Code so the Project buildings can go to heights of 38 feet or more. The City had scheduled its public hearing for approving the IS/MND for the TKM Remod for May 14, 2026, but postponed the hearing due to a public noticing error for public comment on the IS/MND. As a result the TKM Project will be heard and approved by City Planning Commission on June 11, 2026. That approval, if granted, will clear the way for staff to issue City permits for construction, pending TRPA approval. But if the City approves a two-story Project (as depicted throughout) can the developer just trot over to TRPA and double it to 42 feet? It’s piecemealing; probably because the City can’t currently approve a building 42 feet high? The TRPA height amendments are pending but my later comments on aesthetics are on the basis the building heights will NOT be two-story.

Following the City approval, I expect TRPA may put a cover sheet on the City IS/MND with a few additional remarks or requirements and approve the TKM Project with its own TRPA FONSE on that basis, and most likely a conditionally-approved TRPA Permit for construction, also. The public will have seven days to comment under fraudulent TRPA rules for such FONSEs. The City anticipated the TRPA Code amendments noted in 1), above, in the environmental documentation to support FONSE claims for building heights to 42 feet. The street classification is apparently not a City concern.
[Both TRPA Code amendments were apparently required in anticipation that TRPA will subsequently approve of the TKM Project, most obviously for the proposed buildings to heights of 42 feet. So the Code amendments were planned “in advance” to conform the Code to the proposed Project rather than together with the Project.

TRPA’s so-called adaptive planning is lame and not planning at all, but responding to development pressure.

They (TRPA and City) must need the FONSE for the Code amendment to assert their FONSEs for the Project. See that the Tahoe Regional Piecemealing Agency is promoting their proposed Code amendment on behalf of this developer and proposal to expand development height potentials, which is the opposite of what is ordinarily required: namely, to conform development to existing Code, norms, and community character. TRPA likely did the amendments opaquely “on its own motion” as they say, and didn’t even charge the developer (as required by Code) for the needed Code amendments in a hidden public-private partnership.] This is a City CEQA document . . . so I’ll set TRPA and their questionable development-enabling policies aside for now except where germane, because City works slavishly and willingly for the TRPA under an illegal Memorandum of Agreement, as was aptly demonstrated on another project approved illegally in the City I appealed approximately one year ago. The appearance is certain, that TRPA and City planners are working with the developer to “grease the skids” to slide this project through the public process with a goal of addressing all potentially significant effects—as they see them through faulty vision, and sticking the public with a load of unaddressed impacts. Documents like this and much worse get approved with FONSEs all over the place, agency staff checking boxes by rote. See the graph. I will go on to assert this City FONSE is unsupported and an EIR is a requirement under CEQA. However, TRPA is an essential subsequent “approver,” with other permits to follow, so I’m noting the TRPA involvement for the public and decisionmakers. 818
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 53 Response to Comment I4-16
The comment expresses concern regarding the process of Project consideration by the City and TRPA. The comment also states that the Project would not be two stories and that the City can’t approve the Project without TRPA’s approval of the height amendment. The comment does not address the adequacy or conclusions of the Draft IS/MND; therefore, no further response is required. However, and with respect to process, the City can conditionally approve the Project, pending approval of the height amendment for the proposed water tank and boat storage facility. Contrary to other statements made in this comment about perceived inconsistencies between heights and the number of stories, the Draft IS/MND states on pages 9 through 16 that the majority of on-site structures to be constructed on-site would be two stories in height. As shown in the last full paragraph of page 16 of the Draft IS/MND, the water tank and boat storage facility would provide three levels of boat storage and is the only proposed structure that would be 42 feet tall. Section 4.1 of the IS/MND analyzes the Project’s aesthetic impacts, including those resulting from the proposed heights. Refer to Response to Comment O2-8.

Comment I4-17:

Comments on the Project Description
California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code, §§ 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA") and the related State CEQA Guidelines (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §§ 15000 et seq.) (the "State Guidelines") provide the legal framework.

To complete the first step of CEQA analysis, an initial environmental study ("IES") must be prepared. State Guidelines, § 15063. That’s what I’m evaluating with this City document: The IES must include a description of the project sufficient to perform a meaningful study of potential significant environmental impacts and necessary measures to mitigate those impacts to a level of insignificance. Ibid. An overriding principle often cited governing CEQA from its inception is that it is “to be interpreted … to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable scope of the statutory language.” Friends of Mammoth v. Board of Supervisors (1972) 8 Cal.3d 247, 259.

This Project sets the stage for the next round of added insults to injuries to Lake Tahoe, while already having remedied some long-standing ills at TKM, with the agencies ignoring significant impacts as always because they somehow don’t see them and so make the problems worse in the long run. Their concern is with getting this application processed today, accommodating development under their deficient planning auspices and pressures, Lake Tahoe without standing. Projects planned like this, and tens of thousands of other projects in even less-sensitive locales, are leading to the inexorable and further destruction of Lake Tahoe ecology and water quality/clarity. Reality not only can be ignored when planning, but must be. These comments show how it occurs to a mostly unsuspecting and uninformed public. City is in support of property and business taxes, developer profits, and marina services for some (boaters) while the people at large (non-boaters) derive no benefit from the further degradation of Lake Tahoe and the region from the Project. It is a “tragedy of the commons,” exploitation and spoiling of the public resource by the few for their benefit, with no one really accountable for oversight.

CEQA defines a project as the “whole of the action” which should be analyzed as the first “essential step culminating in an action that may affect the environment.” Fullerton Joint Union High Sch. Dist. v. State Bd. of Educ. (1982) 32 Cal.3d 779, 797; see Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1975) 13 Cal. 3d 263,282; CEQA Guidelines §15378. CEQA employs the “whole of an action” and piecemealing concepts to ensure environmental documents inform decisionmakers of the full extent of all reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts before project approval.
819
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 54 Union of Medical Marijuana Patients, Inc. v. City of San Diego, 7 Cal.5th 1171, 446 P.3d 317, 250 Cal.Rptr.3d 818 (Cal. 2019) clarified that the test for whether an action constitutes a “project” must take place in the abstract.

The critical holding of the court is that the “likely actual impact of an activity is not at issue in determining its status as a project,” but rather “a proposed activity is a CEQA project if, by its general nature, the activity is capable of causing a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. This determination is made without considering whether, under the specific circumstances in which the proposed activity will be carried out, these potential effects will actually occur.” Put another way, a proposed activity is a CEQA project if it is capable of causing a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. There is no question that the activities described in the CEQA document are a CEQA “project.” The question is what the analysis of “the Project” must extend to in terms of direct and indirect effects on the environment. It is with these concepts in view that I provide the following comments.

Excerpting from page 1 of the IS/MND,
Project Title: Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project (“Project”) Project Location: The Project area, defined as the area where demolition would occur and planned improvements would be constructed, is located at 2435 Venice Drive East . . . The Project area encompasses approximately 16.5 acres comprised primarily of 3 parcels owned by TKSMI . . . portions of the Tahoe Keys lagoon, and City right-of-way (ROW) including Venice Drive East and Tahoe Keys Boulevard ROW from Venice Drive East to Michael Drive. . . . Project Description: Tahoe Keys SMI, LLC (TKSMI) is proposing the redevelopment of the Tahoe Keys Marina (TKM) in order to revitalize the TKM landside facilities and operations. . . .

Subsequent parts and figures of the IS/MND describe the several properties in and around the site in terms of Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) without clear boundaries, and then subsequently refer vaguely to Parcels 1, 2 and 3 without depicting the boundaries of those parcels figuratively anywhere in the IS/MND. This undescribed cross-referencing leaves the reader wondering what is to be approved and where, adds to the deficiencies in the Project description and frustrates analyses. For example, in Figure 2 does the undeveloped APN 022-210-041 encompass all of Venice Drive (developed before City incorporation) with a right-of-way granted to the City, or does the City have ownership rights in the street portion of that APN (zoned residential)? I raise the question because there are no apparent plans for sidewalks with the Project and that is a prime location for absent and needed pedestrian sidewalks and/or bike paths along the street as discussed further below in connection with impacts to existing parking and public access in the areas affected by the Project. The City should require that sidewalks be put in this location of heavy pedestrian use adjacent the street (and throughout the Project area) as mitigation needed to provide public safety as well as an amenity.

Response to Comment I4-17
The comment contends that the Project Description does not describe the whole of the action as required by CEQA and expresses concern regarding the description of parcels in the Draft IS/MND and the potential need for sidewalks and bike lanes. Contrary to statements made in this comment, the Draft IS/MND refers to the three primary parcels to be developed as Parcels 1, 2, and 3 on page 6 of the Draft IS/MND to avoid duplicative statements and reduce representing parcels numbers continuously that differ by one or two digits. APN 022- 210-041 includes Venice Drive East and a portion of the Project area, adjacent to Venice Drive East. The comment does not identify “either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment” resulting from the purported Project Description deficiencies 820
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 55 identified in the comment. The comment also requests that sidewalks be provided as part of the Project, but provides no evidence to suggest that they are necessary. Further, there are no points of connection to existing sidewalk facilities along Venice Drive East or Tahoe Keys Boulevard. As noted on page 121 of the Draft IS/MND, bike lanes are present along Tahoe Keys Boulevard and Venice Drive East although designated striping to separate the vehicle and bike lanes are not provided.

Comment I4-18:

The definition of “project” under CEQA, extends to assessing potential direct and reasonably foreseeable indirect effects the proposed activities that may adversely affect the environment associated with the proposed Project, or “project area,” above. Thus, the “defined” project location where demolition and construction would occur does not define the Project for CEQA purposes, which rightly extends to “portions of the Tahoe Keys lagoon” and the surrounding City streets. Figure 2, the Project Boundary Map, may define the project area for permitting purposes although the potential direct and indirect effects of the Project are not confined to those parcels and boundaries and the analysis must not be so confined either.

I would add that the indirect impacts to be considered also extend to and affect A) the entire adjacent Tahoe Keys Lagoon encompassing the “Tahoe Keys Marina” as it exists today, with its harbor and boat slips, as shared with the adjacent mooring piers and docks of the Tahoe Keys Beach and Harbor Assn. and B) the adjacent Cove East parcel (i.e., by increasing visitation or creating user conflicts with parking/traffic) and the Upper Truckee Marsh and River which the Project is either adjacent to or across Venice Drive from. At least the Biological Study Area included a one-mile radius around the Marina site. Foreseeable effects may include “growth-inducing effects,” a type of indirect effect where, for instance, due to growth in use and visitation at the TKM : 1) more people may become aware of and use the Cove East parcel (e.g., during busy July 4 events), leading to potential conflicts with CTC goals for the restoration of the largest and ecologically most important wetland in the Lake Tahoe watershed, or impacts to parking to access Cove East and the Lake Tahoe shoreline (since close parking is only allowed on the Venice Drive cul de sac adjacent the TKM), or 2) access to Cove East parking may be usurped by TKM users who have no interest in Cove East or River access, thereby impacting general public access to Cove East (e.g., during busy July 4 events and other peak times).

Response to Comment I4-18
The comment requests consideration of indirect impacts beyond the boundaries of the Project area. Consistent with the commenter’s request, the Draft IS/MND did consider the potential for direct and indirect impacts resulting from Project implementation outside the boundaries of the Project area. Examples of this include Section 4.1 (Aesthetics), which included an assessment of off-site views of and through the Project area; Section

4.3 (Air Quality), which included an assessment of regional air quality emissions; and Section 4.13 (Noise), which assessed both construction and operation noise at nearby receptors. The Project’s baseline and cumulative analysis account for the larger context within which the Project site exists. The comment also speculates about the potential for impacts associated with special events, however no evidence is presented to support that this could occur. CEQA (refer to Sections 15144, 15145, and 15384 of the State CEQA Guidelines regarding speculation and forecasting) requires that the evaluation of potential environmental impacts does not speculate regarding conditions that cannot be determined with reasonable certainty at this time, in light of evidence. As such, no further analysis is necessary. With respect to parking along Venice Drive East being used by Projectrelated trips, the Transportation Report prepared by LSC and included as Appendix D did include an assessment of parking availability and concluded that adequate parking would be available on-site during Project operation. 821
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 56 Comment I4-19:

Existing free parking (325 spaces) at the TKM will cease with Project approval. Street parking is currently free, and could be impacted by paid parking (only for customers) planned at the TKM; City could change the environment by enacting parking restrictions on surrounding streets or end up building a parking facility, a growth-inducing effect of the Project leading to more reasonably foreseeable impacts near the Project site. City did just that, constructed a parking facility across Highway 50 from Ski Run Marina after its redevelopment. The very wide Venice Drive exhibits substantial foot and bicycle traffic at peak times and allows parking at the curbs and unimproved adjacent right-of-way.

Notably there is no sidewalk and the street shoulders next to the River are continuously trampled and eroded by foot traffic; or children, pets, bicycles and others must use the street where conflicts and accidents with vehicles, trailered boats and heavy equipment are a safety issue. There is no bike path or even dedicated bikes lanes striped in the street. The bike lanes would be parked on anyway. The IS/MND must analyze and mitigate these and other foreseeable impacts and potential adverse direct and indirect effects on streets and right of ways, public conservation areas at Cove East, and the nearby river and associated meadow areas. It is notably deficient in regard to addressing potential adverse effects on public shoreline access, river access and associated parking in a sensitive area already degraded by inadequate parking and lacking infrastructure for pedestrians.

Venice Drive, adjacent the Upper Truckee River, lacks storm water drainage treatments. (While I understand the City street is not the developer’s responsibility, the changes to the environment (street) due to the Project must be addressed.)
Response to Comment I4-19
The comment speculates that the Project would result in direct and indirect impacts along Venice Drive East.

The Project (as demonstrated above in Response to Comment I4-18) would provide adequate on-site parking for the proposed development. Parking by Project-related visitors along Venice Drive East is not anticipated, nor is the potential for individuals parking along Venice Drive East to affect public shoreline access, conservation areas, etc., considered to be within the scope of the analysis and constitutes speculation. As noted in Response to Comment I4-18, CEQA prohibits speculation, as presented in this comment. Any parking facilities later proposed by the City would be subject to CEQA compliance to analyze impacts from the proposed parking. No further response is necessary.

Comment I4-20:

Boating
The Project proposes activities that may directly affect the environment such as are disclosed in the Project description (demolition/construction) but all of this development presumably has a purpose: to serve the desires of the boating industry; the developer hopes to benefit financially and commercially by providing recreational boaters with a place to buy boats and accessories, get something to eat, launch, store, berth, fuel and maintain their watercraft, and park their trailers and cars. I say “presumably” because that is only implied with the IS/MND. The IS/MND is virtually silent on the potential environmental effects of perpetuating the new and improved (increased) recreational access at the historic TKM that the project will expand and enable for the foreseeable future. The focus is only on direct physical effects of the Project (e.g., construction) and that is a glaring legal deficiency in this case because those boats, the access to them, the operations and storage of them, 822
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 57 has significant and potentially significant effects on the environment the IS/MND omits entirely, on water quality near the Project site and in Lake Tahoe itself.

If the TKSMI wants to close the “waterside” portion of the Project and not allow any boating access, fuelling, berthing, and storage on the water then the potential direct and indirect effects on the environment from those activities can be omitted from the “landside” environmental assessment. Dredging and fuelling and launching won’t be needed. Otherwise, the “whole of the action” for which approval is sought, “the Project,” inherently includes the indirect effects of boating and other activities the “landside” activities are directly designed to support. These include potential adverse effects such as on water quality, aquatic habitats, threatened or endangered species, and noise, and may occur from waste discharges such as plastic and microplastic wastes, hazardous materials and fuel emissions dispensed to the water or spilled from fueling or vessel accidents or sinking vessels, toxic releases from marina dredging, bilge emissions, nuisances from aquatic invasive species management or harvesting, or noise in excess of standards. All of these things are reasonably foreseeable, do occur, and become adverse effects that degrade the environment one cumulative nick at a time. They seldom get addressed, are deemed insignificant by the decisionmaker. When they occur and damage the environment, it is simply accepted as an unavoidable outcome of economic and boating activity and the effects are dismissed as unimportant. I’ve no recollection of any individual boater at Lake Tahoe ever being held liable for a release of fuel or toxins, say from a vessel. Limited cleanups may occur after spills and releases and everyone just moves on. This has occurred countless times at TKM.

Response to Comment I4-20
The comment states that the Project will increase “waterside” activities within the marina. With respect to the potential for the Project to increase boat-related activities, refer to Response to Comment O1-6. The Project, as stated in Chapter 2 (Project Description) is intended to replace aging facilities and infrastructure and better support existing demands of the local community and visitors (refer to page 5 of the IS/MND). The Project would not increase the operational intensity of the marina (refer to Appendix D of the Draft IS/MND). As such, the subsequent statements made in this comment related to impacts from increased boat-related activities within the marina are not considered applicable. No further response is required.

Comment I4-21:

Dredging
I will discuss concerns with dredging below. Why? There is no dredging proposed within the Project description.

The reason is because dredging is a reasonably foreseeable direct effect on the environment that will likely occur, sooner or later, if the Project is approved. It is reasonably foreseeable that maintenance dredging will occur in the future because it has in the past, and likely whenever water levels drop again and/or storms deposit sand in the East Channel out to Lake Tahoe because without dredging boater access to Lake Tahoe may be precluded. The last time the TKM was dredged 13,000 cubic yards (cy) of dredged material was removed (the equivalent of 650 20-cy dump trucks), dewatered to an extent on the TKM site and hauled offsite to an authorized disposal site. The Project proposes new development on the areas formerly used to stage and manage dredging operations. How will dredging be managed in the future to prevent potentially significant effects with bringing more cars and people to the site, like running kids over with 20-cy dump trucks? Will marina operations be shut down during dredging for staging and materials storage? If TKM remains open for business during dredging, how and where will that be managed to prevent adverse effects, e.g., on public parking or access to Cove East?
823
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 58 The purpose of examining effects from “the whole of the project” is to prevent surprises leading to adverse effects that were not considered by decisionmakers though likely and foreseeable. Remember, the activity only has to be capable of causing a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, it needn’t actually occur. In this case the activity is building and operating the Project and that will require periodic dredging, or be capable of causing that likely activity to occur with its undisclosed potential adverse effects from the Project. Whenever the inner harbor and entrance channel was dredged in the past it had major impacts on marina operations and water quality and such effects and changes in operations as may be needed to prevent adverse effects during dredging episodes should be analyzed in an EIR.

Response to Comment I4-21
The comment states that the IS/MND did not evaluate the potential impacts associated with dredging of the existing lagoon and, as a result, it did not consider the Project as a whole. However, and as noted in Response to Comment L1-4, dredging of the lagoon is an ongoing maintenance activity, distinctly separate from the Project.

CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(2) states that the definition of a project does not include continuing maintenance activities. Maintenance dredging of the lagoon underwent separate environmental review and permitting several years ago. As such, it should not and cannot be considered part of the Project, contrary to statements made in this comment. No further response is required.

Comment I4-22:

Contamination Issues - Alum and Microplastics
Backing up to pdf p4, “Hazardous Materials/Waste On-Site: The State of California maintains the EnviroStor and Geotracker databases of known contamination sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Based on the information gathered from these databases, no sites located within the Project area are actively under evaluation, remediation, or verification monitoring.” This cryptic reference is regarding contamination, mainly from hydrocarbons from leaking fuel tanks. Good. No such cases ongoing there. But there is a unique situation in the Tahoe Keys, a largely unrecognized, unexamined and unmitigated site of contamination from a historic legacy and continuing to the near-present. To explain this unique situation I have to provide a bit of history from anecdotal and first-hand accounts, file materials of the Lahontan Water Quality Board and experiences over the years, as best I can recall offhand.

History of Alum Use
Dillingham was the name of the original developer of the Tahoe Keys and made a god-awful mess of the water with its ongoing dredging of the Upper Truckee River Marsh in the early to mid-1960s, back when speculative lots had a hard time selling at $5000 and less. As related to me, to abate the turbidity Dillingham crews were assigned to literally shovel a chemical called aluminum sulfate or “alum” from boats and barges into the water in an attempt to settle the turbid waters in the dredged areas, everywhere that is. Alum is widely used in drinking water treatment to help remove soil particles from water but generally at very low dissolved concentrations safe to humans. It is toxic to aquatic life at higher concentrations, 87 micrograms per liter, if I recall correctly, still pretty low. The bulk discharge from shoveling mass quantities of solid alum (powder) from boats resulted in chemical precipitation and gross contamination of the bottom sediments with alum throughout the Tahoe Keys and TKM as I learned through my work on dredging.

The contamination persists, though the extent and levels are unexamined. It isn’t going away and hasn’t all been dredged out. What I found is there are (or were) residual alum levels in the water (e.g., between dredging 824
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 59 periods) generally below levels considered to produce “chronic toxicity” in aquatic life. Levels are okay for the fish in the water unless the sediments are disturbed, which occurs mainly by dredging. In that case levels can get both chronically and acutely toxic. Based on my experience, dredging by clamshell, dragline or suction can’t occur anywhere in the Tahoe Keys without exceeding alum levels acutely toxic to aquatic life, every time, at least within a relatively contained area such as a turbidity curtain. Then there are the dredged spoils to consider.

They may or may not be hazardous wastes, but they are not natural mud and sand either.

I don’t think the bulk discharge of alum was very effective because the City, incorporated in 1965, thereafter somehow got the developer to build a water treatment facility (south of Tallac Lagoon) with a million-gallon holding tank, not for drinking water, but to reduce the turbidity from dredging. A pumped distribution system from the facility could more-or-less completely circulate and mix the entire water volume of the Tahoe Keys and Marina through the facility in a matter of days; big pumps. The developer operated that and probably added a lot more alum in the process through the completion of the subdivision.

I knew something of this alum use when I reviewed post-1970s dredging records for the Lahontan Water Board in the late 1990s for another proposed “maintenance” dredging project (which is generally exempt from CEQA) by the Tahoe Keys Property Owners Assn. (TKPOA). Back in the early days there were some cooperative dredging projects funded jointly by TKM, TKPOA and/or TKBHA if I recall correctly. My review disclosed that every time the dredging occurred, using the water treatment facility or not, the alum was jacked up beyond toxic levels. The logical inference is that alum deposited and stored in the sediments were stirred up and released every time dredging occurred and/or additional alum was added in the water treatment plant during dredging, resulting in alum concentrations toxic to aquatic life.

So in 1998 I wrote a dredging permit (”waste discharge requirements”) with alum limits and monitoring requirements to protect aquatic life and I put the TKPOA on notice not to add more alum in the treatment plant during dredging. I warned repeatedly that would result in violations. Predictably, TKPOA immediately ignored that warning, ignored their permit, toxified all the waters and aquatic life in the Tahoe Keys and Marina with their dredging, and racked up a potential civil liability (fine) for their violations of $2.68 BILLION if memory serves, a real whopper; big pumps. No matter: One of the Water Board members was also in the TKPOA and had the Executive Officer settle the potential fine with a survey and report on the aquatic life in the Tahoe Keys costing TKPOA around $250,000. (No conflict there?) The study (circa 2000) was the first ever done to begin to examine the aquatic invasive weed problems with objectives to improve control measures beyond cutting and harvesting. However, with the settlement I also convinced the Executive Officer to issue a Cease and Desist Order to TKPOA for the water treatment plant operations to preclude alum additions (that remains in effect to this day so far as I know). The water treatment plant remains and now serves no useful purpose other than to circulate untreated water to reduce stagnation in the lagoons as TKPOA may, including TKM Lagoon, assuming the pumps are still operable.

West Channel Dredging
I want to provide some information from West Channel Dredging in 2014-2016 by the TKPOA with regard to potential TKM dredging. Staff and I prepared the dredging permits for the Water Board (under CEQA exemption, https://ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/2014098167) and, after overcoming management reservations, included limited monitoring of the water for toxicity from aluminum sulfate known to be present in the sediment and likely to be mobilized. Monitoring during the project showed the entire Tahoe Keys Lagoon (West) within the turbiditycurtain enclosure was raised above acutely toxic levels of alum for a period exceeding three days, thus ensuring 825
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 60 toxic effects on biota. Further, the dredged materials were piled on the TKPOA Homeowner’s Beach east of the West Channel entrance (where the kids play) for “beach replenishment” (not my idea). This was done before the water quality violation was discovered, and further testing showed the dredged materials were contaminated with aluminum toxic to aquatic life. Before they could be (or were) ordered removed from the beach, high waves came and washed the materials into Lake Tahoe, where they may remain for up to 600 years or more.

Having foreseen all this, I thought it was a management disgrace. Only Lake Tahoe was punished. Many significant impacts occurred from that CEQA-exempt “maintenance” Project alone, maintaining channels and beaches with toxic materials, spreading the impacts lakewide. “It” happens.

In a lake as big as Lake Tahoe, what’s the harm from a bit of alum? See the TERC graph I presented above. All harms are cumulative. People always assumed Lake Tahoe was too big to affect; it’s actually too big not to affect with every cumulative addition, due to its tremendous storage. What’s more, I now know something I didn’t know when 5600 cy of “sandy sediment” was put out on the beach by the TKPOA. The sediment was not only contaminated with alum, it was contaminated with microplastics.

TKM developed starting in the 1960s. That is when the plastic boats started coming into the Tahoe Keys. Many older plastic boats are still in service, with the plastic surfaces visibly and invisibly unraveling into the water as microplastics. Later, starting circa 1990, the plastic composite decking began to replace wooden piers. Almost all piers in the Tahoe Keys, West and East sides, are now (or were) plastic and shedding microplastics at various rates. I estimated over a million square feet of plastic surface in and over Lake Tahoe, not including any boats. I am attaching a water quality report I prepared last year to further elucidate and back up my assertions herein concerning water quality and microplastics in Lake Tahoe.

Plastic is toxic and persistent in the environment. Older PVC plastic composite materials used to contain deadly lead, and a variety of heavy metals and toxic elements may be used as pigments, or additives to alter other properties. Comprehensive testing of water and bottom sediments is needed to characterize the foreign constituents from alum use, hull paints (e.g., tributyl tin), all types of plastic decay products from the piers and boats, oils, waxes, etc. That’s what I strongly suspect is in the sediments, though use of tin paints was phased out in CA several decades ago and is likely not present at high levels. These toxins are also likely present at lower concentrations in water, but can be released from sediment to water by dredging to contaminate the water, and dredged spoil may require special handling to protect health and safety and the environment, and disposal at a facility designed for such wastes. In addition to alum contamination, contamination by microplastics must be considered in any future dredging projects anywhere in the Tahoe Keys and other locations in Lake Tahoe where plastics have been concentrated since the 1960s (e.g., other marinas).

These matters should be addressed in an EIR. Contact with the waters in the Tahoe Keys may unknowingly expose people, pets and wildlife to contaminants at toxic levels and thereby cause significant adverse effects, and control measures may be provided to mitigate releases and exposures. As noted in the Biological Assessment, the Lahontan cutthroat trout is a threatened species that may be present in the TKM (though certainly not ideal habitat) and in the adjacent better habitats of the Upper Truckee River mouth/Lake Tahoe interface several hundred feet from the East Channel outflow from the TKM. The presence of the plastics and related toxins in the TKM Lagoon is not speculative. They may definitely hamper the substantial and costly efforts of two states, the U.S. Dept. Fish and Wildlife and the Washoe tribe to attempt recovery of this former “keystone” species at Lake Tahoe. I call that significant, whether they realize it or not, and the City has a duty to vet potential adverse effects that is unfulfilled by the IS/MND. 826
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 61 TKM, TKBHA and Microplastics
When I petitioned the TRPA in 2023 to address the adverse effects of the plastics they had approved in the shorezone for decades the TKM was my prime evidence. You can see some ofthe evidence in the attached “Preliminary Photo Report on Deteriorating Plastic Structures at Lake Tahoe” I prepared in May 2023. As a result of the advanced deterioration of the plastics in the TKM prior to replacement I assert with great confidence that the sediments and waters in the TKM Lagoon are contaminated with microplastics, and with macroplastics in the sediments as well. While testing is needed to confirm the levels of contamination, I will relate an anecdote from around 2023 when I was able to have some water samples I took from Lake Tahoe sent to a PhD researcher at Cornell University for analysis at a research lab capable of testing for PVC plastics in water and soils. I collected several water samples in the open waters of Lake Tahoe and one at a location in the West-side TKPOA lagoons to analyze PVC levels. Only the TKPOA sample was remarkable to them and the remark was “screaming hot.” For whatever reasons the research terminated and the analytical result was not made available to me.

On the East side we have a situation where the TKM Lagoon is shared with the TKBHA. The TKBHA has plastic docks that are deteriorating and shedding microplastics. I scratched one and it left a ball of gooey plastic under my fingernail. They aren’t nearly so bad as were the plastics at TKM prior to replacement, but the scale of the TKBHA piers is approximately that of TKM. Last month I sent public interest comments to TRPA that I observed the aged plastic TKPHA piers being replaced—with new plastics. Exempt, you know. Repair and replace. So the contamination with plastics will increase in time, but it’s already too late.

I think it’s only a matter of time until my findings concerning microplastics are verified, as microplastics are being studied at Lake Tahoe. Why haven’t the researchers at Tahoe Environmental Research Center and Desert Research Institute sampled the obvious source areas like the Tahoe Keys for microplastics at Lake Tahoe? I guess you’d have to ask them, with microplastics known in Lake Tahoe since 2019. The agency funding may have something to do with the foot-dragging I’ve seen. I expect the researchers will eventually figure it out because it’s so damned obvious to me that the GIBS must be afflicting those who can’t see it or avoiding seeing it. The agencies may have culpability for allowing the plastics that never should have been allowed but they bear no liability for the contamination in the Tahoe Keys—which isn’t going “away” unless to the open waters of Lake Tahoe.

Both TKM and TKBHA shared to an unknown degree in contaminating the TKM Lagoon with microplastics and both are potentially liable. These two neighbors have wrangled at times in the past, i.e., over dredging and costs, and now the new owner can share in the fun of dealing with TKBHA on the mess created through no bad intentions of anyone when it comes time to dredge again or otherwise address the microplastics pollution in TKM Lagoon under orders or voluntary compliance. The developer shouldn’t be punished for inheriting a mess and the agencies should assist with public funding to abate the plastic mess they’ve enabled by their exemptions and deficient FONZE approvals (as here) for decades with no thought to the environmental fate of the plastics or effects on Lake Tahoe.

Response to Comment I4-22
The comment expresses concern regarding potential contamination associated with dredging, on-site soils, and microplastics. The comment does not address the adequacy or conclusions of the Draft IS/MND. The impacts from microplastics associated with boating activities are beyond the scope of this IS/MND. As noted in Response to Comment I4-21, dredging is not a component of the Project and is appropriately not addressed as such within the Draft IS/MND. As defined by CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(2), maintenance activities are not 827
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 62 considered as part of the definition of a project. With respect to on-site soils, a Phase I ESA was conducted of the Project area and determined that no recognized environmental conditions were present. Additionally, the RWQCB had previously evaluated conditions at the site in 2020 and determined that no further action was required with respect to on-site soils. The comment provides speculation that some unknown contaminants may be present within the soils but does not present evidence to that effect. As noted in Response to Comment I4- 18, CEQA (refer to Sections 15144, 15145, and 15384 of the State CEQA Guidelines regarding speculation and forecasting) requires that the evaluation of potential environmental impacts does not speculate regarding conditions that cannot be determined with reasonable certainty at this time, in light of evidence. As such, no further analysis is necessary. Also refer to Response to Comment O1-4.

Comment I4-23:

Effects on Consumable Fish
It is well-known that marine fishes accumulate microplastics. See screenshot below for example. Lake Tahoe has microplastics at levels exceeding the famed floating “garbage patch” of plastic waste in the gyre of the Pacific Ocean.

Due to extraordinary levels of microplastics contamination in Lake Tahoe’s open waters, I believe the fish are contaminated, especially the larger fish and bottom fish. I believe the contamination in the Tahoe Keys is much worse, as is the contamination of the fish. I disagree with the assertion on pdf p236, “Based on . . . proposed Project impacts, it was determined the Project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect LCT.” The fish are already affected by microplastics and will be further afflicted by the ongoing marina operations until microplastics contamination of water and sediment is further reduced or eliminated.

I often see kids fishing in the Tahoe Keys. I recommend that no one should eat fish from the waters of the Tahoe Keys, children most of all. Rather, the CA Department of Fish and Wildlife should be tasked with developing Fish Consumption Advisories (FCAs) based on what is already known about microplastics in Lake Tahoe. It is not a pristine lake, far from it. It’s all contaminated with microplastics, probably even far worse than known, and the Tahoe Keys is worse by far.

The person who issued this CDFW CEQA Exemption https://ceqanet.lci.ca.gov/2023050488 for the West Channel dredging certainly did not know about microplastics in Lake Tahoe at that time; I doubt anyone did, including me. Interim warnings about fish consumption developed as part of an EIS, signs and such in cooperation with CDFW, could help to protect public health and safety, and also help to educate the public on the microplastics issues at Lake Tahoe. Fishing could be banned in the TKM Lagoon pending further data. This is consistent with the Precautionary Principle to prevent adverse effects until more is known about the toxin levels in fish, the effects of human health, and/or until FCAs are developed.

Response to Comment I4-23
The comment provides statements related to microplastics in fish, including within the Tahoe Keys. The comment is considered beyond the scope of the Project and does not address the adequacy or conclusions of the Draft IS/MND. Therefore, no further response is required. However, this comment is noted and has been included in the record for consideration by the City Planning Commission as part of its consideration of the Project.
828
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 63 Comment I4-24:

Indirect Effects
The IS/MND does not address the indirect effects of “boating” at the TKM in any meaningful way and, together with the limitations in the deficient project description, is insufficient to inform the decisionmakers of the full extent of all reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts before project approval. An EIR must address not only the direct effects of the Project as discussed or omitted in the IS/MND, but also the indirect adverse effects that the IS/MND improperly omits in making its asserted FONSE. The Lahontan Water Board could address the impacts of boating on Lake Tahoe, implement its antidegradation requirements and prohibitions and kick the plastic boats off the lake with due notice and require abatement of the plastics in the shorezone. There is no “right” to discharge wastes to the waters just because it has gone on for a long time, especially in violation of prohibitions and antidegration policies. The Washoe tribe the City pays lip-service to at every City Council meeting would like that, their Environmental Director advocates non-motorized boating. Would you Planning Commissioners honestly look him in the eye and tell him the Project as proposed is the way forward for Lake Tahoe ? What is needed is atonement for the destruction that has been wrought.

But the Lahontan Water Board isn’t going to do that, ban the boats. Not this year or next anyway. It mandated sanitary disposal for boat sewage, backed the TRPA on the needed and precedential two-stroke engine ban some years ago at Lake Tahoe, but made no findings of its own, and developed the Marina General Permit. That is the extent of the interest in abating boating impacts. Control of boating impacts, and all that accompanies them (they brought in the aquatic invasive species), is not perceived as a priority in the restoration of Lake Tahoe. The agencies have incentives to foot-drag on abating the plastic piers because it was the agencies that jointly approved all the plastic piers for the plastic boats without a thought of adverse impacts. Eventually that will be known so I don’t see delay as helpful to their situations. (I don’t know if the Lahontan staff will have the time or incentive to comment on this Project, which is sort of why I am. Besides, I know things they don’t from my past involvement. I hope it will engage, but “institutional memory” is largely gone at Lake Tahoe in the wake of retirements in my cohort, and budgets and priorities are what they are. The public paper files of the Lahontan Water Quality Board may contain additional information and should be reviewed, assuming they haven’t been destroyed under record retention policies.)
Lake Tahoe isn’t going to be restored and there’s nothing anyone can really do about it but pretend otherwise.

That is cumulative effects written large. Why not continue to milk the cash cow versus ruffling feathers if all it takes is ignoring cumulative effects, ignoring reality? Fine: do it with an EIR. At past and present rates it looks like 30 or 40 years to go before Lake Tahoe is only special for being the largest polluted lake in the world, the waters toxic with plastics. It is the tarnished Jewel.

Response to Comment I4-24
The comment states that the IS/MND improperly evaluates potential impacts of boating at TKM. Contrary to statements made in this comment, the IS/MND properly evaluates the Project in a manner consistent with CEQA requirements and evaluates the components of the Project and whether they would results in significant physical environmental impacts. The Project’s baseline accounts for the existing levels of boating. As noted in Response to Comment O1-6, the Project would not increase boat-related activities as a result of Project implementation. Therefore, no changes in physical environmental activities beyond existing conditions are anticipated. No further analysis is necessary.
829
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 64 Comment I4-25:

Comments on the Initial Environmental Study
With so much redundancy in the IES, I think I’ve basically made my case and don’t need to through it all for the deficiencies I’ve cited affecting the findings. Go to the specific finding in the IS/MND at the heart of the matter here: ignoring cumulatively considerable effects. The CEQA Checklist Summary in 4.21.1(b) asks, “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, or the effects of probable future projects.” And the finding is, “Less Than Significant Impact.” That is a naked summary statement about an omission with no discussion or analysis provided anywhere in the IS/MND, not a finding based on law and fact assessing cumulative effects against the baseline environmental conditions. The finding is arbitrary and capricious, based on nothing. My evidence for the record of the multiple unaddressed significant and potentially significant adverse effects from the Project is substantial and “cumulatively considerable.” See the graph. Read the text.

The IS/MND is typical of the way most such FONSE documents are promoted and approved—based on ignoring all evidence of degradation of Lake Tahoe water quality and/or degrading environmental conditions in the region. The economic development always has been more important so I am suggesting cutting out the pretense. Stop pretending otherwise with FONSE charades and that restoration of Lake Tahoe is occurring when it can be seen with CLARITY that it is not improving. This Project with its very significant effects won’t help and requires an EIR to mitigate, reduce and eliminate those adverse effects as feasible. Do your duty, City.

Response to Comment I4-25
The comment broadly states that the IS/MND is inadequate and that the document does not properly evaluate cumulative impacts. With respect to cumulative impacts, refer to Response to Comment O1-7. Contrary to statements made in this comment, the cumulative impact analysis provided on page 139 of the Draft IS/MND took into consideration other projects (under CEQA) within the vicinity of the Project area (approximately 1,000 feet) and evaluated the potential for cumulative impacts based on the potential combined impacts of those projects. As noted on page 139, there was only one other project with a similar implementation schedule located nearby. As also noted above, ongoing programs are considered part of the existing/baseline condition against which the CEQA analysis of the Project is conducted, which is considered appropriate and in accordance with CEQA requirements. As such, the IS/MND’s analysis is based on evidence, consistent with CEQA requirements. No further response is required.

Comment I4-26:

Aesthetics
Pdf p 34: Scenic Resources are defined as “a distant public view along or through an opening or corridor that is recognized and valued for its scenic quality, or a natural or cultural resource that is indigenous to the area.” Emphasis added; the Upper Truckee River and marsh is both a natural and a cultural resource indigenous to the area. Okay, it is defined as scenic. Then the narrative continues, basically ignoring the definition given and deferring to the lack of agency “scenic” designations to say, “Due to the adjacent development and existing vegetation, long-distance views of the Project area are generally precluded, except from certain viewpoints east of the Project area. The existing open space and CTC Cove East Trail located east of the Project area are not designated as scenic resources, part of a scenic highway corridor, nor as scenic public recreation areas by TRPA 830
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 65 or the City (TRPA 1993). . . This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.” I disagree with the first sentence quoted. Besides the views from the east, I visit the area often for its scenery and wildlife (not the TKM), but Cove East.

The tall buildings will stick out from the largest, flattest plain in the entire basin, where people recreate for the views, and will occlude the surrounding mountain landscapes. I also hike on a heavily used trail from Gardner Mountain to Fallen Leaf Lake (southwest of the Project) that very much overlooks the Tahoe Keys and the entire south shore, and those tall buildings are both out of scale and character with what is existing there, will obscure the views of the meadow and river, and will stick up out of the flat plain like a sore thumb. With regard to agency “scenic designations” I guess to a planner’s mind “everything can’t be scenic” so only the agency designations matter. “No impact.” Ha! The TKM needs a billboard so people can find it, find their way back from the Lake, and the tall, massive buildings suit that.

Response to Comment I4-26
The comment objects to the IS/MND’s conclusion of a less-than-significant impact with respect to long-distance views. As stated in the first full paragraph on page 29 of the Draft IS/MND, the project would modify views of and through the Project area to the extent such views are available in close proximity to the Project area. It goes on to note that the existing views are already partly obscured by existing vegetation and landscaping. The comment is focused solely on the height of the building and neglects to consider the visual character of the proposed structures and landscaping that would be more congruous than the existing bare ground and open storage of boats. Refer to Response to Comment 02-8. The commenter’s opinion and disagreement with the conclusions of the IS/MND are noted, but the conclusions presented in the IS/MND reflect an objective evaluation of the physical changes to views in and of the Project Area. No further response is required.

Comment I4-27:

It is agency lack of good sense that allowed the tall, ugly cell tower at the adjacent TKM against the scenic mountain and meadow backdrops of one of the most sensitive and precious meadows in the entire Lake Tahoe basin, the Upper Truckee River Marsh half-destroyed by the Tahoe Keys, the River straightened to “shotgun” sediment into Lake Tahoe. Blind as bats, they exacerbated the industrial blight and impacts of this unparalleled legacy of environmental disaster in the region, in Lake Tahoe. I think the tower predates City siting policy for towers favoring industrial sites. I suspect it was promoted for emergency and other phone communications in the vicinity of TKM under no siting policies whatsoever. TRPA also has no siting policies for towers, no aversion to tall, industrial facilities anywhere a telecom wants it. In any case, this “industrial” locale is very different. The tower provides a scale against which the proposed tall buildings can be imagined. Microwaves heat water. I hypothesize that heating and other microwave effects may contribute to degraded biological conditions in the TKM Lagoon around the tower. The tower base is not shown in Figure 5. (pdf p21) and will be located within the little Promenade Park planned.” Isn’t she lovely?” The kids can play around it.

Since the tower is proposed to remain onsite, as a suggested mitigation measure in light of the above for unacknowledged but real adverse scenic and radiofrequency radiation effects on biota from exposure to the tower I would like the existing cell tower of some 50 feet in height to be relocated away from the Marsh and River. It could be attached to one of the building roofs and enclosed or screened with the latest camouflage or “stealthing” materials approved by TRPA. No one will miss it. Where it is now can’t be missed and that could be mitigated to remove an eyesore from this beautiful setting. (Eventually more and more people are going to recognize the towers as toxic biohazards with no valid health and safety data for them but, until then, the FCC 831
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 66 and telecoms rule and trespass. Lessees collect fees from the telecoms for the towers and bear potential liabilities for the uninsurable telecom industry.)
Response to Comment I4-27
The comment expresses the commenter’s opinion regarding the existing cell tower located within the Project area. As noted in Chapter 2 (Project Description), the existing cell tower would be maintained within the Project area as part of the Project. As such, no change would occur as a result of the Project, and no further response is necessary. This comment is noted and has been included in the record for consideration by the City Planning Commission as part of its consideration of the Project.

Comment I4-28:

Aquatic Invasive Species
The IS/MND indicates, “A significant element of the Project is bringing the site into compliance with [storm] water quality best management practices (BMPs) and assisting in controlling aquatic invasive species (AIS).” I already commented on storm water requirements of the Marina General Permit. It is unclear what actions will be taken, if any, to manage or abate the AIS weed infestations throughout the TKM Lagoon. AIS is another tremendous legacy of impact on Lake Tahoe largely attributable to the boating at Tahoe Keys. Cutting and harvesting has been a past practice. I assume it continues. If so, where will harvested materials be managed? Aside from working with persons to assure new AIS are not introduced with the boat ramp and launch, what is planned to deal with the existing AIS problem and to prevent the further spread of AIS plant fragments and viable AIS weed starts to Lake Tahoe? The ISMND is completely deficient in this regard unless I missed something. For example, TKPOA has an AIS management program and is exploring various management methods to reduce spread of AIS and its impacts. I don’t know if TKM is a partner in that TKPOA activity. If so, the activities should be discussed in an EIR and, if not, what is proposed to mitigate the impacts of existing AIS? Response to Comment I4-28
The comment requests consideration of the existing AIS management as part of the IS/MND. Refer to Response to Comments L1-7 and O1-6.

Comment I4-29:

Risk of Upset
This is typically where CEQA ask the preparer, is there any chance things could go wrong that is reasonably foreseeable, and to provide the applicable mitigation requirements to either prevent or manage the upset condition so significant effects are minimized or avoided. I searched for the term “Risk of Upset” and found nothing, another deficiency of the IS/MND. I saw that spill plans were to be in place during construction for “construction upsets” with nothing for the ongoing operations. Examples that may apply in this case are fuelling mishaps and releases of hydrocarbons to waters, sunken vessels and salvage operations, a break in a fuel line from the tanks, a boat crashing into a pier or other vessel, a fire or explosion (especially now that lithium batteries that can catch fire and explode on contact with water are coming into use for vessel propulsion). Such fires can be very difficult to extinguish and are often associated with charging systems such as are installed at intervals on the piers. What will occur if there is a discovery or appearance of new aquatic invasive species in the TKM Lagoon or someone skips or cheats on an AIS vessel inspection? How will such circumstances be managed to prevent adverse impacts? How will the Project proponent respond to these examples and/or other risks of 832
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 67 upset when or if they occur? The IS/MND does not address potentially significant effects and risks from reasonably foreseeable circumstances, with no mitigations proposed, and these matters must be addressed in an EIR.

Response to Comment I4-29
The comment requests consideration and evaluation of unknown circumstances, such as discovery of a new aquatic invasive species or sunken vessels. The comment does not present evidence to suggest that such conditions could occur with implementation of the Project. As noted in Response to Comment I4-18, CEQA (refer to Sections 15144, 15145, and 15384 of the State CEQA Guidelines regarding speculation and forecasting) requires that the evaluation of potential environmental impacts does not speculate regarding conditions that cannot be determined with reasonable certainty at this time, in light of evidence. As such, no further analysis is necessary.

Comment I4-30:

Conclusion
There is both a legacy of adverse environmental effects at the Project site and surroundings and ongoing impacts from marina industrial operations and maintenance. The IS/MND is deficient in a number of areas as discussed herein, and deficient by failing to recognize and mitigate multiple potentially adverse effects of the Project and its continuing and expanded operations. Additional study is warranted to identify the impacts and mitigation measures that may feasibly be applied. An EIR is required, and under provisions of CEQA, overriding considerations can still allow Project approval after adverse effects are mitigated to the extent possible. That is what I recommend. The PC has an extraordinary opportunity to address some legacy issues and make some more real progress at TKM with an EIR, while a faulty IS/MND will continue and expand the existing impacts. I likewise appeal to the developer, reduce your liabilities now, work towards a new vision for recreational boating, invest in Lake Tahoe, be an example. Thank you.

Response to Comment I4-30
The comment summarizes prior statements regarding perceived deficiencies in the analysis of the Draft IS/MND.

Specific responses are provided to the points summarized here in Responses to Comment I4-1 through I4-29. As demonstrated in the responses to specific comments above, the IS/MND issued by the City is considered appropriate, adequate, and in accordance with CEQA requirements, contrary to the statements made in this comment. Preparation of an EIR is not required, and no further response is necessary.

Comment I4-31:

I prepared the attached Independent Water Quality Report and presented it to the TRPA Governing Board, the Executive Officer of the Lahontan Water Board and the Director of Tahoe Environmental Research Center, and others thereafter. There is a lot in there to augment the comments herein in a general and informative way, especially concerning microplastics. Much of it applies to the Project, a bathtub in Lake Bathtub, and I suggest it be read in that context.

KEEP TAHOE PURE; MICROPLASTICS ENDURE
USE WOOD METAL AND STONE IN THE SHOREZONE!
833
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND and Responses South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 68 Response to Comment I4-31
The comment references an attached report prepared by the commenter. The comment does not address the adequacy or conclusions of the Draft IS/MND, nor does it address the Project. Therefore, no further response is required. However, this comment is noted and has been included in the record for consideration by the City Planning Commission as part of its consideration of the Project. 834
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Text Revisions to Draft IS/MND South Lake Tahoe, California Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration June 2026 69 3 Text Revisions to Draft IS/MND
The following revisions to the Draft IS/MND are based on public input and updated information related to the Project. These changes do not result in a new significant environmental impact, do not increase the severity of any previously identified significant impact, and do not require the adoption of new mitigation measures, and do not change mitigation measures. Rather, the revisions would provide additional clarity regarding the analysis presented in the IS/MND. Therefore, the following changes do not meet the criteria for recirculation of the Draft IS/MND under CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5.

Section 4.10, Hydrology and Water Quality
The following text has been added after the third full paragraph on page 91 of the Draft IS/MND:

PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT (AS AMENDED THROUGH RESPONSES TO COMMENTS) Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
South Lake Tahoe, California
April 2026
837
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
South Lake Tahoe, California
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Prepared for:

Development Services Department
1052 Tata Lane
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
[email protected]
Prepared by:

P.O. Box 1760
Zephyr Cove, NV 89448
(775) 588-2505
Contact:

Chris Mundhenk
Principal
(916) 388-5655
[email protected]
838

NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE

TAHOE KEYS MARINA REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT
Project Title: Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project (“Project”) Project Location: The Project area, defined as the area where demolition would occur and planned improvements would be constructed, is located at 2435 Venice Drive East in the City of South Lake Tahoe, El Dorado County, California. The Project area encompasses approximately 16.5 acres comprised primarily of 3 parcels owned by TKSMI (APNs 022-210-032, 022-210-040, and 022-210-041), portions of the Tahoe Keys lagoon, and City right-of-way (ROW) including Venice Drive East and Tahoe Keys Boulevard ROW from Venice Drive East to Michael Drive. The Project area also includes a small segment of Tahoe Keys Beach and Harbor Association (TKBHA) property (APN 022-210-042) for landscape improvements; however, the parcel would remain under TKBHA ownership. Utility trenching may also occur within the paved entrance (APN 022-210-022).

Lead Agency: City of South Lake Tahoe (“City”)
Project Description:

Tahoe Keys SMI, LLC (TKSMI) is proposing the redevelopment of the Tahoe Keys Marina (TKM) in order to revitalize the TKM landside facilities and operations. The Project would involve the demolition of 3 existing marina buildings, other ancillary structures on the site, and existing parking lots and utilities.

Landside redevelopment would include new buildings, parking lots, entrances, and utilities (including upgraded water connections to mains in Venice Drive East and Tahoe Keys Boulevard). Buildings would include an approximately 52,600-square-foot indoor boat storage facility with indoor water tanks, 3 units of workforce housing (to replace the 3 existing units that would be demolished as part of the Project), and space for restaurants, retail, concessions, and boat sales. The existing boat launch and gantry crane would be relocated, and the existing bulkhead that borders the lagoon would be replaced.

A significant element of the Project is bringing the site into compliance with water quality best management practices (BMPs) and assisting in controlling aquatic invasive species (AIS).

Review Period:

The 30-day public review period for the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) begins on April 3, 2026, and ends on May 4, 2026. Comments will be accepted on the IS/MND until 5:00 p.m. on May 4, 2026, and should be mailed to 1052 Tata Lane, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150, attention John Hitchcock, or by email: [email protected].

A copy of the IS/MND can be reviewed at the City office at the above address or online at https://www.cityofslt.gov/142/Planning-Division. For further information regarding the IS/MND and adoption of the document, please contact John Hitchcock, Planning Manager. The Development Services Department office is open to the public during the following business hours: Monday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Friday from 8:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. and 1:00 p.m. – 3:30 p.m. 839
Public Meeting:

In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, the City will consider the adoption of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact for the Project at a regularly scheduled Planning Commission Meeting on the date, time, and location provided below.

Location: City of South Lake Tahoe Council Chamber
Address: 1091 Lisa Maloff Way
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Date: February 10, 2026
Time: 3:00 p.m. or soon thereafter
Hazardous Materials/Waste On-Site:

The State of California maintains the EnviroStor and Geotracker databases of known contamination sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Based on the information gathered from these databases, no sites located within the Project area are actively under evaluation, remediation, or verification monitoring.
840
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Table of Contents South Lake Tahoe, California
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2026 i
Table of Contents
1 Introduction ..........................................................................................................................1 2 Project Description ................................................................................................................2

2.1 Project Location.........................................................................................................................2

2.2 Project Objectives......................................................................................................................5

2.3 Existing Conditions....................................................................................................................6

2.4 Project Features ........................................................................................................................9

2.5 Construction Controls..............................................................................................................20

2.6 Responsible and Trustee Agencies..........................................................................................22 3 Summary of Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures......................................................23

3.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected ...........................................................................23

3.2 Lead Agency Determination....................................................................................................23 4 Initial Study and Checklist ....................................................................................................25

4.1 Aesthetics................................................................................................................................26

4.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources .......................................................................................32

4.3 Air Quality................................................................................................................................36

4.4 Biological Resources................................................................................................................45

4.5 Cultural Resources...................................................................................................................56

4.6 Energy......................................................................................................................................60

4.7 Geology and Soils ....................................................................................................................64

4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions .....................................................................................................73

4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials...........................................................................................80

4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality..................................................................................................88

4.11 Land Use and Planning ............................................................................................................97

4.12 Mineral Resources.................................................................................................................100

4.13 Noise......................................................................................................................................102

4.14 Population and Housing ........................................................................................................109

4.15 Public Services.......................................................................................................................111

4.16 Recreation .............................................................................................................................115

4.17 Transportation.......................................................................................................................117

4.18 Tribal Cultural Resources.......................................................................................................123

4.19 Utilities and Service Systems.................................................................................................127

4.20 Wildfire..................................................................................................................................134

4.21 Mandatory Findings of Significance ......................................................................................138 5 References.........................................................................................................................140 841
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Table of Contents South Lake Tahoe, California
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2026 ii
List of Figures
Figure 1. Project Location Map..................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2. Project Boundary Map ................................................................................................................... 4 Figure 3A. Existing Features Map.................................................................................................................. 7 Figure 4A. Project Detail Map..................................................................................................................... 11 Figure 5. Conceptual Site Plan .................................................................................................................... 13 Figure 6. Promenade, Bulkhead, and Plaza Concept Rendering................................................................. 14 Figure 7. Boat Showroom Building Rendering ............................................................................................ 15 List of Tables
Table 1. El Dorado County Air Quality Thresholds...................................................................................... 39 Table 2. Projected Construction Emissions – Pounds Per Day Without Mitigation ................................... 42 Table 3. Projected Operational Emissions – Pounds Per Day Without Mitigation..................................... 43 Table 4. Projected GHG Emissions During Construction – Metric Tons per Year Without Mitigation....... 77 Table 5. Projected GHG Emissions During Operation – Metric Tons per Year Without Mitigation ........... 78 List of Appendices
Appendix A
Air Quality Modeling Results
Appendix B
Biological Resources Assessment
Appendix C
Noise Study
Appendix D
Transportation Study
842
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
List of Abbreviations South Lake Tahoe, California
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2026 iii
List of Abbreviations
Abbreviation Definition
AFY Acre-Feet per Year
APE Area of Potential Effect
BMP Best Management Practice
BRA Biological Resource Assessment
BSA Biological Study Area
CAAQS California Ambient Air Quality Standards
CAL FIRE California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CARB California Air Resources Board
CBC California Building Code
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level
CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CTC California Tahoe Conservancy
DOC California Department of Conservation
EDCAQMD El Dorado County Air Quality Management District EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
ESA Federal Endangered Species Act
FHSZ Fire Hazard Severity Zone
FGC California Fish and Game Code
IS Initial Study
LCT Lahontan cutthroat trout
LSAA Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement
LTAB Lake Tahoe Air Basin
843
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
List of Abbreviations South Lake Tahoe, California
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2026 iv
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MND Mitigated Negative Declaration
NAAQS National Ambient Air Quality Standards
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
Phase I ESA Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
PRC Public Resources Code
Project Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SNYLF Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog
SR 89 State Route 89
STPUD South Tahoe Public Utility District
SVP Society of Vertebrate Paleontology
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
TKSMI Tahoe Keys SMI, LLC
TKBHA Tahoe Keys Beach and Harbor Association
TKM Tahoe Keys Marina
TRPA Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
TTD Tahoe Transportation District
TVS Tahoe Valley – Tahoe South Groundwater Subbasin
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
US 50 United States Highway 50
VMT Vehicle Miles Traveled
WOUS Waters of the United States
844
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Introduction South Lake Tahoe, California
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration April 2026 1 1 Introduction
The City of South Lake Tahoe (City) has prepared this Draft Initial Study (IS)/Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the proposed Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project (Project). CEQA requires that all state and local government agencies consider the environmental consequences of projects they propose to implement, or over which they have discretionary authority, before implementing or approving those projects. As specified in Section 15367 of the CEQA Guidelines, the public agency that has the principal responsibility for carrying out or approving a project is the lead agency for CEQA compliance. The City has principal responsibility for approving the Project and is therefore the lead agency under CEQA for the Project.

The purposes of this IS/MND are to: 1) determine whether implementation of the Project would result in potentially significant or significant effects on the environment; and 2) incorporate mitigation measures into the Project design, where feasible, to reduce the Project’s potentially significant or significant effects to a less than significant level. An IS/MND presents environmental analysis and substantial evidence supporting its conclusions regarding the significance of environmental impacts.

Substantial evidence may include expert opinion based on facts, technical studies, or reasonable assumptions based on facts (CEQA Guidelines, Sections 15063(a) and 15064(f)).

As specified in Section 15064(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, if there is substantial evidence (such as the results of an IS) that a project, either individually or cumulatively, may have a significant effect on the environment, then the lead agency must prepare an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). The lead agency may instead prepare a Negative Declaration if it determines there is no substantial evidence that a project may cause a significant impact on the environment. The lead agency may prepare an MND if, in the course of the IS analysis, it is recognized that a project may have a significant impact on the environment but that implementing specific mitigation measures would reduce any such impacts to a less than significant level (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064(f)). 845
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Project Description South Lake Tahoe, California
April 2026
2 2 Project Description
Tahoe Keys SMI, LLC (TKSMI) is proposing the redevelopment of the Tahoe Keys Marina (TKM) in order to revitalize the TKM landside facilities and operations. The Project would involve the demolition of 3 existing marina buildings, other ancillary structures on the site, and existing parking lots and utilities.

A significant element of the Project is bringing the site into compliance with water quality best management practices (BMPs) and assisting in controlling aquatic invasive species (AIS). The City is acting as lead agency in accordance with CEQA (Public Resources Code [PRC] Sections 21000 – 21177) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Sections 15000 – 15387).

2.1 Project Location
The Project area, defined as the area where demolition would occur and planned improvements would be constructed, is located at 2435 Venice Drive East (Error! Reference source not found.) in the City of S outh Lake Tahoe, El Dorado County, California. The Project area encompasses approximately 16.5 acres comprised primarily of 3 parcels owned by TKSMI (APNs 022-210-032, 022-210-040, and 022-210-041), portions of the Tahoe Keys lagoon, and City right-of-way (ROW) including Venice Drive East and Tahoe Keys Boulevard ROW from Venice Drive East to Michael Drive (Figure 2). The Project area also includes a small segment of Tahoe Keys Beach and Harbor Association (TKBHA) property (APN 022-210-042) for landscape improvements; however, that parcel would remain under TKBHA ownership. Utility trenching may also occur within the paved entrance located on parcel 022-210-022.

2.1.1 Background
TKM is located within the eastern portion of the broader Tahoe Keys development. Planning for the Tahoe Keys began in 1955 with the majority of construction occurring in the late 1960s and early 1970s.

The Tahoe Keys development was created by dredging and filling a large portion of the Upper Truckee Marsh. Since the establishment of the Tahoe Keys development, most of the lots on the artificial islands within the community have been developed into private homes and townhouses.

The Project area was originally developed with 2 buildings by 1969. Subsequently, the artificial lagoon was expanded inland, providing TKM with more shoreline for marina development. By 1974, the Project area consisted of 3 buildings roughly within the footprint of the existing buildings on-site, as well as a marina developed within the now expanded artificial lagoon. The southwestern portion of the Project area remained undeveloped and largely unused prior to 1992. Based on a review of historic aerial 846
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Project Description South Lake Tahoe, California
April 2026
3 Figure 1. Project Location Map
847
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Project Description South Lake Tahoe, California
April 2026
4 Figure 2. Project Boundary Map
848
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Project Description South Lake Tahoe, California
April 2026
5 imagery from 1992 and 1998, the boatyard that is currently in a corner of parcel 022-210-040 was paved. This represents the last major land coverage development on the site.

TKM has been an important public recreation establishment since it was constructed in the late 1960s, serving as a major access point to Lake Tahoe for aquatic recreation. The marina and associated facilities have served South Lake Tahoe visitors since marina operations began in 1971, and the buildings on-site having supported many uses over their lifespans. The marina complex was developed adjacent to the larger Tahoe Keys development, an area envisioned as a community of vacation cabins situated on an artificially created harbor on the edge of Lake Tahoe (Chandler 2001).

Summer is the peak activity season for TKM, and marina recreational facilities are in high demand.

Various businesses operate out of the marina during the summer. However, the existing facilities and infrastructure have deteriorated and require redevelopment in order to continue to serve the marina needs of the larger South Lake Tahoe community. Interim measures, such as stormwater BMPs and AIS management, have been implemented, but comprehensive redevelopment is required for lasting solutions.

The related but separate Tahoe Keys Marina Dock Replacement Project is currently updating the existing docks in the marina. The dock replacement project received a minor marina permit from TRPA and a building permit from the City in 2025 to replace the existing docks with a modernized dock system and associated piling, construct new dock utilities to service vessels, and construct Americans with Disabilities Act-related improvements. Replacement docks will be within the footprint of existing dock infrastructure and will not alter the number of available slips.

2.2 Project Objectives
The overarching goal of the Project is to replace aging facilities and infrastructure to maintain and improve the existing marina, consistent with the demands and expectations of the local community and visitors, and to redevelop the property into a premier marina that benefits Lake Tahoe, the City, and the surrounding communities. The redevelopment of TKM is also needed to install adequate stormwater management infrastructure and to provide the public with high-quality services for lake access and recreation.

The objectives of the Project are to:
• Enhance environmental protections through stormwater BMPs and AIS controls. • Provide public amenities, including a waterfront promenade, non-motorized recreation access, public restrooms, and community gathering spaces.
• Construct new and modern commercial and marina support buildings while preserving scenic views.
• Replace an aging bulkhead.
• Provide on-site boat storage to reduce the need for vessels to be towed to off-site storage locations.
849
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Project Description South Lake Tahoe, California
April 2026
6 2.3 Existing Conditions
The Project area consists of the marina’s landside improvements and operations, the marina bulkhead and boat launch ramp and boat lift, and City ROW on Venice Drive East and Michael Drive. The Project area contains 3 buildings, a boat launch ramp, boat lift, parking lots, exterior boat storage, sparse landscape/ruderal vegetation, and roadways (Figures 3A and B). The Project area also contains various small sheds/auxiliary buildings and part of an incomplete boat spray booth consisting of metal framing.

The Project area is accessed from Tahoe Keys Boulevard. Tahoe Keys Boulevard connects to Venice Drive East, which provides vehicle access to the existing marina building complex and associated parking lot, boat storage yard, and boat launch ramp and boat lift. The Project area currently contains 325 parking spaces, which can be used by the public for free.

The east edge of the Project area borders the Cove East/Upper Truckee Marsh, owned by the California Tahoe Conservancy (CTC). This area contains nature trails, which lead to wildlife viewing areas and beaches. It is typically accessed via parking in the marina and along the shoulder of Venice Drive East.

The west edge of the Project area, across the lagoon from TKM landside facilities, borders the Tahoe Keys residential development. The lagoon, which the marina is located on, is shared by marina facilities owned and operated by the Tahoe Keys Property Owners Association and the TKBHA (Figure 3A).

The existing 3 buildings contain 8 commercial spaces and 3 residential units. All 3 buildings are located on parcel 022-210-032 (“Parcel 1”). The buildings are in various states of use:
• Building 1: Marina Service Building, a 2-story building with approximately 12,600 square feet (sf) of commercial floor area currently used as a boat maintenance and repair shop for the marina. • Building 2: Marina Administration Building, a 2-story building with approximately 22,200 sf of commercial floor area with offices and storage on the first floor, and 3 units of multi-family housing occupied by TKSMI employees on the second.
• Building 3: Marina Restaurant Building, a 2-story building with approximately 15,000 sf configured for use as a restaurant and formerly operated under the name “Fresh Ketch.” Fresh Ketch opened in the 1980s and reported income through the end of December 2021. The building is currently vacant.

All 3 buildings are in poor condition. Buildings 2 and 3 were both identified during a hazardous building materials survey of the Project area as having building materials that contained asbestos and lead that would complicate repair and rehabilitation (Bureau Veritas 2021). All 3 buildings also contain universal wastes such as polychlorinated biphenyl light ballasts and mercury switches (Bureau Veritas 2021).

The upland parts of the Project area are separated from the lagoon by a sheet pile bulkhead. The bulkhead was constructed during the development of the marina in the late 1960s and early 1970s. It is at the end of its design life and is in need of replacement. Five boat fueling stations are located immediately adjacent to Buildings 2 and 3, along the bulkhead. Gasoline is stored in a 12,000-gallon aboveground storage tank on the southeastern edge of Parcel 1. Paved and unpaved boat storage areas are present on parcel 022-210-040 (“Parcel 2”). The unpaved area of Parcel 2 mostly consists of gravel mulch and shredded bark mulch materials. The paved storage area contains metal frame racks with multiple levels used for boat dry storage. Parcel 022-210-041 (“Parcel 3”) is mostly undeveloped and contains low lying vegetation and sparse immature trees. The boat storage areas are designed to 850
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Project Description South Lake Tahoe, California
April 2026
7 Figure 3A. Existing Features Map
851
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Project Description South Lake Tahoe, California
April 2026
8 Figure 3B. Existing Features Map
852
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Project Description South Lake Tahoe, California
April 2026
9 accommodate approximately 150 boats, however, based on a review of aerial photography, existing storage areas have accommodated between 200 and 250 boats. In general, existing manufactured facilities within the Project area are in disrepair, do not offer sufficient screening of unsightly storage and repair areas from off-site viewpoints, and lack architectural unity (i.e., consistency of design). The impervious surface of the loop road in the boat storage lot drains into a gravel mulch area where it infiltrates. Unpaved areas on Parcel 2 and Parcel 3 allow for stormwater to pond on the surface, evaporate, or infiltrate into the ground.

Water is currently provided to the Project area by the Tahoe Keys Water Company through an existing water line that enters the Project area at the cul-de-sac at the end of Venice Drive East. Sewage is conveyed away from the Project area to existing South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD) infrastructure through a 12-inch, cast-in-place pipe that continues in the ROW of Venice Drive East.

2.4 Project Features
The Project would involve demolition of the 3 existing buildings (Buildings 1, 2, and 3), as well as the existing boat launch ramp at the northern end of the Project area. Removal of these buildings would also coincide with the replacement of the existing bulkhead surrounding the foundation and parking lots within Parcels 1 and 2.

A total of 7 new buildings, with a combined floor area of approximately 153,200 sf, would be constructed. Of the 7 buildings, 4 buildings would be located within Parcel 1 and referred to as the Primary Marina Complex, and 3 buildings would be located within Parcel 2. A new/replacement boat launch would also be provided within Parcel 2. Site development would also include new water quality and drainage infrastructure, utility connections and services, relocation of the fuel tank, and site amenities such as a promenade, restrooms, and emergency command center for local emergency services. Approximately 32,000 square feet of land within the western edge of the Project area (APN 022-210-040) would not be developed as part of the Project. Ownership of this area may be transferred to the Tahoe Keys Property Owners Association at a later date and separate from the Project. All of the proposed buildings within the Project area are shown in Figure 4A and Figure 4B. A conceptual site plan for the Project, including parking, is shown in Figure 5.

2.4.1 Primary Marina Complex
The 4 proposed buildings within Parcel 1 would be constructed in the footprint of the existing marina building complex, as outlined below.
• Proposed Building A would be constructed approximately within the footprint of existing Building 1 and would provide approximately 17,600 sf of space within 2 floors with dedicated retail space, offices, restrooms, and a common area.
• Proposed Building B would be constructed adjacent to and in between proposed Building A and proposed Building C, approximately within the footprint of existing Building 2. Proposed Building B would consist of retail space, restrooms, common areas, and a fast casual restaurant facility.

This 2-story building would be approximately 24,650 sf in size. 853
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Project Description South Lake Tahoe, California
April 2026
10 Proposed Building C would be constructed on the western corner of the existing marina facilities footprint, located partially within the footprint of the existing restaurant building and partially within the footprint of the existing parking lot. Proposed Building C would feature a restaurant and coffee retailer. The building would consist of 2 stories and would provide approximately 17,050 sf of interior space.
• Proposed Building D would be constructed on the northern edge of the existing marina facilities, located approximately within the existing parking lot and boat launch ramp. Proposed Building D would consist of restrooms, common areas, miscellaneous marina support, a valet, and a fine dining restaurant. The building would consist of 2 stories and would provide approximately 16,050 sf of interior space.

In total, the proposed buildings within the Primary Marina Complex would provide approximately 75,350 square feet of space for various uses. The final grade of the portion of the Project area around Buildings A through D would be raised approximately 2.5 feet from its current elevation, requiring approximately 3,550 cubic yards of imported fill. Reinforced concrete piles at various depths would be used to support the foundations of Buildings A through D. The proposed buildings would be constructed using a neutral color palette consisting of earth, stone, and wood tones (Figure 6). Height calculations of the proposed buildings were measured from existing and natural grade as reflected in the elevation drawings.

Within the Primary Marina Complex, a roundabout would be constructed southeast of Buildings A and B.

A walkway/promenade would provide visual separation and pedestrian (i.e., non-motorized) access between the bulkhead and Buildings A through D. This walkway/promenade would extend southward to the proposed boat showroom, described below.

2.4.2 Public Restroom and Trash Storage Building
A restroom and trash storage facility (approximately 1,350 sf in size) would be constructed at the northeastern edge of Parcel 2, adjacent to the parking lot extending from the roundabout. This facility would include space for indoor trash, recycling and food waste storage, and a trash compactor, as well as public restrooms intended to serve visitors to the marina, the CTC recreation property, and Cove East/Upper Truckee Marsh, which is located immediately east of the Project area.

2.4.3 Boat Showroom
A boat showroom and marina support facility (Figure 7) would be constructed south of Buildings A through D on Parcel 2. This 2-story facility would provide approximately 23,900 sf of interior space and include a harbor master office, ship store, restrooms, miscellaneous support area, and an approximately 9,500-sf boat showroom area on the first floor. The second floor would consist of approximately 3,100 sf of office space, 550 sf of common area, and 2,150 sf of additional marina support space. Additionally, two 2-bedroom apartment units and one 3-bedroom unit would be constructed on the second story of the boat showroom building and would be a 1:1 replacement of the existing residences located on site.

These apartment units would house TKSMI employees. These developments would occur in the footprint of the existing paved outdoor boat yard (Error! Reference source not found.A). 854
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Project Description South Lake Tahoe, California
April 2026
11 Figure 4A. Project Detail Map
855
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Project Description South Lake Tahoe, California
April 2026
12 Figure 4B. Project Detail Map
856
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Project Description South Lake Tahoe, California
April 2026
13 Figure 5. Conceptual Site Plan
857
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Project Description South Lake Tahoe, California
April 2026
14 Figure 6. Promenade, Bulkhead, and Plaza Concept Rendering 858
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Project Description South Lake Tahoe, California
April 2026
15 Figure 7. Boat Showroom Building Rendering
859
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Project Description South Lake Tahoe, California
April 2026
16 2.4.4 Boardwalk/Promenade and Central Plaza
A boardwalk/promenade would extend along the edge of the development adjacent to and between the bulkhead and the buildings and site amenities, terminating at the proposed site of the new boat launch ramp. The promenade would be publicly accessible and provide views of the lagoon and surrounding areas.

A central plaza/open space would be constructed central to proposed Buildings B through D. It would be located within the current footprint of the parking lot for the existing marina building complex. This plaza would consist of approximately 14,300 sf of open space with a central area of pervious landscaping. The plaza would be underlain by a stormwater underground storage and infiltration system for the Project area. Additionally, the plaza would provide several smaller landscaping areas with permeable surface and vegetation.

2.4.5 Boat Launch
The existing boat launch ramp, located on the northern edge of the existing marina building complex, would be removed and relocated adjacent to the south end of the boat showroom within Parcel 2. A boat lift would also be constructed at that location. Relocation of the boat launch ramp would require removal of the existing sheet pile bulkhead in the new location and extension of the bulkhead in the old location. The new boat launch would most likely have a temporary sheet pile perimeter to control turbidity and allow for the excavation of material to create the terminal slope into the water. Turbidity curtains would be installed around the temporary wall as secondary containment. The pre-cast ramps would be slid into place and secured with sheets and/or steel beams. Large rock or gravel would then be installed as a revetment to ensure the shoreline is stabilized. The existing lift well and gantry crane for load-in and load-out of boats and marine equipment would also be relocated adjacent to the boat launch ramps.

2.4.6 Water Tank and Boat Storage Facility
An approximately 52,600-sf water tank and boat storage facility would be constructed in the southwestern portion of Parcel 2. The building would be 42 feet tall at its tallest point. Most of the building space would be used for boat storage with 2 aisles and 3 levels of boat storage per aisle, separated by a drive aisle for boat movement within the facility. The facility is anticipated to provide storage for approximately 250 boats during the peak summer months and accommodate up to 430 boats during the winter. Interior boat storage is intended to improve the aesthetic qualities of TKM and reduce the use of plastic tarps for winter dry storage of boats. Based on existing usage (200-250 boats and boat trailers stored in the existing storage areas during peak summer months), this would not be considered an increase in capacity for recreational use since the boat storage facility would accommodate a similar range of boats as existing conditions during summer months.

Water facilities within the Water Tank and Boat Storage Facilities would include water tanks (with up to 500,000 gallons of capacity, combined), water pumps, and related equipment and are intended to ensure adequate fire flow to marina facilities and the water utility that serves the project. The proposed water tanks would provide redundancy and enhance existing service by increasing water pressure. As noted in greater detail in Section 2.4.11 below, the proposed water tanks would connect to existing 860
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Project Description South Lake Tahoe, California
April 2026
17 water lines in the vicinity, be located inside of the Water Tank and Boat Storage Facilities structure, and would not be visible from the remainder of the Tahoe Keys development.

The Project would also provide an emergency command center (approximately 1,050 sf in size) within the eastern corner of the water tank and boat storage facility. The command center would be available for use by the local police and fire departments as a communications center, as needed and to respond to emergency calls for service within the southern portion of Lake Tahoe. The foundation of the facility would include reinforced concrete piles with variable final depths.

2.4.7 Parking and Circulation
Parking (paid and valet lots) would be provided throughout the Project area and adjacent to the proposed buildings described above. Additionally, internal roads would connect to Venice Drive East at 3 primary points (Figure 5).

Most on-site parking would be paid public parking, and a valet parking lot would be provided in Parcel 3.

The Project would provide 251 parking spaces, a decrease of 74 spaces compared to existing conditions.

Of these, 69 would be reserved for valet parking and the remainder would be paid public parking.

Bicycle and kayak storage racks would be provided along the walkway/promenade to be located within Parcel 2. Publicly accessible launch points for kayaks would be accessible from the walkway/promenade and separate from the proposed boat launch ramp.

The Project would not involve modifications to the alignment of existing roadways (e.g., Venice Drive East), however, due to site constraints, the existing pavement of Venice Drive East may be affected during Project construction by equipment movement and storage and utility trenching. As part of the Project and pending coordination with the City, Venice Drive East would be repaved and restriped in accordance with City requirements.

2.4.8 Bulkhead
The Project would involve replacing approximately 1,600 linear feet of the existing sheet pile bulkhead.

The bulkhead replacement would include installation of new 34-foot-long sheet piles directly in front of the existing sheet piles, which would be secured to the existing metal walers and reinforced with concrete caps. In many locations, existing brace pipe piles would need to be removed.

2.4.9 Lighting
Exterior lighting would be replaced throughout the Project area and would comply with TRPA and/or City standards with respect to light intensity, brightness, and dark sky view protection. Lighting would be designed for purposes of illumination only. All exterior lights shall be directed downward and use cutoff shields and/or limit lighting intensity to minimize light spillover.

2.4.10 Coverage
Consistent with TRPA’s Regional Plan and overarching goal to protect and restore the clarity of Lake Tahoe, changes in land coverage (i.e., land surface converted from a natural condition to an impervious surface) are evaluated by TRPA in order to limit the potential for runoff (and associated sediment and 861
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Project Description South Lake Tahoe, California
April 2026
18 pollutants) to affect Lake Tahoe (TRPA 2025a). As part of this evaluation, TRPA has established criteria/classes of land capability that limit the amount of land coverage allowable for new development in order to achieve TRPA’s broader goal of protecting Lake Tahoe. Two of the 3 primary parcels forming the Project area have been verified by TRPA to consist of Class 6 land capability, which allows for 30% land coverage (Design Workshop 2025). Under existing conditions, the Project area has a total coverage of 287,252 sf, which is greater than the allowable coverage by 189,586 sf (Design Workshop 2025). With implementation of the Project, site coverage would be 285,904 sf (Design Workshop 2025). Therefore, as a whole, the Project would reduce the overall coverage area compared to existing conditions by 1,348 sf (Design Workshop 2025).

2.4.11 Utilities and Boat Fueling
All utilities within the Project area would be upgraded to meet standard code requirements and demands as part of the Project.

Similar to existing conditions, the Project would provide a replacement aboveground gasoline storage tank and related fueling components within the southern portion of Parcel 2, adjacent to proposed on-site parking. All components would be compliant with all applicable standards.

As part of the Project, water service would be provided to the Project area via a new connection to existing Tahoe Keys Property Owners Association infrastructure in the area. Tahoe Keys Property Owners Association provided a will serve letter for the Project, indicating adequate capacity to serve the project on September 29, 2025 (Tahoe Keys Property Owners Association 2025). As an option, the Project may instead connect to STPUD infrastructure from the closest STPUD water main (an 8” line within Tahoe Keys Boulevard) to the Project area, located at the intersection of Tahoe Keys Boulevard and Michael Drive. To install this connection, a trench (approximately 4 feet deep and 2 feet wide) from approximately the entrance of the TKBHA marina parking along Venice Drive East to the intersection with Tahoe Keys Boulevard would be constructed. Trenching would continue approximately 620 feet southeast within Tahoe Keys Boulevard to the STPUD water main connection point near Michael Drive.

With respect to wastewater, the Project would connect to existing STPUD wastewater collection infrastructure within Venice Drive East. No additional wastewater facilities would be necessary (STPUD 2025a).

2.4.12 Construction
Construction is scheduled to take 24 months and would involve 5 primary phases (demolition, grubbing/rough grading, excavation and site work, building erection, and painting/paving/striping/landscaping).

Demolition
As part of this phase, on-site buildings would be demolished and removed from the Project area.

Existing hardscape, lighting, boat storage, and other accessory structures would be removed. 862
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Project Description South Lake Tahoe, California
April 2026
19 Grubbing/Rough Grading
Within the limits of the Project area, existing paving, landscape areas, and vegetation that would interfere with construction or final design would be removed as part of this phase. Removal of existing landscaping (including up to 30 trees located primarily along the periphery of the Project area) would be necessary, especially within the southern portion of the Project area and around the existing buildings.

Rough grading would shape the construction site and slopes.

Excavation and Site Work
Following rough grading, additional excavation would bring the Project area to final grade and prepare the soil for underground piping and structural supports. The replacement bulkhead would be located in front of the existing bulkhead that borders the lagoon, and the new boat launch would be constructed.

The aforementioned 3,550 cubic yards of fill material would be imported to the Project area. Site work would involve installing underground utility pipes (some pipes may be 6-inch-diameter or larger), utility holes, structural foundations, curbs, gutters, pathways, and sidewalks. Excavation for concrete foundations and underground drainage pipes would be performed with excavators and/or backhoes.

Building Erection
During this phase, the 7 proposed buildings would be constructed. Site work would include establishing foundations, framing, exterior construction, mechanical/electrical/plumbing, and finishing.

Painting/Paving/Striping/Landscaping
During the final phase of construction, painting (both interior and exterior surfaces) of the proposed buildings would be conducted. All parking areas, roads, and designated locations would be paved and striped. Paving would be performed incrementally throughout the Project area as large construction and non-rubber tread equipment is removed. Landscaping includes the installation and/or construction of plantings and hardscapes, outdoor lighting, and drainage.

2.4.13 Equipment and Labor Force
Various types of equipment would be needed for the construction of the Project elements. Construction equipment which would be used during construction could include, but is not limited to backhoes, cement trucks, cranes, graders, auger drill rigs, compactors, air compressors, concrete saws, bulldozers, dump trucks, excavators, generators, jackhammers, pneumatic tools, vibratory hammers, and vibratory rollers/compactors.

The categories of workers required to complete this Project include, but are not limited to civil/earthwork personnel, excavators, masons, painters, plumbers, landscapers, carpenters, cement finishers, operating engineers, electricians, and craftsmen. The number of workers at the construction site would vary based on the phase and complexity of construction but, for the purposes of this analysis, it is generally assumed that up to 30 workers would be present on-site each day.

Work would generally be completed during daylight hours, typically 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m., or as specified by the City’s Municipal Code. During the construction period, construction would generally be 863
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Project Description South Lake Tahoe, California
April 2026
20 performed 5 days per week (weekend work may occur occasionally depending on schedule), year‐round, except for standard U.S. holidays. There would be no on‐site temporary workforce housing, and parking of employee recreational vehicles or trailers would be prohibited.

2.5 Construction Controls
Project implementation would comply with applicable local, state, and federal regulations pertaining to protection of human health, safety, and environment. As part of this, the Project would be required to comply with the South Lake Tahoe City Code, TRPA Code, El Dorado County Code of Ordinances, Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) stormwater control requirements, and Lake Tahoe Regional Plan, where necessary. Construction controls would apply to both land and in-water construction activities (as identified in Sections 3.4.5 and 3.4.8 above). The following discussion outlines certain requirements and Project design features that would be implemented to comply with applicable regulations.

2.5.1 Air Quality
The El Dorado County Air Quality Management District (EDCAQMD) Rule 223 establishes requirements for construction projects. Control measures for construction and other earth moving activities must follow the guidelines presented in Table 1 of Rule 223-1 “Best Management Practice.” These requirements include, but are not limited to, creation and implementation of a Fugitive Dust Control Plan, trackout management practices at the construction site, visible emissions limitation, vehicle speed limitations, material handling, and control for stockpiles and disturbed areas. Most of these requirements are also part of TRPA protocol to protect water quality. Construction would implement the following EDCAQMD air quality control measures:
• Vehicle idle time shall be limited to 5 minutes or less (this is also a state regulation for diesel engines).
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Tier 4F engines shall be used in all diesel equipment.
• Renewable diesel fuel shall be used in all diesel equipment. • Dirt areas shall be exposed to water twice per day to prevent blowing dust. • Vehicle speed on unpaved areas shall not exceed 10 mph. • Tracked-out areas shall be swept once per week to reduce entrained road dust.

2.5.2 Biological Resources
All trees, major roots, and other vegetation not specifically designated and approved for removal in connection with a project would be protected according to methods approved by TRPA. Additional vegetation shall not be disturbed, injured, or removed except in accordance with the TRPA Code or conditions of Project approval.
864
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Project Description South Lake Tahoe, California
April 2026
21 2.5.3 Geology and Soils
Because the Project would disturb more than 1 acre, it is subject to the statewide Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWQ, which regulates stormwater leaving construction sites. Under this order, site owners must notify the state and implement a stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP) prepared by a Qualified SWPPP Developer. The SWPPP must outline measures that would protect hydrology and water quality resources, including groundwater, from negative impacts during construction through implementation of BMPs and monitoring the effectiveness of BMPs. This permit is administered by the State Water Resources Control Board and overseen by the Lahontan RWQCB.

BMPs would follow the Caltrans Construction Site BMP Manual (Caltrans 2024) and the TRPA Best Management Practices Handbook (TRPA 2014) to control and minimize the impacts of constructionrelated activities and further protect soil and water resources. At a minimum, the following geology and soils controls must be implemented:
• Install temporary erosion and sediment control BMPs to prevent the transport of earthen materials and other construction waste materials from disturbed land areas, stockpiles, and staging areas during periods of precipitation or runoff (such as silt fence, erosion control fabric, fiber rolls).
• Implement temporary BMPs to prevent wind erosion and sediment transport of disturbed areas, such as use of water for dust control and covering of stockpiles during windy conditions or during non-working hours.
• Use high visibility vegetation protection fencing to prevent damage to trees or other vegetation where possible.
• Use construction boundary fencing to limit land disturbance in areas not planned for construction.
• Parking shall be provided on paved and existing disturbed areas only. • Limit grading to May 1 through October 15, unless an exemption is granted by TRPA. At the end of the grading season or before completion of the Project, all surplus or waste earthen materials from the Project area would be removed and disposed of at a TRPA-approved disposal site or stabilized on-site in accordance with TRPA regulations. • Implement a spill prevention plan. Contractors would be responsible for storing on-site materials and temporary BMPs capable of capturing and containing pollutants. Equipment fueling and maintenance, if performed at the job site, shall be performed in a designated area utilizing secondary containment with a spill kit in accordance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements.

2.5.4 Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Green Energy
California regulations limit idling from both on-road and off-road diesel-powered equipment. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) enforces idling limitations and compliance with diesel fleet regulations. The following practices would be incorporated to control exhaust emissions from dieselpowered fleets working at the construction site:
865
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Project Description South Lake Tahoe, California
April 2026
22 • Minimize idling time either by shutting equipment off when not in use or reducing the time of idling to 5 minutes (required by 33 California Code of Regulations 2449(d)(3) and 2485). Provide clear signage that posts this requirement for workers at the entrances to the site. • Maintain all construction equipment in proper working condition according to manufacturer’s specifications. The equipment must be checked by a certified mechanic and determined to be running in proper condition before it is operated.
• Use a CARB-approved low-carbon fuel for construction equipment. Nitrogen oxide emissions from the use of low-carbon fuel must be reviewed and increases in emissions mitigated.

2.6 Responsible and Trustee Agencies
The following agencies may have responsibility for or jurisdiction over implementation of elements of the Project. The following list also identifies potential actions/permits and other approval actions that may be required before implementation of certain Project elements.

FEDERAL
• U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) (Responsible Agency) —Due to potential impacts to waters of the United States (WOUS) and the need to comply with Clean Water Act Section 404 requirements.
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (Responsible Agency) – Due to potential take of listed species and the need to comply with Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) requirements.

STATE
• CDFW (Responsible and Trustee Agency) – Due to Project’s potential impacts to special species and its need to comply with CESA and Fish and Game Code. • Lahontan RWQCB (Responsible agency)—Due to the Project’s need to comply with waste discharge requirements for impacts on waters of the state and to implement a stormwater pollution prevention plan for construction/operation.
• State Water Resources Control Board (Responsible agency)—Due to the need for coverage under Construction General and Industrial Storm Water permits.

REGIONAL
• TRPA (Responsible Agency) – Due to potential impact to threshold standards set forth for water quality, air quality, soils, wildlife, noise, fisheries, vegetation, scenic quality, and recreation.

LOCAL
• South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD) (Responsible Agency) – Due to the Project’s need to provide new utility connections to existing utility infrastructure. 866
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Summary of Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
23 3 Summary of Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures

3.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by the Project, involving at least 1 impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact,” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ☐ 1. Aesthetics
☐ 2. Agriculture and
Forestry Resources
☐ 3. Air Quality
☐ 4. Biological Resources
☐ 5. Cultural Resources
☐ 6. Energy
☐ 7. Geology/Soils
☐ 8. Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
☐ 9. Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
☐ 10. Hydrology/Water
Quality
☐ 11. Land Use/Planning
☐ 12. Mineral Resources
☐ 13. Noise
☐ 14. Population/Housing
☐ 15. Public Services
☐ 16. Recreation
☐ 17. Transportation
☐ 18. Tribal Cultural
Resources
☐ 19. Utilities/Service
Systems
☐ 20. Wildfire
☐ 21. Mandatory Findings of
Significance
None of the above environmental factors are checked, indicating that no “Potentially Significant Impacts” are anticipated as the mitigation measures identified in the following sections reduce impacts to less than significant.

3.2 Lead Agency Determination
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
☐ I find that the Project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
☒ I find that although the Project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the Project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ☐ I find that the Project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) is required.
☐ I find that the Project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An EIR is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
867
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Summary of Impacts and Proposed Mitigation Measures South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
24 ☐ I find that although the Project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the Project, nothing further is required.
________________________________ __________
Signature Date
________________________________ __________
Name For
June 5,2026
John Hitchcock, Planning Manager City of South Lake Tahoe 868
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
25 4 Initial Study and Checklist
The following checklist evaluates the potential adverse impacts of the Project in compliance with CEQA.

Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines provides a sample checklist with a series of questions designed to enable the City, as the lead agency, to identify impacts associated with the Project with respect to 21 environmental topics; this IS generally follows this checklist. The information, analysis and conclusions contained in the checklist are the basis for deciding whether an EIR or Negative Declaration is to be prepared. If an EIR is determined to be necessary based on the conclusions of the IS, the checklist is used to focus the EIR on the effects determined to be potentially significant.

Except where a specific threshold has been adopted by a public agency and is specified in the sections below, such as an air quality threshold, Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines are used as thresholds of significance for the CEQA checklist questions.

Potential environmental impacts are described as follows:
• Potentially Significant Impact: An environmental impact that could be significant and for which no feasible mitigation is known. If any potentially significant impacts are identified in this Checklist, an EIR must be prepared.
• Less than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated: An environmental impact that requires the implementation of mitigation measures to reduce that impact to a less than significant level.
• Less than Significant Impact: An environmental impact may occur; however, the impact would not exceed significance thresholds.
• No Impact: No environmental impacts would result from implementation of the Project. 869
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
26 4.1 Aesthetics
Aesthetic resources are generally defined as both the natural and built features of the landscape that contribute to the public’s experience and appreciation of the environment. Aesthetic impacts may occur depending on the extent to which a project’s presence would negatively alter the perceived visual character and quality of the environment.

4.1.1 Environmental Setting
Site Characteristics
The Project area is approximately 16.5 acres in size and is relatively flat and open with 3 buildings in its northern portion. The 3 wood frame buildings are located adjacent to the existing lagoon and provide 8 commercial spaces and 3 residential units. Several small sheds are also located in the northern portion of the Project area, along with the existing boat lift and boat launch. The other portions of the Project area are primarily maintained as paved and lighted surface parking for TKM visitors with outdoor boat storage and a stormwater retention facility in the southeastern corner of the Project area. A telecommunications tower is located within the Project area, immediately west of the terminus of Venice Drive East. Sparse trees and ornamental vegetation are adjacent to the existing buildings, along the periphery, and within designated landscape areas.

View of and From the Project Site
The Project area is bounded by the existing marina lagoon to the north, residential uses further to the west, and open space to the east and south. Land uses surrounding the Project area are primarily recreational, commercial (primarily medical office), and residential in nature to the west and north and recreational (open space and the CTC Cove East Trail and associated property) to the south and east.

Views of the Project area are relatively open from the east due to its natural condition and the relatively flat topography east of the site. More limited views of the Project area are available from the marina lagoon and residential and commercial uses located west of the marina lagoon and Tahoe Keys Boulevard.

Scenic Resources
A scenic vista is generally defined as a distant public view along or through an opening or corridor that is recognized and valued for its scenic quality, or a natural or cultural resource that is indigenous to the area. Due to the adjacent development and existing vegetation, long-distance views of the Project area are generally precluded, except from certain viewpoints east of the Project area. The existing open space and CTC Cove East Trail located east of the Project area are not designated as scenic resources, part of a scenic highway corridor, nor as scenic public recreation areas by TRPA or the City (TRPA 1993).

U.S. Highway 50 (US 50), located approximately 0.9 miles southeast of the Project area, is listed as an eligible scenic highway, and State Route (SR) 89, located approximately 1.0 mile southwest of the Project area, is a designated scenic highway (Caltrans 2025). Roadways adjacent to the Project area are not considered scenic (City of South Lake Tahoe 2010).
870
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
27 The Project area is also located approximately 0.3 mile south of Shoreline Unit 1 (TRPA 1993). It is qualified as having low overall scenic quality (TRPA 1993).

Light and Glare
The Project area is largely developed with surface parking areas with limited lighting, primarily limited to a few scattered lightposts within parking lots and along Venice Drive East. Additional lighting is provided near the existing buildings for safety/security purposes. The Project area does not contain any features that create substantial glare (i.e., reflective surfaces, metal fixtures). Some minor glare may occur as a result of existing boat storage within the surface storage areas, however the majority of boats stored are covered with non-reflective covers.

4.1.2 Regulatory Setting
Regional
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Regional Plan and Code of Ordinances Projects within the Lake Tahoe Basin are subject to the jurisdiction of TRPA, which implements the Regional Plan to achieve and maintain established environmental threshold carrying capacities, including those for scenic quality. The TRPA Code of Ordinances contains enforceable standards related to aesthetics and scenic resources, including Chapters 35 (Design Standards), 37 (Height), and 66 (Scenic Quality). These chapters regulate building design, height, color, lighting, signage, and site development to ensure compatibility with the natural and built environment of the Tahoe region. TRPA also maintains Scenic Quality Threshold Standards for roadway and shoreline travel units, which evaluate scenic conditions to prevent degradation of identified scenic resources.

Local
City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan
The City General Plan Land Use and Community Design Element establishes policies to guide development, redevelopment, and visual character within the City. The element promotes compact, mixed-use development along major corridors such as US 50, and encourages infill and revitalization of existing urban areas. Policies require use of natural materials and colors, minimization of visual impacts from lighting, signage, and parking, and preservation of scenic views toward Lake Tahoe and surrounding ridgelines. The element also sets standards for building height, density, and land coverage consistent with TRPA requirements and requires that new development complement surrounding land uses and community character.

City of South Lake Tahoe Code of Ordinances
The City’s Code of Ordinances provides regulatory tools for implementing General Plan policies related to visual quality and community design. Relevant provisions include Chapter 6.10 (Design Review), which establishes procedures for design review of new development to ensure visual compatibility with surrounding uses and the natural environment. Other chapters regulate signage, lighting, and landscaping to maintain the visual character of developed areas and minimize light spillover or glare. 871
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
28 4.1.3 CEQA Checklist Summary
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would the Project:

CEQA Question Impact Determination
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impact b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Less Than Significant Impact c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the Project is in an urbanized area, would the Project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less Than Significant Impact
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Less Than Significant Impact

4.1.4 Answers to CEQA Checklist Questions
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099:
a) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less Than Significant Impact
The Project would represent the redevelopment of an existing developed site with modern uses that would serve the same function as the existing on-site uses. As noted above, views of the Project area are generally not available or unimpeded from the south, west, and north (including from US 50 and SR 89).

This is due in large part to existing development (primarily residential with some commercial) in the vicinity, existing vegetation, and some topographic changes between the 2 highway segments and the Project area. In general, the Project would represent a modification of an already developed area. Views of the proposed development would be limited to adjacent areas as described above. As noted above, the existing open space and CTC Cove East Trail located east of the Project area are not designated as scenic resources, part of a scenic highway corridor, nor as scenic public recreation areas by TRPA or the City (TRPA 1993). The Project would modify the visual conditions such that the Project area would enclose outdoor storage of boats and provide on-site structures such that visual conditions would be more uniform and would not be considered a substantial adverse change.

As noted above, the Project would not be visible from either the eligible scenic highway segment of US 50 or the designated scenic highway segment of SR 89 located nearby. The Project area is also located approximately 0.3 miles south from TRPA Shoreline Unit 1.1 TRPA Shoreline Unit 1 is currently in 1 TRPA developed a shoreline survey in 1982 for scenic resources, as part of TRPA’s broader Environmental Thresholds Study. In total, there are 33 shoreline units, beginning with Shoreline Unit 1 in Tahoe Keys and proceeding clockwise around Lake Tahoe.
872
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
29 attainment based on the threshold standards established in the 1982 Lake Tahoe Basin Scenic Resource Inventory. The Project area is not visible from the shoreline unit, and the proposed redevelopment would not cause the Project to be visible from the shoreline due to the presence of intervening development and vegetation. Therefore, the Project would have a less-than-significant impact on the attainment status of a Scenic Shoreline Unit.

The Project would modify views of and through the Project area from the east (along Venice Drive East and from portions of the Cove East Trail, neither of which are designated as scenic resources or roadways) but only to the extent that such views are available in close proximity to the Project area.

These views are already partially obscured by existing vegetation and landscaping. As noted above, the Project would remove existing outdoor storage of boats and provide an enclosed boat storage facility that would provide a more consistent design/aesthetic for the Project area, which varies substantially and based on the number and type of boats currently stored outside. For this reason, and although the Project would partially modify views from the east, the change in visual conditions at the Project area would not be considered a substantial adverse change, as it would provide a consistent design/aesthetic within the Project area. Impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. b) Would the Project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? Less than Significant Impact
As discussed above, the Project area is not located within the viewshed of a state scenic highway or TRPA visual resource. The Project would not be visible from either the eligible scenic highway segment of US 50 or the designated scenic highway segment of SR 89 located nearby. As a result, the Project would not damage any scenic resource within a state scenic highway, including, but not limited to, trees, outcropping, and historic buildings. Additionally, the Project area would not be visible from Shoreline Unit 1, and the existing open space and CTC Cove East Trail located east of the Project area are not designated as scenic resources, part of a scenic highway corridor, nor as scenic public recreation areas by TRPA or the City (TRPA 1993). Therefore, impact to scenic resources as a result of the Project would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
c) Would the Project, in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from publicly accessible vantage point). If the Project is in an urbanized area, would the Project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
Less Than Significant Impact
The Project is located within and adjacent to an urban area with a non-urbanized area located to the east and south. Existing manufactured facilities are in disrepair, do not offer sufficient screening of unsightly storage and repair areas from off-site viewpoints, and lack architectural unity (i.e., consistency of design). The Project area is zoned for commercial and residential development and currently provides a mix of commercial, recreation, public service and resource management uses with some residential 873
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
30 units. As a result, the Project is considered generally consistent with existing zoning and would provide enclosed storage for existing boats at TKM, which would be considered beneficial. Furthermore, Policy LU-8.1 of the City General Plan emphasizes the use of “mountain” architectural theme in all new and remodeled developments, which is considered to be the style of the Project. The Project would also include landscaping with native plants (consistent with Policy LU-8.2) and would provide parking interior to the site and screened by buildings and landscaping (consistent with Policy LU-8.3). For these reasons, the Project would be considered consistent with the City’s General Plan regarding visual conditions. The Project would also provide a cohesive design that would more closely resemble existing development within the local area and region.

With respect to other regulations governing scenic quality, building height regulations are considered applicable, including Section 37 of TRPA Code. This section of the TRPA Code establishes requirements related to maximum height limits for new development and circumstances under which additional height may be considered with certain provisions. One of these requirements includes that any development will not exceed a height such that it would be visible from major arterials, scenic turnouts, public recreation areas, and/or the waters of Lake Tahoe from a distance of 300 feet. As noted above, the Project area is not located proximate to nor would it be visible from designated scenic resources (as determined by TRPA) (TRPA 1993). Further, Section 37.7 of the TRPA Code allows for additional height (pending consideration by TRPA) where the building would minimize interference with existing views in the vicinity. As noted above under 4.1.4 a), the Project would not result in a substantial adverse change to available long-distance views in the area and would provide a more consistent visual theme, consistent with City General Plan policies. Nonetheless, the boat storage facility would require consideration by TRPA due to its proposed height of 42 feet, which is the minimum height requirement for 3 levels of boat storage. Consistent with this requirement and the requirements of Section 37 of the TRPA Code, and pending TRPA consideration, the boat storage facility would be located within the western portion of the site, away from the CTC Cove East Trail in order to further minimize changes in views of and through the Project area. As a result, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
d) Would the Project create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less Than Significant Impact
The Project would involve the redevelopment of the existing TKM with new, modernized buildings, but the site would continue to operate as marina facilities with supporting operations. Due to the proposed development within the southern portion of the site and the expanded surface parking within the southeastern portion of the Project area, additional lighting (beyond existing conditions) would be provided to support safety for visitors to TKM. Light fixtures would be fitted with light-emitting diode (LED) lamps with lighting controls and would be shielded and deliberately located to reduce potential spillover light onto adjacent properties, including adjacent open space areas. No high-mast lighting fixtures (i.e., poles greater than 25 feet tall) would be installed. The maximum height of lighting standards would be consistent with those currently located in the area and along Venice Drive East. The new lighting would be partially obscured for residential uses to the west and north by the existing 874
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
31 commercial development and proposed on-site development. Visible light from the site would also be reduced upon establishment of proposed trees that would line the southern, western, and eastern edges of the site. As a result, although some exterior lighting within the Project area would be visible from adjacent development and open space, this would be considered consistent with existing conditions. The proposed lighting would not represent a substantial increase in lighting because there is currently lighting associated with on-site within the Project area. Existing lighting consists primarily of 12-foot light standards with 2-3 luminaries per standard. Proposed lighting, including within the promenade and publicly accessible areas of the Project area, would be angled down and away from the boundaries of the Project area so as to minimize light spillover and potential night lighting effects, consistent with TRPA requirements. As a result, the potential incremental increase is not anticipated to affect nearby land uses (e.g., residential) that are sensitive to nighttime lighting.

With respect to glare, minimal glare is associated with existing on-site operations, primarily associated with outdoor storage of boats. The proposed development would comply with Section 36.6.1.B. of the TRPA Code of Ordinances (Code) and Section 6.10.120 (City Code), which requires that roofs, including mechanical equipment and skylights, shall be constructed of non-glare finishes and earth tone colors that minimize reflectivity. Thus, compliance with these design standards and requirements would prohibit the use of reflective materials that could cause excessive daytime glare. This impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
875
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
32 4.2 Agricultural and Forestry Resources

4.2.1 Environmental Setting
The Project area contains no lands identified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance as shown on the California Important Farmland Finder (DOC 2022). The Project area contains no land zoned for agricultural use (TRPA 2002) or under a Williamson Act contract (DOC 2025).

While some trees are present within landscaped areas and along the perimeter of the Project area, the Project area would not be considered forest land (as defined in PRC Section 12220[g]), timberland (as defined by PRC Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104[g]).

4.2.2 Regulatory Setting
State
California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program Important Farmland in California is classified and mapped according to the California Department of Conservation’s (DOC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). Authority for the FMMP comes from Government Code Section 65570(b) and Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 612.

Government Code Section 65570(b) requires the Department of Conservation to collect or acquire information on the amount of land converted to or from agricultural use for every mapped county and to report this information to the Legislature. PRC Section 612 requires DOC to prepare, update, and maintain Important Farmland Series Maps and other soils and land capability information.

The California Land Conservation Act of 1965
The California Land Conservation Act of 1965, or Williamson Act, preserves agricultural and open space lands through property tax incentives and voluntary restrictive use contracts. Private landowners voluntarily restrict their land to agricultural and compatible open-space uses under minimum 10-year rolling term contracts. In return, restricted parcels are assessed for property tax purposes at a rate consistent with their actual use, rather than potential market value.

California Public Resources Code
Agricultural and forestry land within California are defined by the PRC as follows:
• Section 21060.1(a) defines “agricultural land” as prime farmland, farmland of statewide importance, or unique farmland, as defined by the United States Department of Agriculture land inventory and monitoring criteria, as modified for California. • Section 21060.1(b) states the following: In those areas of the state where lands have not been surveyed for the classifications specified in subdivision (a), “agricultural land” means land that meets the requirements of “prime agricultural land” as defined in paragraph (1), (2), (3), or (4) of subdivision (c) of Section 51201 of the Government Code. 876
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
33 • Section 21095 amended the California Environmental Quality Act to provide lead agencies with an optional methodology, the Land Evaluation and Site Assessment (LESA) model, to ensure that significant effects on the environment of agricultural land conversions are quantitatively and consistently considered in the environmental review process. The LESA Model evaluates measures of soil resource quality, a given project’s size, water resource availability, surrounding agricultural lands, and surrounding protected resource lands. For a given project, the factors are rated, weighted, and combined, resulting in a single numeric score. The project score becomes the basis for making a determination of a project’s potential significance. • Section 12220(g) defines “forest land” as land that can support 10 percent native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits.
• Section 4526 defines “timberland” as land, other than land owned by the federal government and land designated by the State Board of Forestry and Fire Protection as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of a commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees. Commercial species shall be determined by the board on a district basis.

4.2.3 CEQA Checklist Summary
Would the Project:

CEQA Question Impact Determination
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to nonagricultural use? No Impact
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? No Impact c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
No Impact
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact
877
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
34 4.2.4 Answers to CEQA Checklist Questions
a) Would the Project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? No Impact
The Project area does not contain Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide or Local Importance (Farmland), as shown on the California Important Farmland Finder (DOC 2022).

Implementation of the Project does not require conversion of land from the existing land use. Because the Project does not propose converting agricultural land or otherwise contain farmland, no impact would occur as a result of Project implementation, and no mitigation is necessary. b) Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No Impact
The Project area is zoned for primarily commercial uses with the southeastern parcel (APN No. 022-210- 041) being zoned for residential use. There are no Williamson Act contracts within the Project area.

Therefore, the Project would not conflict with existing zoning or Williamson Act contracts. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is necessary.
c) Would the Project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
No Impact
As noted above, the Project area is zoned for commercial and residential uses. Further and per the Tahoe Keys Plan Area Statement (TRPA 2002), the Project area is designated for commercial, recreation, public service and resource management uses. The Tahoe Keys Plan Area Statement (2002) defines resource management as a broad category of management actions, including those associated with forestry. However, the highly disturbed nature of the Project area does not meet the definition of forest land as outlined in PRC Section 12220(g) as none of the parcels contains 10% or greater canopy cover.

Based on a review of aerial imagery, existing canopy cover is limited to landscape trees along the periphery of the site and is present within less than 1% of the Project area. The Project area is not used for growing and harvesting timber, nor is it capable of producing timber due to its disturbed nature and current use as a marina. Therefore, the Project area does not meet the definition of Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g)), and Project implementation would have no impact on forest land or timberland. No mitigation is required. 878
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
35 d) Would the Project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact
As discussed in 4.2.3(c), the Project area contains developed land that does not meet the definition of forest land or timberland. Because the Project area does not contain such resources, the Project would not convert forest land to non-forest use. Therefore, the Project would not result in conversion of forest land. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is necessary. e) Would the Project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No Impact
The Project area does not contain any lands identified as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance as shown on the California Important Farmland Finder (DOC 2022), and contains no land zoned for agricultural use. As discussed in 4.2.3(c) the Project area contains no forest land. Therefore, the Project would not result in the conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use or forest land to non-forest use. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is necessary. 879
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
36 4.3 Air Quality

4.3.1 Environmental Setting
The Project area is located at the south end of Lake Tahoe in a semi-urban setting, in the City of South Lake Tahoe, California, and within the Lake Tahoe Air Basin (LTAB). More broadly, the LTAB is comprised of the surface of Lake Tahoe and land up to the surrounding rim of mountain ridges and is located within both El Dorado and Placer counties. The LTAB is over 6,000 feet in elevation, and its meteorology is typified by large amounts of precipitation from Pacific storms that fall mainly as snow. Winter days are typically sunny with mild to cold temperatures, with storms that bring wind, clouds, and snow. In the summer, the LTAB experiences sunny, mild days with an occasional thunderstorm from southern flows of moisture.

With respect to air quality, criteria air pollutants are those pollutants for which the federal and state governments have established ambient air quality standards, or criteria, for outdoor concentrations to protect public health. Criteria air pollutants include ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), respirable particulate matter (particulate matter [PM] with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 10 micrometers or less) (PM10), fine particulate matter (PM with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less) (PM2.5), and lead. As explained further within Section

4.3.2 (Regulatory Setting), the federal and state standards have been set, with an adequate margin of safety, at levels above which concentrations could be harmful to human health and welfare. These standards are designed to protect the most sensitive people from illness or discomfort. A brief description of key criteria air pollutants in the LTAB and their health effects are provided below.

Ozone
Ground-level ozone is not emitted directly into the air but is created by chemical reactions between reactive organic gas (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX). This happens when pollutants emitted by cars, power plants, industrial boilers, refineries, chemical plants, and other sources chemically react in the presence of sunlight. Ozone at ground level is a harmful air pollutant because of its effects on people and the environment, and it is the main ingredient in smog (EPA 2025).

Acute health effects of ozone exposure include increased respiratory and pulmonary resistance, cough, pain, shortness of breath, and lung inflammation. Chronic health effects include permeability of respiratory epithelia and possibility of permanent lung impairment (EPA 2025). Emissions of the ozone precursors ROG and NOX have decreased because of more stringent motor vehicle standards and cleaner burning fuels (CARB 2013).

Particulate Matter
PM10, consisting of small particles that have an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less, is emitted directly into the air, and can include fugitive dust, soot, and smoke from mobile and stationary sources, construction operations, fires and natural windblown dust, and PM formed in the atmosphere by reaction of gaseous precursors (CARB 2013). PM2.5 includes a subgroup of smaller particles that have an aerodynamic diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less. PM10 emissions are generally dominated by emissions from area sources, primarily fugitive dust from vehicle travel on unpaved and paved roads, 880
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
37 construction and demolition, and particles from residential fuel combustion. Direct emissions of PM10 and PM2.5 are projected to remain relatively constant through 2035. Emissions of PM2.5 in the LTAB are dominated by the same sources as emissions of PM10 (CARB 2013).

Acute health effects of PM10 and PM2.5 exposure include breathing and respiratory symptoms, aggravation of existing respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and premature death. Chronic health effects include alterations to the immune system and carcinogenesis (EPA 2025).

Toxic Air Contaminants
According to the California Almanac of Emissions and Air Quality, the majority of the estimated health risks from toxic air contaminants (TACs) can be attributed to relatively few compounds, the most important being diesel PM (CARB 2013). Diesel PM differs from other TACs in that it is not a single substance, but rather a complex mixture of hundreds of substances. Although diesel PM is emitted by diesel-fueled internal combustion engines, the composition of the emissions varies depending on engine type, operating conditions, fuel composition, lubricating oil, and whether an emissions control system is being used. Unlike the other TACs, no ambient monitoring data is available for diesel PM because no routine measurement method currently exists. However, CARB has made preliminary concentration estimates based on a PM exposure method. This method uses the CARB emissions inventory’s PM10 database, ambient PM10 monitoring data, and the results from several studies to estimate concentrations of diesel PM. In addition to diesel PM, the TACs for which data are available that pose the greatest existing ambient risk in California are benzene, 1,3-butadiene, acetaldehyde, carbon tetrachloride, hexavalent chromium, para-dichlorobenzene, formaldehyde, methylene chloride, and perchloroethylene.

Diesel PM poses the greatest health risk among these 10 TACs mentioned. Based on receptor modeling techniques, CARB estimated the average statewide cancer risk associated with diesel PM concentrations to be 360 excess cancer cases per million people in the year 2020 (CARB 2000). Overall, statewide emissions of diesel PM are forecasted to decline by 71 percent between 2000 and 2035 (CARB 2013).

Odors
Odors are generally regarded as an annoyance rather than a health hazard. However, manifestations of a person’s reaction to foul odors can range from psychological (e.g., irritation, anger, or anxiety) to physiological (e.g., circulatory and respiratory effects, nausea, vomiting, and headache). The ability to detect odors varies considerably among the population and overall is quite subjective, however, some odors are more likely to cause disturbance than are others. Typical odor sources of concern include wastewater treatment plants, sanitary landfills, composting facilities, recycling facilities, petroleum refineries, chemical manufacturing plants, painting operations, rendering plants, and food packaging plants (Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District 2016).

4.3.2 Regulatory Setting
Air quality within the LTAB is regulated by several agencies including TRPA, the EPA, CARB, and the EDCAQMD. These agencies develop rules, regulations, policies, and/or plans to achieve the goals and directives imposed through legislation. Air quality in the LTAB is considered separate from the western 881
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
38 part of the County by the EDCAQMD because it is a distinct air basin with different emission sources and climate.

Federal
The EPA is responsible for implementing the federal Clean Air Act (1970), including establishing healthbased National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for air pollutants. NAAQS established for criteria pollutants under the Clean Air Act are O3, CO, NO2, SO2, PM10, PM2.5, and lead. The standards set for criteria air pollutants are periodically reviewed and revised as applicable. Depending on measured air quality conditions, air basins (e.g., LTAB) are designated as being either in attainment or in nonattainment for specific criteria air pollutants. An “attainment” designation for an area signifies that pollutant concentrations did not violate the NAAQS and/or CAAQS for that pollutant in that area. A “non-attainment” designation indicates that a pollutant concentration violated the standard at least once, excluding those occasions when a violation was caused by an exceptional event (e.g., wildfire).

Currently, the LTAB is either considered to be in attainment or unclassified for all NAAQS.

State
In California, CARB is responsible for implementing the California Clean Air Act (1988) and has established California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS), which are to date more restrictive than the NAAQS. In general, the CARB works with local agencies to develop policies, guidance, and regulations related to state and federal ambient air quality standards; coordinates with local agencies on transportation plans and strategies; and provides assistance to local districts and transportation agencies to meet air quality standards established under both the federal and California clean air acts.

Currently, the LTAB is considered to be in attainment or unclassified for all criteria pollutants with the exception of O3 and PM, for which the LTAB is classified as being in non-attainment. The state PM10 24- hour average standard (not to exceed) is 50 micrograms per cubic meter. In 2024, the LTAB experienced average ambient concentrations of 38 micrograms per cubic meter over a 24-hour period (excluding exceptional events), which does not exceed the standard. The California and federal standard for 8-hour O3 concentrations is 0.070 parts per million. The LTAB saw less than 0.1 day exceedance of this standard in 2024 (CARB 2025).

Regional
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
TRPA has adopted environmental threshold carrying capacities related to air quality for the Tahoe region. Every 4 years, TRPA evaluates the environmental thresholds to determine whether each threshold standard is being achieved and/or maintained. TRPA also makes specific recommendations to address problem areas and directs general planning efforts for the next 4-year period. TRPA threshold standards address CO, O3, regional and subregional visibility, PM10, PM2.5, and nitrate deposition.

Numerical standards have been established for each of these parameters, and management standards have been developed that are intended to assist in attaining the threshold standards. TRPA has classified the LTAB as being in attainment for PM2.5 and CO standards, but as being in non-attainment for PM10 and O3 standards (TRPA 2018).
882
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
39 TRPA considers impacts to air in its planning and permitting activities to ensure compliance with state and district air quality standards. Because TRPA’s authority is granted directly from Congress, TRPA has the authority to adopt air quality and other environmental quality thresholds, and to enforce ordinances designed to achieve those thresholds. The TRPA standards generally conform with the CARB and EPA.

Local
El Dorado County Air Quality Management District
The EDCAQMD is the primary agency responsible for air quality regulation in the Project area. As part of that role, the EDCAQMD has prepared the 2002 CEQA Guide to Air Quality Assessment (EDCAQMD 2002). The purpose of the guide is to facilitate the evaluation and review of air quality impacts for projects in El Dorado County that are subject to CEQA. The guide has established construction thresholds for air quality for the priority pollutants shown in Table 1.

Table 1. El Dorado County Air Quality Thresholds
Pollutant Construction Threshold Operational Threshold
ROG 82 lbs/day 82 lbs/day
NOx 82 lbs/day 82 lbs/day
PM10 -- --
lbs/day = pounds per day
ROG = reactive organic gases
NOx = nitrogen oxides
PM = particulate matter; number refers to size of PM in microns in diameter or smaller Source: EDCAQMD 2002, CARB 2016
Although EDCAQMD does not have an adopted quantitative threshold for PM10, Chapter 4 (as it relates to construction emissions) and Chapter 6 (as it relates to operational emissions) of the EDCAQMD Guide to Air Quality Assessment (EDCAQMD 2002) provide guidance on determining significance of PM10 emissions. In general, EDCAQMD guidance indicates that if ROG and NOX emissions are not significant then it can be assumed that other components of exhaust emissions, in this case PM10, are also not significant. With respect to fugitive dust PM10 emissions, EDCAQMD recommends determining significance based on the consistency of the Project with dust control measures in EDCAQMD Rule 223. 883
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
40 4.3.3 CEQA Checklist Summary
Would the Project:

CEQA Question Impact Determination
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less Than Significant Impact b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Less Than Significant Impact
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people? Less Than Significant Impact

4.3.4 Answers to CEQA Checklist Questions
a) Would the Project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
Less Than Significant Impact
At the local level, air quality is managed through land use and development planning practices, which are implemented in the region through the general planning process. As noted above, EDCAQMD is responsible for establishing and enforcing local air quality rules and regulations that address the requirements of federal and state air quality laws. EDCAQMD and TRPA are responsible for implementing strategies for air quality improvement and recommending mitigation measures for new growth and development. The EDCAQMD’s Guide to Air Quality Assessments, adopted in 2002, provides thresholds of significance for the Project area and guidance for mitigation measures required for each threshold (El Dorado County 2002). Given the modeled air quality emissions output from construction and operation of the Project (as summarized below under 4.3.4.b) and the amount of construction equipment and duration of the Project, the Project would not exceed applicable thresholds. As a result, it would not impede, conflict with, or obstruct implementation of regional air quality planning efforts or continued progress towards attainment for O3 and PM10. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
b) Would the Project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the Project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Less Than Significant Impact
As noted above, the LTAB is designated as non-attainment for O3 and PM10 with respect to the CAAQS and as unclassified for O3 and PM10 with respect to NAAQS. As shown in Tables 2 and 3 (below), the 884
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
41 Project would result in construction and operational emissions that would not exceed the thresholds of significance adopted by EDCAQMD.

Construction
Construction emissions are described as “short term” or temporary in duration. Construction-related activities would result in Project-generated emissions of ROG, NOX, and PM10 from site preparation, grading, heavy off-road equipment, material delivery, worker commute vehicle travel to and from the site, building construction, paving, architectural coating, and other related activities. Emissions of NOX would be primarily associated with off-road construction equipment exhaust; secondary sources would include on-road trucks for the hauling of materials and equipment, as well as worker vehicles for commuting. Worker commute trips in gasoline-fueled vehicles and the application of architectural coatings would be the principal sources of ROG, with additional ROG coming from off- and on-road construction equipment. Emissions of fugitive PM10 dust are associated primarily with ground disturbance activities during site preparation, excavation, and grading and may vary as a function of such soil parameters as silt content, soil moisture, wind speed, and the area of disturbance. Exhaust emissions from diesel equipment and worker commute trips also contribute to short-term increases in PM10, but to a much lesser extent than fugitive dust emissions.

Temporary construction-related activities for the Project would include demolition of the existing on-site facilities, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coatings. The emissions from construction activities were calculated by using California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2020.4.0 with design information provided by the applicant and CalEEMod defaults where the information was not available. CalEEMod default phasing and duration of construction activities were modified to account for the conceptual phasing of construction, as well as to conservatively assume that interior painting and paving activities may occur concurrently. In addition, the construction controls and associated emissions reductions were incorporated (to the extent feasible) into the air quality modeling for the Project.

The modeling evaluates air quality emissions from construction of new/replacement buildings within the Project area. The construction worker trip numbers and lengths are assumed as CalEEMod defaults.

Table 2 summarizes the estimated construction-related annual ozone precursor and PM10 emissions over 24 months of the construction period. Refer to Appendix A for detailed modeling assumptions and results. The maximum daily emissions would not exceed the EDCAQMD adopted threshold of significance, therefore Project construction activities would not have a substantial impact on any air quality standard for which the region is in non-attainment. Also, the Project would not have substantial fugitive dust emissions, as Project construction would be conducted in a manner consistent with Rule 223-1 as required by EDCAQMD. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
885
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
42 Table 2. Projected Construction Emissions – Pounds Per Day Without Mitigation ROG NOX PM10
2027 <1 6 30
2028 32 4 30
2029 32 3 12
Maximum Daily Emissions 32 6 30
EDCAQMD Thresholds 82 82 --
Exceed EDCAQMD Thresholds? No No No
Notes: See Appendix A for details on model inputs, assumptions, and Project-specific modeling parameters; Construction controls provided in Section 2.5 are reflected in modeling outputs as mitigations but are incorporated into the Project; EDCAQMD = El Dorado County Air Quality Management District; ROG = reactive organic gases; NOX = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less; -- = no adopted threshold.

Operation
Project operation would result in the generation of long-term operational emissions of ROG, NOX, and PM10 because of area-wide, energy, and mobile sources. Area-wide sources would include the periodic application of architectural coatings, the generation of ROG from the use of consumer products, and landscaping. Mobile-source emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors would result from vehicle trips generated by employee commute trips, and visitor trips. As noted above in Section 2.4 (Project Features), the Project is not anticipated to increase boat usage (and associated fuel consumption and emissions). For estimating emissions from mobile sources, the change in vehicle miles traveled (VMT) due to the repurposing of the existing facilities and new construction was used to evaluate emissions related to operations. As stated in Section 4.17 (Transportation), the Project would generate an estimated 218 additional daily VMT. Operational emissions of criteria air pollutants and precursors due to implementation of the Project were calculated using CalEEMod and are based on the proposed land use type and number of trips (Appendix A). As shown in Table 3, Project’s operational emissions would not exceed EDCAQMD’s thresholds of significance. Hence the impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
886
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
43 Table 3. Projected Operational Emissions – Pounds Per Day Without Mitigation ROG NOX PM10
Area 5 <1 --
Energy <1 2 <1
Mobile <1 <1 5
Total Daily Emissions 6 2 5
EDCAQMD Thresholds 82 82 --
Exceed EDCAQMD Thresholds? No No No
Notes: See Appendix A for details on model inputs, assumptions, and Project-specific modeling parameters; EDCAQMD = El Dorado County Air Quality Management District; ROG = reactive organic gases; NOX = oxides of nitrogen; PM10 = respirable particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter of 10 micrometers or less; -- = no adopted threshold.
c) Would the Project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less Than Significant Impact
Construction activities associated with the Project would result in temporary, intermittent emissions of diesel PM from the exhaust of off-road equipment used during site preparation and construction and on-road heavy-duty trucks. On-road diesel-powered haul trucks traveling to and from the construction area to deliver materials and equipment are less of a concern because they do not operate at any 1 location for extended periods of time such that they would expose a single receptor to excessive diesel PM emissions. Based on the construction-related emissions modeling conducted (see Appendix A), maximum daily emissions of exhaust PM10 would be less than 1 lb/day during construction. A portion of these emissions would be due to haul trucks traveling to and from the Project area and would not occur within the Project area. In addition, all construction activities would occur during daytime hours, which is when many residents located to the north and west would typically not be at home, thus limiting exposure from construction-related emissions to these receptors. As a result, construction-related TAC emissions associated with the Project are not anticipated to expose sensitive receptors to an incremental increase in cancer risk greater than 10 in 1 million or a hazard index greater than 1.0. The low exposure level reflects the (i) relatively low mass of diesel PM emissions that would be generated by construction activity within the Project area; (ii) the relatively short duration of diesel PM-emitting construction activity within the Project area; and (iii) the highly dispersive properties of diesel PM.

Further, the Project would not involve the operation of any land uses that would be considered major sources of substantial pollutant concentrations, including diesel PM. As such, the Project would not 887
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
44 generate substantial pollutant concentrations during operation. This impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
d) Would the Project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less Than Significant Impact
The Project would produce localized odors during construction activities from the use of heavy-duty diesel equipment, and application of architectural coatings. The use of the equipment would be intermittent and temporary, and it would dissipate rapidly from the source with an increase in distance.

In addition, construction activities would not occur in the vicinity of any particular receptor for an extended period. Since the Project’s land use does not include any of the above-named odor sources of concern, it would not have any long-term odor impact. Further, EDCAQMD Rule 205-Nuisance prohibits the discharge of quantities of air contaminants or other material that can cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons. This would protect citizens from odors should they occur. Hence, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. 888
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
45 4.4 Biological Resources
The impact analysis presented in this section is based primarily on the Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) prepared by NCE for the applicant. The BRA, which is included as Appendix B, provides additional data and information related to the evaluation of Project impacts.

4.4.1 Environmental Setting
Reconnaissance-level field surveys for the Project were completed on July 17 and 18, 2024; May 19 and 20, 2025; and October 29, 2025. These surveys focused on identifying vegetation types, identifying whether or not critical wildlife habitats are present within the Project area, and developing an inventory of possible wildlife and botanical resources. Within the Project area, the survey identified heavily disturbed conditions resulting from existing marina operations, paved and unpaved access roads, parking areas, and shoreline modification. Vegetation within the Project area is characterized primarily by landscaped and ruderal species, with patches of riparian vegetation occurring along the marina shoreline and adjacent lagoon edges. Big sagebrush shrubland was identified along the berms of the trailer storage area with forbs and ruderal species in the disturbed, undeveloped parcel along Venice Drive East. In terms of aquatic resources, wetland plant species and standing water were present within the regularly maintained stormwater basin, and the marina lagoon was identified as perennial open water (NCE 2025a). A formal wetland delineation of the potential aquatic resources within the Project area was conducted on July 30, 2024, and verified by USACE on September 19, 2025 (NCE 2025b). The 2024 wetland delineation was then supplemented in 2025 to include potential disturbance associated with utility work along Venice Drive East and Tahoe Keys Boulevard (NCE 2025b).

A Biological Study Area (BSA) (i.e., a 1-mile buffer around the Project area) was established for the purposes of database research and background review of the Project. Within the BSA, a search of the CDFW California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) was conducted. The query identified 13 special status species, including American goshawk (Accipiter atricapillus), bank swallow (Riparia riparia), Great Basin rams-horn (Helisoma newberryi), Lahontan Lake tui chub (Siphateles bicolor pectinifer), Lahontan mountain sucker (Catostomus lahontan), Lake Tahoe amphipod (Stygobromus lacicolus), Lake Tahoe benthic stonefly (Capnia lacustra), Lake Tahoe stygobromid (Stygobromus tahoensis), mountain whitefish (Prosopium williamsoni), northern leopard frog (Lithobates pipiens), Tahoe yellow cress (Rorippa subumbellata), western bumble bee (Bombus occidentalis), yellow-headed blackbird (Xanthocephalus xanthocephalus), that have been historically identified within the BSA. During the reconnaissance-level surveys, a bank swallow and yellow-headed blackbird were observed east of the Project area in the Upper Truckee Marsh. Habitat in the Project area is too heavily disturbed to support the species identified in the CNDDB, but bank swallow and yellow-headed blackbird are present in the BSA and may occur in the Project area as transients while flying or foraging. No nesting habitat for these species is present in the Project area. A TRPA special interest species, osprey (Pandion haliaetus), was observed during the reconnaissance-level surveys in the BSA flying over the Upper Truckee Marsh east of the Project area. Osprey nesting habitat is absent in the Project area, and no potential nests were 889
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
46 observed in the vicinity during the reconnaissance-level surveys. There are no osprey nests in the BSA as documented by TRPA (NCE 2025a).

A USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) report and species list was accessed through the IPaC website for the Project on July 3 and November 11, 2024. The IPaC report species list identified the potential for 7 species including: North American wolverine (Gulo gulo luscus), Sierra Nevada red fox (Vulpes vulpes necator), California spotted owl (Strix occidentalis occidentalis), northwestern pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata), Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog (SNYLF) (Rana sierrae), Lahontan cutthroat trout (LCT) (Oncorhynchus henshawi) and monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus). No critical habitat for these species is present within the BSA or Project area. During the reconnaissance-level field surveys, potential habitats for SNYLF and LCT were identified in the BSA and Project area, but these species were not observed. In addition, suitable habitat for SNYLF is identified in the BSA and Project area per Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit GIS data (NCE 2025a). No other species identified in the IPaC report, or other federally listed/protected species, were observed during the reconnaissance-level surveys (NCE 2025a).

Two bald eagles, which are protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, were observed within the BSA, and 1 briefly flew over the Project area during the survey on July 18, 2024. There are no bald eagle nest sites in the BSA as documented by TRPA, and potential nest sites in the vicinity were not observed during the reconnaissance-level surveys (NCE 2025a).

A search of the California Native Plant Society rare plant inventory identified 14 California Rare Plant Rank 1 and 2 species with ranges that could overlap with the Project area. Habitat for these species was assessed during the reconnaissance-level surveys and it was determined 6 species are absent/precluded, 7 species are unlikely to occur, and 1 species, Tahoe yellow cress, has potential to occur based on elevation ranges, habitat requirements, and conditions in the Project area. Tahoe yellow cress was determined to have potential to occur considering the presence of lake margin habitat and proximity of CNDDB and Tahoe Yellow Cress Adaptive Management Working Group monitoring occurrences around the Project area. Lake margin habitat conditions in the Project area are developed, heavily disturbed, and/or artificial and provide limited habitat for the species. No Tahoe yellow cress or other special status plant species were observed during the reconnaissance-level surveys (NCE 2025a).

With respect to wetlands and WOUS, the marina lagoon, which borders the Project area to the north and west, would qualify as a jurisdictional feature and water of the U.S. due to its hydrologic connection to Lake Tahoe. The existing stormwater basin and ditch located within the southeast corner of the site is considered non-jurisdictional, both as a water of the U.S. and as a water of the State. This is primarily due to its lack of hydrologic connection to an aquatic resource and because it was built in upland habitat (NCE 2025b).
890
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
47 4.4.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Endangered Species Act
The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) protects plants and wildlife that are listed as endangered or threatened by the USFWS. Section 9 of the ESA prohibits the taking of endangered wildlife, where taking is defined as “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in such conduct” (50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 17.3). This statute also governs removing, possessing, maliciously damaging, or destroying any endangered plant on federal land and removing, cutting, digging up, damaging, or destroying any endangered plant on non-federal land in knowing violation of state law.

Under Section 7 of the ESA, federal agencies are required to consult with the USFWS and/or National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration–National Marine Fisheries Service if their actions, including permit approvals or funding, could adversely affect a federally listed species (including plants) or its critical habitat.

Clean Water Act
The USACE Regulatory Branch regulates activities that discharge dredged or fill materials into WOUS, which includes wetlands under Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act.

Section 401 requires that an applicant proposing to conduct any activity that may result in a discharge to a WOUS must apply for and secure a Water Quality Certification prior to construction activities. The Lahontan RWQCB administers Section 401 Water Quality Certifications in the region.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The MBTA makes it unlawful at any time, by any means or in any manner, to pursue, hunt, take, capture, or kill migratory birds. The law applies to the removal of nests (such as swallow nests on bridges) occupied by migratory birds during the breeding season. California Fish and Game Code (FGC) Section 3500 also prohibits the destruction of any nest, egg, or nestling.

State
California Endangered Species Act
Pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and FGC Section 2081, an Incidental Take Permit from CDFW is required for projects that could result in the “take” of a State listed threatened or endangered species. Under the CESA, “take” is defined as an activity that would directly or indirectly kill an individual of a species proposed for listing (called “candidates” by the state). FGC Section 2080 prohibits the taking, possession, purchase, sale, and import or export of endangered, threatened, or candidate species, unless otherwise authorized by permit or in the regulations. 891
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
48 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Act provides the State with very broad authority to regulate “waters of the state” (which are defined as any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters). The State Regional Water Quality Control Board is granted ultimate authority over water quality policy in the state of California. Before allowing discharges that may affect the quality of waters of the state, a Report of Waste Discharge must be filed with the Lahontan RWQCB.

California Native Plant Protection Act
The Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) of 1977 (FGC Sections 1900 – 1913) was created to “preserve, protect and enhance rare and endangered plants in this State.” The NPPA is administered by CDFW. The Fish and Wildlife Commission has the authority to designate native plants as “endangered” or “rare” and to protect endangered and rare plants from take. CESA provided further protection for rare and endangered plant species, but the NPPA remains part of the FGC.

California Fish and Wildlife
The CDFW is responsible for protecting and conserving fish and wildlife resources, and the habitats upon which they depend. Section 1602 of the FGC requires that the CDFW review any project that may do 1 or more of the following:
• Divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream, or lake. • Change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake. • Use material from any river, stream, or lake.
• Deposit or dispose of material into any river, stream, or lake.

Under the Lake and Streambed Alteration (LSA) Program, entities are required to notify CDFW of proposed impacts through an LSA Notification. If it is determined by CDFW that the activity, as described in an LSA Notification, would substantially alter a river, stream, or lake, and may substantially adversely affect existing fish or wildlife resources, then an LSA Agreement must be prepared. The LSA Agreement includes necessary mitigation measures to protect fish and wildlife resources from significant impacts.

Regional
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Code of Ordinances
The TRPA Code of Ordinances includes requirements for protection and management of “sensitive plants” and “uncommon plant communities” and regulations regarding tree removal (TRPA Code Chapter 61). The TRPA Code of Ordinances also includes protection of wildlife habitat (TRPA Code Chapter 61), and of certain animal species known as “special interest species” (TRPA Code Chapter 62).

TRPA-designated special interest species are species that are “locally important because of rarity or other public interest, and threatened, endangered, or rare species as designated under state and federal endangered species acts.”
Updated in 2025, the TRPA Regional Plan identifies goals for the region and policies that establish the strategies necessary to achieve those goals. This document integrates the requirements of the Bi-State Compact, the thresholds, related plans and legal requirements, and the public’s input. As a result, the 892
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
49 Regional Plan provides coordinated and integrated direction for the TRPA’s Code of Ordinances and implementation programs.

TRPA Code regulates the removal of trees under Section 61.1, including requirements for tree protection during construction and standards for soil and vegetation protection during tree removal.

Local
Chapter 6.50 of the South Lake Tahoe City Code regulates how and when tree removal is allowable within the City. It establishes that a permit is required to cut down, destroy, remove, or move any tree with a trunk diameter of 6 inches or greater, and that tree removal must also follow TRPA Code requirements.

4.4.3 CEQA Checklist Summary
Would the Project:

CEQA Question Impact Determination
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact
with Mitigation
Incorporated
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Less Than Significant Impact
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less Than Significant Impact
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Less Than Significant Impact f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact
893
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
50 4.4.4 Answers to CEQA Checklist Questions
a) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated The Project involves redevelopment of the Project area with new, modernized facilities. The existing stormwater basin would be removed and redeveloped as a parking lot, and existing landscaping vegetation (except along the site perimeter) would be replaced. In addition, the Project would include replacement of the existing bulkhead and relocation of the existing boat ramp. As noted above, the majority of the Project area is heavily disturbed and developed with existing structures. As such, it does not provide suitable habitat for special status terrestrial species, even the 13 species that were identified above as having historically occurred within the BSA and Tahoe yellow cress, which was observed northeast of the Project area. As no suitable habitat for special status species is located within the Project area, direct impacts to or modifications to habitat for special status species would not occur as a result of Project implementation.

The portions of the Project area that include the marina lagoon are not considered suitable habitat for special status aquatic species due to the continued presence and movement of watercraft and ongoing maintenance activities within the marina, which would discourage use by special status species.

Additionally, the Project area does not present suitable habitat for spawning and/or nursery activities due to the lack of pools near cover and velocity breaks, well-vegetated stream banks, and riffle-run areas with a silt-free rocky substrate. However, the presence of LCT within the marina lagoon cannot be precluded. The Project would require certain in-water construction during replacement of the existing sheet pile bulkhead for approximately 1,600 linear feet and replacement/relocation of the existing boat ramp. In-water work will include the use of turbidity curtains or temporary sheet piles surrounding the specific work areas to control turbidity. Nonetheless, if individuals are present, impacts to LCT could occur as a result of noise, visual, sound pressure, and/or turbidity-related disturbances during in-water work for the Project.

In addition, the existing landscaping (e.g., trees) located throughout and adjacent to the Project area (predominantly to the east and south) may provide potential nesting habitat for migratory birds protected under the MBTA and FGC. If a migratory bird, regardless of its federal or state status, were to nest in trees on or near the site prior to or during Project remediation activities, such activities could result in the abandonment of active nests or direct mortality to these birds. Additionally, although the project area does not present suitable habitat for Tahoe yellow cress, potential establishment within existing landscape areas of the site cannot be precluded. Due to the potential for disturbance of special status birds, Tahoe yellow cress, and LCT during Project construction, impacts would be potentially significant.
894
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
51 Mitigation Measures
BIO-1: Project activities that could result in nesting migratory bird and raptor take, such as removal of vegetation or man-made structures and conducting activities that may cause excessive noise, vibrations, or otherwise have potential to cause nest abandonment (e.g., piling), will be performed outside the migratory bird and raptor nesting season (typically February 15th through September 15th). September 16th through February 14th is a suitable timeframe for completing such activities that pose a risk to nesting birds and raptors. If these activities are to occur during the nesting season, the Project proponent will require that a qualified biologist conduct a nesting bird and raptor survey no more than 14 days prior to the beginning of those activities within a recommended minimum 500-foot buffer of the Project area. The survey results shall be submitted to CDFW prior to the start of construction activities. If no active nest is found, no further action will be required. If an active nest is found and avoidance is not feasible, construction or other disturbance activity will initially be prohibited within 500 feet of a raptor nest and 250 feet of a non-raptor nest to minimize disturbance until the nest is no longer active.

A qualified biologist will monitor the nest during project activities, to determine whether the exclusionary buffer is appropriately sized to minimize impacts to the nest during the start of disturbance activities. The qualified biologist will have the authority to stop work if project activities cause the nesting birds to vocalize, make defensive flights, displace from a brooding position, or fly off the nest. The buffer may be increased or decreased depending on the birds’ level of tolerance to the disturbance. The results of the monitoring efforts and the professional judgment of the qualified biologist will be used to determine whether the exclusionary buffer can be modified or if other performance-based modifications are necessary. Other performance-based modifications may include visual or noise screens between the nest and project activities. The exclusionary buffer and/or other performance-based modifications will remain in place until the chicks have fledged or the nest is no longer active, as determined by a qualified biologist.

BIO-2: A preconstruction survey for special status plants and wildlife, including Tahoe yellow cress, SNYLF, LCT, and other species identified in the BRA/LSAA, shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 3 days prior to the onset of construction activities. If any special status species (or sign of presence) are identified, the Project proponent shall consult with TRPA, USFWS, and/or CDFW, as appropriate depending on species status, to determine and implement appropriate measures to achieve no net loss of occupied habitat or individuals. Additional measures may include, but are not limited to, preserving and enhancing existing populations, creating offsite populations through seed collection or transplantation, and/or restoring or creating suitable habitat in sufficient quantities to achieve no net loss of occupied habitat and/or individuals. Potential mitigation sites could include suitable locations outside of the Project area but within Cove East/Upper Truckee Marsh.

BIO-3: A qualified biologist shall conduct environmental awareness training for all construction personnel. The training shall include basic visual identification of special status species, required preconstruction measures, general measures that are being implemented to conserve the species as they relate to the Project, penalties for non-compliance, and the boundaries of the 895
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
52 Project area and of the permitted disturbance zones. Supporting materials containing training information shall be prepared and distributed. Upon completion of training, all construction personnel shall sign a form stating that they have attended the training and understand the protection measures and consequences of permit/take violations. Proof of this instruction shall be kept on file with the Project proponent. The Project proponent or designated biologist shall provide CDFW with a copy of the training materials and copies of the signed forms indicating that training has been completed. If new construction personnel are added to the site, the crew foreman shall ensure that the personnel receive the mandatory training from the qualified or designated biologist before starting work.

BIO-4: To prevent the spread of AIS, any construction equipment and materials that enter or leave the lagoon will be inspected for AIS, and if needed, decontaminated prior to the start of the Project.

Decontamination protocol will be implemented in a manner consistent with TRPA’s Aquatic Invasive Species Management Program. Equipment and materials will be cleaned, free of dirt, vegetation material, and other debris prior to entering the lagoon. Re-inspection and decontamination of equipment and materials at the end of the Project will also be conducted to avoid spreading AIS from TKM to other locations. As the bulkhead is being removed, visual inspections will be conducted, and any attached plants or invertebrates will be removed and disposed of in a secure manner (e.g., dumpster). Floating plant fragments resulting from the Project work will be collected by hand or skim and disposed of in a secure manner. Bulkhead sections will be placed on pavement to dry for 1 week. If a rain event occurs during this drying time, the drying time will need to be restarted. If temperatures reach below freezing for 6 continuous hours during this drying time, this will count as a sufficient freeze period to kill AIS, and the drying period can be suspended. Any drainage inlets near where materials are placed for drying will be temporarily modified to prevent the flow of AIS contaminated water from flowing back into the lagoon.

BIO-5: Biological monitoring by a qualified biologist will be conducted weekly, or at an interval otherwise specified in permits acquired as part of the Project, to perform nest checks, search for bald eagles, and monitor for special status species including LCT, SNYLF, and other special status species with potential to occur. The monitoring is to ensure no take of special status species occurs during Project implementation and to ensure all permit conditions are followed. The biologist will have authority to stop any Project activity that may impact special status species in the Project area. Monitoring reports will be provided to the Project proponent weekly, or as otherwise required by the permits for the Project.

Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-5, potential impacts to special status species would be reduced to a less than significant level because Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 would require schedule considerations or preconstruction surveys to ensure absence of special status species. Further, Mitigation Measure BIO-3 would require that all construction personnel undergo environmental awareness training, which would reduce the potential for unintended impacts on special status species, along with monitoring by a qualified biologist as part of BIO-5. Mitigation Measure BIO-4 896
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
53 would also require inspection and (as needed) decontamination of any equipment in order to prevent the introduction of invasive species.
b) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less Than Significant Impact
As discussed above, the Project area represents heavily disturbed habitat both within the marina lagoon and on land. Riparian habitat and other sensitive natural communities are not present within the Project area, and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is necessary. c) Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? Less Than Significant Impact
As noted above, the marina lagoon is considered a jurisdictional wetland feature (i.e., water of the U.S. and state). The Project would involve replacement of the bulkhead surrounding the marina and the existing boat launch, both of which would require in-water work within the jurisdictional feature. Both components of the Project would be in-kind replacements, and the Project is expected to require regulatory permits, pursuant to Clean Water Act Sections 401 and 404 and FGC. As noted in Section 2.6 (Responsible and Trustee Agencies) above and prior to Project implementation, the applicant would obtain an LSAA from CDFW, 404 permit from USACE, and 401 certification from the Lahontan RWQCB. In compliance with the Construction General Permit, a SWPPP would be developed for the Project by a qualified SWPPP professional. The objectives of the SWPPP are to identify pollutant sources that may affect the quality of stormwater associated with construction activity and identify, construct, and implement stormwater pollution prevention measures to reduce pollutants in stormwater discharges during and after construction. Therefore, the SWPPP would include a description of potential pollutants, the management of dredged sediments, and hazardous materials present on the site during construction (including vehicle and equipment fuels). The SWPPP would also include details of how BMPs for sediment and erosion control would be implemented to prevent sediment runoff into the marina lagoon. Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits by the City of South Lake Tahoe, the applicant shall provide evidence that the permits have been obtained from CDFW, USACE, and Lahontan RWQCB. Through compliance with existing regulations (e.g., Clean Water Act, California Fish and Game Code, and SWPPP requirements), the Project would minimize potential impacts to wetland features where possible and compensate for any permanent impacts to jurisdictional features to ensure no net loss of wetland functions or acreage. As a result, impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
897
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
54 d) Would the Project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less Than Significant Impact
As described above, LCT have limited potential to occur within the Project area. In addition, habitat quality is low due to the disturbed condition of the marina lagoon and lack of suitable habitat nearby.

Further, there are no CNDDB habitat corridors mapped in the area (NCE 2025a). Given the degraded habitat conditions and limited connectivity, the Project does not represent wildlife migratory or nursery habitat. While there is a potential for some nesting activity to occur in the vicinity, the Project area does not present optimal conditions for nesting due to lack of suitable nesting habitat and frequent human activity, and the potential for such species to occur within the Project area after project construction would be similar if not greater than existing conditions (due to the proposed on-site landscaping as part of the Project.) As a result, the Project would not substantially affect wildlife movement or fish passage (NCE 2025a). This impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. e) Would the Project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Less Than Significant Impact
The Project would comply with the TRPA Code of Ordinances that pertain to the protection of biological resources, including tree removal. As noted above, trees within the Project area are associated with existing landscaping and limited to the periphery of the site. In total, approximately 30 trees within the Project area may be removed during construction. Trees planned for removal would need to be approved by TRPA and the City depending on their size, measured as diameter at breast height. Specific provisions for tree removal in the Tahoe Basin are provided in the following chapters and sections of the TRPA Code (TRPA 2012): Chapter 61, Vegetation and Forest Health, Section 61.1, Tree Removal, Section

61.3.6, Sensitive and Uncommon Plant Protection and Fire Hazard Reduction, and Section 61.4, Revegetation; Chapter 36, Design Standards; Chapter 33, Grading and Construction, Section 33.6, Vegetation Protection During Construction; and Chapter 62, Wildlife Resources. The Project would also comply with TRPA requirements related to vegetation protection controls during construction, including limiting the area of disturbance to within 12 feet of facility construction (including parking) and installation of high visibility fencing (refer to Section 2.5.2 above), and would only remove vegetation necessary for Project implementation. The Project would require the removal of approximately 30 trees; however, per Chapter 61 of the TRPA Code, less than 100 trees removed does not constitute substantial tree removal. As such, preparation of a harvest or tree removal plan would not be required. As the Project would not constitute substantial tree removal, the Project would comply with appropriate provisions regarding tree removal, and would provide additional landscaping with native vegetation, no conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources are anticipated. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. 898
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
55 f) Would the Project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No Impact
There are no adopted Habitat Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or other regional Habitat Conservation Plans applicable to the Project area. Therefore, no conflicts would occur.

No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.
899
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
56 4.5 Cultural Resources

4.5.1 Environmental Setting
The Project area is located in the City of South Lake Tahoe, El Dorado County, California, within the developed Tahoe Keys subdivision on the southern shore of Lake Tahoe. The Project area lies within a built and previously disturbed environment that contains a mix of marina facilities, paved roads, and associated open space.

In 2025, a cultural resources evaluation was conducted for the Project. This included California Historical Resources Information System records search at the North Central Information Center, a Sacred Lands File Records Search with the Native American Heritage Commission, Native American tribal consultation (see Section 4.18), an intensive pedestrian survey, and recordation of any identified resources. An associated Cultural Resources Inventory Report (CRIR) was prepared to detail results of the screening efforts, establish an area of potential effect (APE) for the Project, and identify prehistoric, ethnohistoric, and/or historic period archaeological resources within or immediately adjacent to the APE (NCE 2025c).

For the purposes of the cultural resources study, NCE defined an APE encompassing approximately 154.9 acres, including an Area of Direct Impacts and an Area of Indirect Impacts. The Area of Direct Impacts consists of approximately 25.5 acres on the eastern side of the marina, encompassing existing upland facilities, boat storage areas, and Venice Drive East between the marina entrance and the intersection with Tahoe Keys Boulevard. The Area of Indirect Impacts encompasses the surrounding areas where visual impacts of the Project may occur, including the Tahoe Keys residential blocks along Tahoe Keys Boulevard and Ala Wai Boulevard to the west, and portions of the Truckee Marsh to the south and east.

The records search conducted at the North Central Information Center identified 2 previously recorded cultural resources within the APE: a historic-age sewage pump station located on Tahoe Keys Boulevard (P-09-006147), and portions of a historic fence line within the Truckee Marsh (P-09-003465). Both resources had been previously evaluated as not individually eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR).

NCE conducted a pedestrian survey of the APE on February 25 and March 4, 2025. The survey documented 35 architectural resources and 1 archaeological resource. The architectural resources primarily consist of buildings, structures, and landscape features associated with the mid-twentiethcentury Tahoe Keys residential and marina development. Because the majority of these resources share a common period of construction, ownership, or purpose, they were evaluated collectively as potential contributors to a single historic district.

NCE determined none of the individual architectural or archaeological resources is eligible for individual listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the CRHR (NCE 2025c). The resources within the Project area were also evaluated for their potential to contribute to a potential historic district associated with the broader Tahoe Keys development. The CRIR did not assess whether the Tahoe Keys development was eligible but solely focused on whether on-site structures would be considered contributors (NCE 2025c). All on-site structures were determined to not be contributors because of their lack of integrity (NCE 2025c).
900
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
57 4.5.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal
The National Historic Preservation Act (1966) defined the role and responsibilities of the federal government in historic preservation and established the NRHP. It also directs agencies to identify and manage historic properties under their control, to undertake actions that would advance its provisions and avoid actions contrary to its purposes, to consult with others while carrying out historic preservation activities, and to consider the effects of their actions on historic properties.

State
The CRHR is a guide to cultural resources that must be considered when a government agency undertakes a discretionary action subject to CEQA. The CRHR helps government agencies identify and evaluate California’s historical resources and indicates which properties are to be protected, to the extent prudent and feasible, from substantial adverse change (PRC § 5024.1(a)). Any resource listed in, or eligible for listing in, the CRHR must be considered during the CEQA process.

Regional
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Code of Ordinances
TRPA Code Section 67.3 outlines requirements for the accidental discovery of resources during construction and requirements for protection of known resources.

Local
City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan
The Natural and Cultural Resources Element of the City General Plan outlines policies for the City to achieve its vision for natural and cultural resource protection. The following policies apply to the Project:
• NCR‐4.1: Significant Site Preservation. The City shall preserve sites of historical, cultural and architectural significance within the City, consistent with the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties.
• NCR‐4.2: Historic Landmark Designation. The City shall designate structures or sites having special character or special historic, architectural, or aesthetic interest or value as local historic landmarks. The City shall protect local historic landmarks from demolition and inappropriate alterations, and develop criteria for evaluating the appropriateness for sites or structures to be designated as local historic landmarks, and provide incentives for preservation of local historic landmarks.
• NCR‐4.3: Archaeological Investigations. The City shall require archaeological investigations for all applicable discretionary projects, in accordance with CEQA regulations, for areas not previously surveyed and/or that are determined sensitive for cultural resources (e.g., undeveloped parcels near water features). The City shall require the preservation of discovered archaeologically‐significant resources (as determined based on TRPA, state, and federal standards by a qualified professional) in place if feasible, or provide mitigation (avoidance, 901
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
58 excavation, documentation, curation, data recovery, or other appropriate measures) prior to further disturbance.

4.5.3 CEQA Checklist Summary
Would the Project:

CEQA Question Impact Determination
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Less Than Significant Impact

4.5.4 Answers to CEQA Checklist Questions
a) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5?
Less Than Significant Impact
The Project would involve demolition and redevelopment of existing structures and buildings within TKM (excluding the existing cell tower), as well as replacement of the existing bulkhead. As discussed above, the CRIR for the Project determined that there are no eligible historical resources within the Project area, including the 3 on-site buildings, supporting structures (e.g., boat launch), and the existing bulkhead. While the existing bulkhead is of historic age, it is not a historic structure in and of itself.

Further, its replacement would not significantly impact the visual qualities or context of the area (i.e., the broader Tahoe Keys development) as it will be a replacement in kind (NCE 2025c). Therefore, the Project would not result in the removal, alteration, or modification of any historical resources, and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. b) Would the Project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5? Less Than Significant Impact
Based on the archival research and site reconnaissance conducted as part of the CRIR, 1 archaeological resource of historic age was recorded within the Area of Indirect Impacts. This resource was determined to not be eligible for listing on either the CRHR or NRHP (NCE 2025c). As a result, impacts to known archaeological resources are not anticipated as a result of Project implementation.

In addition and with respect to previously undiscovered archaeological resources, the majority of the Project area has undergone extensive past disturbance as part of the Tahoe Keys development. The soil underlaying most of the Project area is fill which was placed in its current configuration in the mid902 Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
59 1960s. Given the previously disturbed conditions and the findings of the CRIR, the potential for encountering intact archaeological materials is considered low (NCE 2025c).

Because there are no identified archaeological resources eligible for listing on either the CRHR or NRHP within the Project area and because the Project would comply with federal, state, TRPA, and City General Plan policies developed to avoid or mitigate impacts to unanticipated cultural resources during construction, the Project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to CEQA Section 15064.5; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
c) Would the Project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Less Than Significant Impact
There are no known past cemeteries or burials within the Project area or immediate vicinity. However, because earthmoving activities associated with Project construction would occur, there is potential to encounter buried human remains or unknown cemeteries in areas with little or no previous disturbance.

California law recognizes the need to protect Native American human burials, skeletal remains, and items associated with Native American burials from vandalism and inadvertent destruction. The procedures for the treatment of Native American human remains are contained in California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California PRC Section 5097, which specify required protocol to implement when human remains are discovered. If human remains are discovered, the codes require that work cease within the immediate area and the County Coroner be notified. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner will notify the NAHC, and the procedures outlined in CEQA Section 15064.5(d) and (e) shall be followed including notification of the most likely descendent.

Compliance with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and California PRC Section 5097 would provide an opportunity to avoid or minimize the disturbance of human remains, and to appropriately treat any remains that are discovered. As a result, the Project would not cause substantial alteration, substantial adverse effect to, or loss of these resources and their associated ethnic and cultural values. Impacts to human remains would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. 903
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
60 4.6 Energy

4.6.1 Environmental Setting
California relies on a regional power system comprised of a diverse mix of natural gas, renewable, hydroelectric, and nuclear generation resources. One-third of the energy consumed in California is natural gas. In 2014, approximately 35 percent of natural gas consumed in the State was used to generate electricity. Residential land uses represented approximately 17 percent of California’s natural gas consumption with the balance consumed by the industrial, resource extraction, and commercial sectors (U.S. Energy Information Administration 2017). Power plants in California generate approximately 78 percent of the in-state electricity demand, with power plants in the Pacific Northwest and Southwestern U.S. generating the remaining electricity (California Energy Commission 2024). The contribution of in- and out-of-state power plants depends on the precipitation that occurred in the previous year, the corresponding amount of hydroelectric power that is available, and other factors.

California relies on energy conservation, waste reduction practices, sustainable buildings, and innovative land use planning to reduce energy impacts. The means of achieving this goal include:
• Decreasing overall per capita energy consumption.
• Decreasing reliance on natural gas and oil.
• Increasing reliance on renewable energy resources.

Energy within the Project area is currently used by the existing marina facilities including the boat workshop and winch, site irrigation and lighting, employee housing, and various businesses which rent building space. Liberty Utilities provides electrical utilities to the Project area. Gas service is provided by Southwest Gas (City of South Lake Tahoe 2011).

4.6.2 Regulatory Setting
State
California Building Energy Efficiency Standards (Title 24, Part 6) The energy consumption of new residential and nonresidential buildings in California is regulated by the State’s Title 24, Part 6, Building Energy Efficiency Standards (California Energy Code). The California Energy Code was established by CEC in 1978 in response to a legislative mandate to create uniform building codes to reduce California’s energy consumption and provide energy efficiency standards for residential and non-residential buildings.

The 2025 California Energy Code was adopted by CEC in September 2024 and applies to projects constructed after January 1, 2026. The 2025 California Energy Code is designed to move the State closer to its zero-net energy goals for new residential development. It does so by requiring all new residences to install enough renewable energy to offset all the electricity needs of each residential unit (California Code of Regulations Title 24, Part 6, Section 150.1(c)4). The California Energy Code is enforced through the local plan check and building permit process. Local government agencies may adopt and enforce additional energy standards for new buildings as reasonably necessary due to local climatologic, 904
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
61 geologic, or topographic conditions, provided that these standards exceed those provided in the California Energy Code.

Regional
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
TRPA has not specifically identified any goals, policies, or Environmental Threshold Carrying Capacities (environmental threshold standards) related to energy consumption. Through its Regional Plan and Code of Ordinances, however, TRPA has defined conformance requirements for area plans relative to energy consumption. In addition, through its Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainability Action Plan, both prepared in partnership with the Tahoe Metropolitan Planning Organization (TMPO), TRPA addresses greenhouse gas (GHG) reduction targets and subsequent reductions in energy consumption for cars and light trucks mandated by SB 375.

Local
City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan
Several policies in the City General Plan seek to encourage energy conservation that leads to lowering the carbon footprint of South Lake Tahoe. The following goals and policies would help in improving efficiency use of energy (City of South Lake Tahoe 2011). • Policy LU‐5.3: Commercial Center Enhancement. The City shall encourage the upgrade and/or expansion of existing commercial centers, including improvements to parking and landscaping areas; redesigns to accommodate bicycles, pedestrians, and transit facilities; and remodeling to include “green” technology and improve energy efficiency. • Policy PQP‐1.9: Comprehensive “Green” Infrastructure Strategies. The City shall create comprehensive “green” infrastructure strategies to address sustainability objectives in the supply and management of energy, solid waste and materials, water, and wastewater. • Policy NCR‐6.1: Decreasing Reliance on Non‐Renewable Energy Sources. The City shall shift away from reliance on non‐renewable sources, should emerging research show net environmental benefits in the use of biofuel.
• Policy NCR‐6.3: Local, Clean, and Renewable Energy Support. The City shall increase energy efficiency, reduce emissions and support local, clean, and renewable energy sources. • Policy NCR‐6.11: Solar Photovoltaic System Program. The City shall promote voluntary participation in programs to increase the use of solar photovoltaic systems in new and existing residential, commercial, institutional, and public buildings. • Policy NCR‐6.14: EPA Energy Star Certified Appliances. The City shall encourage the use of “EPA Energy Star” certified appliances (e.g., water heaters, swimming pool heaters, cooking equipment, refrigerators, furnaces and boiler units) for new private development and public facilities, where feasible.
905
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
62 4.6.3 CEQA Checklist Summary
Would the Project:

CEQA Question Impact Determination
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction or operation?
Less Than Significant Impact
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
No Impact

4.6.4 Answers to CEQA Checklist Questions
a) Would the Project result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during Project construction or operation?
Less Than Significant Impact
Project construction would require temporary energy use from on-site equipment and vehicle fuel consumption. Energy demand during construction would primarily involve fuel usage for heavy equipment and worker commute vehicles, as well as electricity for minor power tools and site lighting.

As discussed in Section 3.6, Project construction would implement construction controls such as requiring the use of renewable diesel and Tier 4F construction equipment, which would serve to reduce the use of fossil fuels and increase energy efficiency of construction vehicles. These energy uses would be short term and typical for a project of this nature. Assuming an average fuel consumption of 10.5 miles per gallon (mpg) of diesel per haul/vendor truck, 27 mpg of gasoline per construction worker vehicle, and taking into account the on-site use of renewable diesel and Tier 4F equipment within the Project area (per the proposed Construction Controls listed in Section 2.6 above), the Project would result in the consumption of approximately 2,400 gallons of gasoline and 5,900 gallons of diesel. This calculation also takes into consideration the average miles per trip provided by CalEEMod (see Appendix A). As fuel consumption associated with construction of the Project would be directly attributable to the temporary transport of people and equipment necessary for Project implementation, it would not be considered wasteful or inefficient. The use of renewable diesel would be consistent with City General Plan Policy NCR-6.3.

During operation, the Project would consume energy for lighting, heating, cooling, and water/wastewater systems consistent with other similar facilities in the region. The redeveloped area would be reachable by car and by bicycle, and the Project would include bicycle and kayak storage racks to encourage non-motorized access, which would help minimize vehicle trips, and thereby minimize fossil fuel energy consumption. All new structures would comply with Title 24 California Building Energy Efficiency Standards and the California Green Building Standards Code, ensuring efficient design and operation. Building construction would be generally consistent with the goals and policies related to energy in the City of South Lake Tahoe Natural and Cultural Resources Element (City of South Lake 906
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
63 Tahoe 2011). During operation, on-site uses associated with the Project are anticipated to annually consume approximately 1,509,000 kilowatt-hours of electricity and approximately 5,995,000 kilo British Thermal Units (Appendix A). Based on the transportation estimate and taking into account an average fuel efficiency of 27 mpg of gasoline and the Project’s net increase of 218 VMT per day, approximately 8 additional gallons of gasoline per day or 2,947 additional gallons of gasoline per year would be used during operation, which would not be considered wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary. The boat storage capacity of the project (especially during winter) is intended to reduce the need for local/regional marina visitors to use other more distant winter storage facilities for their boats, thereby reducing boat transport-related VMT and increasing fuel efficiency.

Per Appendix F of the State CEQA Guidelines, the means to achieve the goal of conserving energy include decreasing overall per capita energy consumption, decreasing reliance on oil, and increasing reliance on renewable energy sources. The Project would provide modern commercial facilities intended to provide improved marina-related services within Tahoe Keys, consistent with City General Plan Policy LU-5.3 and NCR-6.14. All on-site buildings would also be developed consistent with current building code and efficiency standards. As such, the Project would not develop uses or involve activities that would result in wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy. This impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
b) Would the Project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Less Than Significant Impact
The Project would involve the redevelopment of existing developed parcels, consistent with current California Building Code (CBC) requirements that reflect the sustainability goals for the state, the City, and TRPA. As discussed in Section 2.5 above, the Project would meet Title 24 construction requirements and implement BMPs to reduce fossil fuel use by construction vehicles. The Project would replace current inefficient and obsolete structures with modern, energy-efficient construction, which would be consistent with current state and local sustainability goals. In particular, the Project would reduce the need for the transport of boats to other long-term boat storage facilities. As noted above under Section

4.6.4 a), the Project would also be consistent with City General Plan policies (LU-5.3, NCR-6.3, and NCR6.14) by providing energy-efficient and modern facilities. In addition, the Project would not hinder the City’s ability to provide municipal energy supplies via renewable energy sources. The Project would therefore not conflict with adopted state and local goals and policies for energy efficiency and sustainability. Therefore, there would be no impact. No mitigation is required. 907
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
64 4.7 Geology and Soils

4.7.1 Environmental Setting
Regional Geologic Setting
Lake Tahoe lies within the Sierra Nevada Geomorphic Province, occupying a basin surrounded by peaks of the Sierra Nevada Mountains, with Freel Peak the highest at 10,891 feet. The eastern and western sides of the basin are composed of granite rock, with minor amounts of older metamorphic rock.

Volcanic rock, some deposited as recently as 2.5 million years ago, covers most of the northern and some of the southern part of the basin. The Sierra Nevada is a gently sloping fault block mountain range that was uplifted along its eastern edge. This range is bounded on the east and west by a series of interconnected fault segments. The displacement has been greater on the eastern margin, giving the Sierra Nevada a western tilt. South of Lake Tahoe, there is a single crest dividing the gentle western slope from the steep eastern scarp. The crest splits south of the lake, with 1 crest trending northwesterly and the other crest trending northward creating the Carson Range. This range separates the Carson Valley from Lake Tahoe. Lake Tahoe occupies the basin between the 2 uplifted crests. During the past 2 million years, glaciers played an active role in shaping the Sierra Nevada Mountains and Lake Tahoe. Alpine glaciers extended below the current lake level along the west shoreline and Emerald Bay.

The basement geology of the Lake Tahoe Basin is divided into 3 categories: granitic, metamorphic, and volcanic (Hyne et al. 1972).

Soils
Soils in the area have been mapped by the Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), and were downloaded from the Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2025). NRCS categorized on-site soils as Oxyaquic Xerorthents-Water association, 0 to 5 percent slopes. This soil is described as welldrained outwash derived from granodiorite consisting of very gravelly coarse sand and mucky silt loam (more than 80 inches to a restrictive layer). It has moderately low to moderately high permeability (Reno Tahoe Geo Associates, Inc. 2024).

Seismicity and Faulting
There are no active faults within the Project area or the immediate vicinity of the Project area as mapped on the California Geological Survey California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application. The closest mapped fault to the Project area is the West Tahoe Fault located approximately 3 miles west of the Project area. This fault is also a mapped Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone with required investigation (California Geological Survey 2024). The Project area does not lie within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone with required investigation and no unmapped faults were identified within the Project area during a 2024 geotechnical investigation for the Project.

The Project area is located in a seismically active area, and strong ground shaking from relatively powerful earthquakes may occur within the region (moment magnitude of 7). Ground shaking can result in secondary seismic hazards such as liquefaction, seismic settlement, differential compaction, seismically induced slope instability, and rock falls. There are no known ground rupture locations within 908
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
65 or in the general area of the Project. The absence of ground faults passing through the Project area suggests the potential for ground rupture is negligible (Reno Tahoe Geo Associates, Inc. 2024).

Liquefaction
Liquefaction can occur when wet or saturated cohesionless soils temporarily lose strength due to the buildup of excess water pressure during events such as earthquakes. Soil most susceptible to liquefaction is loose, clean, saturated, uniformly graded sand. As part of a geotechnical report prepared for the Project in 2024 (Reno Tahoe Geo Associates, Inc. 2024), a risk of liquefaction assessment was conducted to determine the extent to which liquefaction hazards are present within the Project area and evaluate the potential for liquefaction settlement and lateral spread.

Liquefaction can cause soil settlement and displacement immediately following a seismic event. During liquefaction, water and sand may be ejected to the surface as sand boils, which can result in localized flooding or minor surface damage unless structural foundations are situated directly above the affected area. In areas with gentle or adjacent slopes, liquefaction may also induce ground oscillation or lateral spreading, leading to horizontal soil movement. These deformations occur when shaking or slope forces cause surface soils to shift over the weakened, liquefied layer beneath, potentially resulting in structural or ground instability. Based on the 2024 geotechnical report, the Project area is underlain by artificial fill, generally made of silty sand material. During borings conducted within the Project area, loose soils (i.e., potentially susceptible to liquefaction) were detected at depths ranging from 3 feet to 15 feet below ground surface (Reno Tahoe Geo Associates, Inc. 2024).

Landslides and Slope Instability
Landslides and debris flows triggered by earthquake ground shaking have historically caused a great deal of property damage and loss of life. Areas most susceptible to earthquake-induced landslides are generally on steep slopes or adjacent to existing landslide deposits. The Project area ground surface is generally flat with an average slope of less than 1 percent. The possibility of landslides and seismically induced slope instability is considered low due to topography in the vicinity of the Project area and the flat nature of the Project area (Reno Tahoe Geo Associates, Inc. 2024).

Groundwater
The Project area overlies the Tahoe Valley – Tahoe South (TVS) Groundwater Subbasin (California Department of Water Resources 2018). The subbasin is managed by STPUD. The TVS subbasin is considered a medium priority basin by the California Department of Water Resources and is managed under an Alternate Groundwater Sustainability Plan (STPUD 2025b).

Paleontological Resources
The Society of Vertebrate Paleontology (SVP) has established guidelines for the identification, assessment, and mitigation of adverse impacts on nonrenewable paleontological resources. Most practicing paleontologists in the United States adhere closely to the SVP’s assessment, mitigation, and monitoring requirements as outlined in these guidelines, which were approved through a consensus of professional paleontologists and reflect the currently accepted standard practices. Many federal, state, 909
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
66 county, and city agencies have either formally or informally adopted the SVP’s standard guidelines for the mitigation of adverse construction-related impacts on paleontological resources. The SVP has helped define the value of paleontological resources and, in particular, indicates the following:
• Vertebrate fossils and fossiliferous (fossil-containing) deposits are considered significant non-renewable paleontological resources and are afforded protection by federal, state, and local environmental laws and guidelines.
• A paleontological resource is considered to be older than recorded history, or 5,000 years before present, and is not to be confused with an archaeological resource. • Invertebrate fossils are not significant paleontological resources unless they are present within an assemblage of vertebrate fossils or they provide undiscovered information on the origin and character of a plant species, past climatic conditions, or the age of the rock unit itself. • A Project paleontologist, special interest group, lead agency, or local government can designate certain plant or invertebrate fossils as significant.

In accordance with these principles, the SVP outlined criteria for screening the paleontological potential of rock units and established assessment and mitigation procedures tailored to such potential (SVP 2010). The Project area contains predominantly fill material (i.e., poorly graded sand with very thin siltysand layers). Although not discussed in the SVP standards, artificial fills, surface soils, and high-grade metamorphic rocks do not contain paleontological resources. While such materials were originally derived from rocks, they have been altered, weathered, or reworked from construction and operation of the previously existing lumber mill, as well as demolition of the lumber mill, such that the discovery of intact fossils would be rare. Therefore, there is little potential for the Project area to contain fossils or paleontological resources.

4.7.2 Regulatory Setting
State
Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act
The Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act of 1972 (Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 2621-2630) intends to reduce the risk to life and property from surface fault rupture during earthquakes by regulating construction in active fault corridors, and by prohibiting the location of most types of structures intended for human occupancy across the traces of active faults. The act defines criteria for identifying active faults, giving legal support to terms such as active and inactive, and establishes a process for reviewing building proposals in Earthquake Fault Zones. Under the Alquist-Priolo Act, faults are zoned and construction along or across these zones is strictly regulated if they are “sufficiently active” and “well-defined.” A fault is considered sufficiently active if one or more of its segments or strands shows evidence of surface displacement during Holocene time (defined for purposes of the act as within the last 11,000 years). A fault is considered well defined if its trace can be clearly identified by a trained geologist at the ground surface or in the shallow subsurface, using standard professional techniques, criteria, and judgment. Before a project can be permitted in a designated Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone, cities and counties must require a geologic investigation to demonstrate that 910
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
67 proposed buildings would not be constructed across active faults. The law addresses only the hazard of surface fault rupture and is not directed toward other earthquake hazards.

Seismic Hazards Mapping Act
The intention of the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act of 1990 (PRC Section 2690–2699.6) is to reduce damage resulting from earthquakes. While the Alquist-Priolo Act addresses surface fault rupture, the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act addresses other earthquake-related hazards, including ground shaking, liquefaction, and seismically induced landslides. The act’s provisions are similar in concept to those of the Alquist-Priolo Act. The State is charged with identifying and mapping areas at risk of strong ground shaking, liquefaction, landslides, and other corollary hazards, and cities and counties are required to regulate development within mapped Seismic Hazard Zones. Under the Seismic Hazards Mapping Act, permit review is the primary mechanism for local regulation of development.

California Building Code
The CBC is based on the International Building Code. The CBC has been modified from the International Building Code for California conditions, with more detailed and/or more stringent regulations. Specific minimum seismic safety and structural design requirements are set forth in Chapter 16 of the CBC. The CBC identifies seismic factors that must be considered in structural design. Chapter 18 of the CBC regulates the excavation of foundations and retaining walls, while Chapter 18A regulates construction on unstable soils, such as expansive soils and areas subject to liquefaction. Appendix J of the CBC regulates grading activities, including drainage and erosion control. The CBC contains a provision that provides for a preliminary soils report to be prepared to identify “…the presence of critically expansive soils or other soil problems which, if not corrected, would lead to structural defects.” (CBC Chapter 18, Section 1803.1.1.1).

Regional
Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board
The Lahontan RWQCB adopted the NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit for the Lake Tahoe Basin in March 2016 (Order No. R6T-2016-0010). Projects disturbing more than 1 acre of land during construction must file a Notice of Intent with Lahontan RWQCB to be covered under this permit.

Construction activities subject to the Lake Tahoe Construction Stormwater Permit include clearing, grading, stockpiling, and excavation. Dischargers are required to eliminate or reduce non-stormwater discharges to storm sewer systems and other waters. A SWPPP must be developed and implemented for each site covered by the permit. The SWPPP must include BMPs designed to prevent construction pollutants from contacting stormwater and keep products of erosion from moving offsite into receiving waters throughout the construction and life of the project; the BMPs must address source control and, if necessary, pollutant control.

Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
TRPA Code implements the Regional Plan Goals and Policies. Chapter 60 of the TRPA Code sets forth requirements for installation of BMPs for the protection or restoration of water quality and attainment 911
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
68 of minimum discharge standards. Projects shall comply with temporary and permanent BMP programs as a condition of project approval.

Chapter 33 of TRPA Code describes the various standards and regulations that protect the environment against significant adverse effects from excavation, filling, and clearing, because of such conditions as exposed soils, unstable earthworks, or groundwater interference.

4.7.3 CEQA Checklist Summary
Would the Project:

CEQA Question Impact Determination
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent AlquistPriolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Less Than Significant Impact
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? Less Than Significant Impact iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact iv. Landslides? Less Than Significant Impact
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less Than Significant Impact
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
No Impact
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
No Impact
912
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
69 4.7.4 Answers to CEQA Checklist Questions
a) Would the Project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.

Less Than Significant Impact
The Project area is not located within an Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (California Geological Survey 2024). The closest Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone is located approximately 3 miles west of the Project area. Therefore, there is no expected adverse effect on people or structures with regard to earthquake rupture as a result of this Project (Reno Tahoe Geo Associates, Inc. 2024). Earthquakes centered on regional faults in the area would likely result in higher ground motion within the Project area than earthquakes centered on smaller faults that are mapped closer to the site. The proposed buildings would be designed in accordance with current seismic design standards included in the 2022 CBC Section 1613 and in accordance with American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) standards, specifically ASCE 7-10 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. As a result, rupture of a known earthquake fault is not anticipated, and this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking?
Less Than Significant Impact
As indicated above, the Project area could experience seismic shaking due to its proximity to regional fault systems. However, the Project area is not located on a known fault and to avoid substantial adverse effects due to seismic shaking, the proposed buildings would be constructed in accordance with the 2025 CBC Section 1613 and with ASCE standards, specifically ASCE 7-10 Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures. Therefore, impacts related to strong seismic shaking would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less Than Significant Impact
The potential for soil liquefaction within the Project area was evaluated based on subsurface borings, laboratory testing, and site conditions, as described in the geotechnical survey report. As noted above, the Project area is underlain by granular soils consisting primarily of loose to medium dense sands and silty sands that are generally saturated due to a shallow groundwater table. These soil conditions indicate that portions of the site may be susceptible to liquefaction and associated settlement during a strong seismic event. As a result, there is a potential for lateral spreading and ground oscillation to 913
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
70 occur, particularly in areas adjacent to open water or where surface slopes are present (Reno Tahoe Geo Associates, Inc. 2024).

To address these conditions, the report recommends measures including using deep foundations, ground improvement techniques, or replacement of liquefiable soils with engineered structural fill, as determined appropriate by a California-registered geotechnical engineer. Foundation systems shall be designed to accommodate potential differential settlement and lateral spreading in accordance with CBC and ASCE 7-16 seismic provisions. Implementation of these design recommendations would ensure the Project’s compliance with applicable geotechnical safety standards. Because the recommendations provided in the geotechnical report for the Project would be incorporated into site design, this impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. iv. Landslides?
Less Than Significant Impact
Due to the limited slope of the Project area and surrounding lakeside topography, the Project area is not at risk for landslides. Furthermore, the closest identified fault zones are approximately 3 miles west of the site and do not trend towards the site (Reno Tahoe Geo Associates, Inc. 2024), further limiting the risk of landslide. As a result, the Project would not expose individuals to risk of loss, injury, or death due to landslides. This impact would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. b) Would the Project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less Than Significant Impact
As noted above, the Project area is located on previously developed and graded parcels, underlain by artificial fill. The majority of the Project area is also currently paved. With redevelopment of the Project area, the existing development and paved areas would be replaced with similarly paved/developed surfaces. During construction, soils would be exposed to the elements, which could result in runoff and soil erosion. However, as noted above in Section 2.5 (Construction Controls) and in accordance with NPDES requirements and the Lahontan RWQCB Construction General Permit (Order No. R6T-2016- 0010), the Project would be required to obtain a SWPPP, which would include BMPs (e.g., erosion control, site stabilization, etc.) to prevent construction-related silt or debris from affecting areas outside the site boundary. Compliance with various erosion and sediment-control measures (e.g., management, structural, and vegetative controls) is required as part of the SWPPP. After construction is completed, temporarily disturbed areas would be stabilized and revegetated in accordance with TRPA Code Section

61.4. Implementation of the required BMPs and compliance with General Permit Order No. R6T-2016- 0010 would reduce the potential for soil erosion and loss of topsoil to a less-than-significant level. No mitigation is required.
c) Would the Project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the Project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less Than Significant Impact
914
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
71 The geotechnical investigation identified that subsurface materials within the Project area consist primarily of loose to medium dense sands and silty sands underlain by denser granular soils. The groundwater table is relatively shallow and, in combination with these soil types, indicates a potential for localized liquefaction and associated lateral spreading under strong seismic shaking (Reno Tahoe Geo Associates, Inc. 2024). As discussed in Section 4.7.3(a)(iii), these conditions could result in limited settlement or lateral movement. The geotechnical report prepared for the Project area recommends ground improvement techniques and foundation design measures, including deep foundations or replacement of liquefiable soils with engineered fill, which would be implemented as part of the Project design and in accordance with CBC requirements. No evidence of unstable slopes or conditions prone to collapse was identified, and the flat topography of the site precludes landslide potential. With implementation of the design and construction recommendations from the geotechnical report and compliance with CBC seismic standards as part of the Project, the potential for instability or related ground failure is considered minimal, and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
d) Would the Project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? Less Than Significant Impact
As noted above, soils within the Project area consist primarily of non-plastic to low-plasticity sands and silty sands with minimal clay content (Reno Tahoe Geo Associates, Inc. 2024). These soil types exhibit low expansion potential and are not considered expansive under the Uniform Building Code (1994) criteria. The geotechnical report prepared for the Project did not identify expansive soils within the Project area, and no evidence of shrink-swell behavior or high plasticity clays was observed in the borings. Additionally, all Project structures would be designed and constructed in accordance with the CBC, which requires site-specific design measures to address soil conditions and mitigate any differential movement. Therefore, the Project would not expose people or structures to substantial risks from expansive soils, and impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. e) Would the Project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
No Impact
The Project does not propose the use of septic tanks and would not require use of alternative wastewater disposal services, including for boat pump out purposes. The Project area is served by an 8- inch width cast-in-place sewage pipe, connected to STPUD, with adequate capacity to serve the Project.

Therefore, the Project would have no impact related to septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems, nor require the expansion of existing or installation of new alternative wastewater systems. No impact would occur, and no mitigation is required.
915
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
72 f) Would the Project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
No Impact
The Project area is located on previously developed parcels, generally consisting of highly disturbed imported soil (i.e., artificial fill.) No unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic features are present within the Project area, and no construction is planned within a geological formation known to contain paleontological resources. Therefore, there would be no impact on paleontological resources or unique geologic features. No mitigation is required. 916
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
73 4.8 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Certain gases in the earth’s atmosphere, classified as GHGs, play a critical role in determining the earth’s surface temperature. These include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. Solar radiation enters the earth’s atmosphere from space. A portion of the radiation is absorbed by the earth’s surface, and a smaller portion of this radiation is reflected toward space. This absorbed radiation is then emitted from the earth as low-frequency infrared radiation, which is then absorbed by GHGs. As a result, radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is trapped, resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate on earth.

Measured increases in ambient GHG emission levels are believed to be a result of increased human activities and at least partly responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect and leading to a trend of unnatural warming of the earth’s climate, known as global climate change or global warming. It is “extremely likely” that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcing (IPCC 2014). Greenhouse gases differ by the amount of heat each traps in the atmosphere, known as global warming potential. Carbon dioxide is the most significant greenhouse gas, so amounts of other gases are expressed relative to carbon dioxide, using a metric called “carbon dioxide equivalent” (CO2e). The global warming potential of carbon dioxide is assigned a value of 1, and the warming potential of other gases is assessed as multiples of carbon dioxide. Generally, estimates of all greenhouse gases are summed to obtain total emissions for a project or a given time period, usually expressed in metric tons of CO2e (MTCO2e).

GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants, which are pollutants of regional and local concern. The quantity of GHGs that ultimately results in climate change is not precisely known, but no single project alone would measurably contribute to an incremental change in the global average temperature, or to global, local, or microclimates. From the standpoint of CEQA, GHG impacts to global climate change are inherently cumulative.

4.8.1 Environmental Setting
The Project area is located in the City of South Lake Tahoe in El Dorado County. The primary sources of GHG within the City are natural gas used for heating, fossil fuel consumption from the transportation sector, and grid electricity, representing approximately 82 percent of citywide GHG emissions. Other sources of GHG emissions include solid waste (approximately 7 percent), and water and wastewater (approximately 2 percent) (City of South Lake Tahoe 2020).

4.8.2 Regulatory Setting
State
The State of California has taken several legislative steps including Assembly Bills (AB) and Executive Orders to reduce increases in GHG emissions. CARB is the lead agency in the development of reduction 917
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
74 strategies for greenhouse gases in California (CARB 2021). California’s GHG reduction requirements aim to reduce VMT, thereby improving air quality by reducing GHG emissions from automobiles.

Regional
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Regional Transportation Plan GHG planning guidance for the Lake Tahoe Basin is outlined in the TRPA 2025 Regional Transportation Plan, which anticipates reducing GHG emissions by focusing on aligning with state GHG goals. Strategies in the 2025 Regional Transportation Plan include technology improvements and non-vehicle mobility improvements (TRPA 2025a).

Local
El Dorado County Air Quality Management District
At this time, El Dorado County has not adopted any quantitative federal or state guidelines for GHG emission impacts. However, the EDCAQMD was part of a committee of air districts in the Sacramento region involved in the development of GHG thresholds for the Sacramento Area Council of Governments region. 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 Placer County Air Pollution Control District (PCAPCD), which also participated in the aforementioned committee and is responsible for air quality along Lake Tahoe’s northern and western shores, has developed thresholds of significance for analyzing climate change impacts in consideration of this strategy. PCAPCD has adopted 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 TRPA and because of PCAPCD’s shared responsibility with EDCAQMD for air quality within the Lake Tahoe Basin, these thresholds of significance were considered appropriate and applied to the Project. Additionally, PCAPCD thresholds have been and continue to be used within the broader Lake Tahoe Basin and by the City of South Lake Tahoe.

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. Per Resolution 2022-088 (as adopted by the City on June 21, 2022), the City has established goals of 59.2 percent reduction in community GHG emissions by 2030 and community-wide zero net carbon by 2045 or before.
918
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
75 City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan
The City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan includes several policies related to GHG emissions reductions, including:
• Policy LU‐5.3: Commercial Center Enhancement. The City shall encourage the upgrade and/or expansion of existing commercial centers, including improvements to parking and landscaping areas; redesigns to accommodate bicycles, pedestrians, and transit facilities; and remodeling to include “green” technology and improve energy efficiency. • Policy NCR‐5.12: Greenhouse Gas Emission Reductions Support. The City shall support local, TRPA, and statewide efforts to reduce emission of greenhouse gases linked to climate change. • Policy NCR‐5.13: Citywide Greenhouse Gas Emission Inventory. The City shall develop a citywide greenhouse gas emission inventory and establish regular time frames for updating the inventory.
• Policy NCR‐5.14: Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Target. The City shall establish a greenhouse gas emission reduction target consistent with AB 32 and SB 375 reduction efforts. • Policy NCR‐5.15: Carbon Emission Analysis and Mitigation. The City shall analyze and mitigate significant increases in carbon emissions during project review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act.
• Policy NCR‐6.1: Decreasing Reliance on Non‐Renewable Energy Sources. The City shall shift away from reliance on non‐renewable sources, should emerging research show net environmental benefits in the use of biofuel.
• Policy NCR‐6.2: Greenhouse Gas Emission Reduction Strategy. The City shall develop a comprehensive strategy to reduce GHG emissions and climate impacts. • Policy NCR‐6.3: Local, Clean, and Renewable Energy Support. The City shall increase energy efficiency, reduce emissions and support local, clean, and renewable energy sources. • Policy NCR‐6.11: Solar Photovoltaic System Program. The City shall promote voluntary participation in programs to increase the use of solar photovoltaic systems in new and existing residential, commercial, institutional, and public buildings. • Policy NCR‐6.14: EPA Energy Star Certified Appliances. The City shall encourage the use of “EPA Energy Star” certified appliances (e.g., water heaters, swimming pool heaters, cooking equipment, refrigerators, furnaces and boiler units) for new private development and public facilities, where feasible.
• Policy NCR‐6.20: Protection from Climate Change. The City shall develop strategies to protect the City from the impacts of climate change, such as reduced snowpack, lower lake levels, and natural disasters.
• Policy PQP‐1.9: Comprehensive “Green” Infrastructure Strategies. The City shall create comprehensive “green” infrastructure strategies to address sustainability objectives in the supply and management of energy, solid waste and materials, water, and wastewater. 919
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
76 4.8.3 CEQA Checklist Summary
Would the Project:

CEQA Question Impact Determination
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less Than Significant Impact b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less Than Significant Impact

4.8.4 Answers to CEQA Checklist Questions
a) Would the Project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less Than Significant Impact
The Project would result in GHG emissions due to its construction and operational activities. As noted above, EDCAQMD has accepted and the City (as lead agency under CEQA) has historically used PCAPCD’s thresholds of significance for evaluating the construction- and operations-related GHG emissions. These thresholds are consistent with the GHG goals established by SB 32.

Construction
Temporary construction-related activities associated with the Project would include demolition, site preparation, grading, building construction, paving, and architectural coatings. The GHG emissions from construction activities were calculated by using CalEEMod Version 2020.4.0 with design information provided by the City of South Lake Tahoe and CalEEMod defaults where the information was not available. The construction worker trip numbers and lengths were estimated based on CalEEMod default values. Table 4 summarizes the estimated construction-related annual GHG emissions over the 24- month construction period. Refer to Appendix A for detailed modeling assumptions and results. 920
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
77 Table 4. Projected GHG Emissions During Construction – Metric Tons per Year Without Mitigation Year GHG Emissions (MTCO2e/year)
2027 388
2028 353
2029 49
Maximum Emissions 388
PCAPCD Thresholds 10,000
Exceed PCAPCD Thresholds? No
Notes: See Appendix A for details on model inputs, assumptions, and Project-specific modeling parameters; Construction controls provided in Section 2.5 are reflected in modeling outputs as mitigations but are incorporated into the Project; GHG = greenhouse gas; PCAPCD = Placer County Air Pollution Control District.

As shown in Table 4, maximum annual GHG emissions during construction would reach 388 MTCO2e/year, which would be well below the applicable emissions thresholds of 10,000 MTCO2e/year.

The Project would also result in GHG emissions from operational activities associated with the new onsite development. Operations would result in mobile-source GHG emissions associated with vehicle trips to and from the Project (i.e., Project-generated VMT); area-source emissions from the operation of landscape maintenance equipment; water-source emissions from water use and the conveyance and treatment of wastewater; and waste source emissions from the transport and disposal of solid waste. As stated in Section 4.17 (Transportation), the Project would generate an estimated 218 additional daily VMT. Table 5 provides a summary of operational emissions estimated for the Project. Refer to Appendix A for a detailed description of all calculations, model runs, and assumptions used to support the modeling. As shown in Table 5, annual GHG emissions would reach 946 MTCO2e/year, which would be below the applicable emissions threshold of 1,100 MTCO2e/year. Since operation and construction of the Project would result in annual GHG emissions below the applicable thresholds, the impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
921
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
78 Table 5. Projected GHG Emissions During Operation – Metric Tons per Year Without Mitigation Sector GHG Emissions (MTCO2e/year)
Mobile 34
Area 3
Energy 634
Waste 17
Water 258
Total Annual Emissions 946
PCAPCD Thresholds 1,100
Exceed PCAPCD Thresholds? No
Notes: See Appendix A for details on model inputs, assumptions, and Project-specific modeling parameters; Construction controls provided in Section 2.5 are reflected in modeling outputs as mitigations but are incorporated into the Project; GHG = greenhouse gas; PCAPCD = Placer County Air Pollution Control District. b) Would the Project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less Than Significant Impact
As described above, the construction and operational GHG emissions of the Project would not exceed thresholds of significance recommended by EDCAQMD. Because PCAPCD’s operational threshold of significance is based on the State’s SB 32 2030 goal, the Project, by virtue of not exceeding that threshold, would not interfere with State’s GHG reduction goals. Further, the buildings proposed for development as part of the Project would be designed to current building code requirements and would therefore be more energy efficient than the existing buildings on site. Further, the Project would create a more efficient Tahoe Keys Marina that would reduce VMT associated with boat storage activities (see Section 4.6 [Energy] above) and would not generate substantial VMT as a whole, consistent with the City’s General Plan (esp. Policy LU-5.3) and CAP Strategy 1 to reduce transportation-related GHG emissions. Further, the Project would provide on-site residences for employees, similar to existing conditions, but would also serve to reduce VMT associated with employee commutes, consistent with the City’s CAP Strategy 4 to reduce or redistribute travel by working with local business. It would also provide higher intensity development that could provide additional services within Tahoe Keys for local residents who could walk or bike to the Project area, consistent with CAP Strategy 7 to encourage high922 Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
79 density, mixed-use neighborhoods. The Project would also provide greater energy efficiency than existing on-site development, consistent with CAP Strategies 9 and 11 to improve energy efficiency.

Based on the Project’s aforementioned consistency with CAP Strategies, the Project would be consistent with the City of South Lake Tahoe Climate Action Plan and would further the City’s path towards achieving its GHG reduction goals (including those established by Resolution 2022-088.) As a result, the Project would be consistent with state and regional goals to reduce GHG emissions. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
923
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
80 4.9 Hazards and Hazardous Materials

4.9.1 Environmental Setting
The Project area consists of the marina’s landside improvements and operations, the marina bulkhead, boat launch ramp, and boat lift, and City ROW on Venice Drive East and Michael Drive. The Project area contains 3 buildings, a boat launch ramp, boat lift, parking lots, exterior boat storage, sparse landscape/ruderal vegetation, and roadway. The upland areas of the Project area are separated from the lagoon by a sheet pile bulkhead.

Hazardous materials that are stored within the Project area include gasoline and commercial cleaners used to maintain the existing buildings. Gasoline is stored in a 12,000-gallon aboveground storage tank and other fuel-storage-related facilities within the northeastern portion of the Project area. An asbestos, lead, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), and universal waste survey was conducted in 2025 and identified the presence of asbestos and lead within 2 of the on-site buildings. Universal waste (primarily fluorescent lighting tubes) was also identified (Forensic Analytical Consulting Services, Inc. 2025).

In 2021, a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) was prepared for the Project area and identified the following conditions on-site (Bureau Veritas 2021):
• A rusted pad-mounted transformer was identified in the northeastern portion of the Project area near the boat ramp.
• Approximately 45 to 50 drums and containers of unknown contents were observed in Building 1. • One 500-gallon waste oil underground storage tank and one 11,000-gallon diesel underground storage tank were removed from the area between Buildings 2 and 3 in 1997 and impacts to the subsurface were discovered during this time. Soil and groundwater were investigated, and groundwater was remediated and monitored with oversite by the Lahontan RWQCB (RWQCB UST case no. 6T0267A). The RWQCB issued a No Further Action Required determination on May 19, 2020. Bureau Veritas concluded that no further action was warranted related to the USTs at the time of the Phase I ESA, but in the event of future redevelopment, impacted soil or groundwater encountered should be managed and properly disposed of in accordance with applicable regulatory requirements.
• Based on the dates of construction of the Site buildings, asbestos- and lead-containing materials may be present.

No evidence of recognized environmental conditions or controlled recognized environmental conditions were identified within the Project area (Bureau Veritas 2021).

Subsequent to the Phase I ESA, in 2025 NCE conducted a site visit and additional research to identify and confirm, to the extent feasible, the potential for recognized environmental conditions resulting from the improper use, manufacture, storage, and/or disposal of hazardous or toxic substances at or in the vicinity of the Project area that may be encountered during construction. A search of the GeoTracker and EnviroStor websites was conducted to determine the history of documented contamination within the Project area. These searches also identified RWQCB UST case no. 6T0267A, as documented in the Phase I ESA and summarized above. The pad-mounted transformer discussed in the 2021 Phase I ESA is 924
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
81 still present in the northeastern portion of the Project area. However, no drums and no other containers of unknown liquids were observed during the visit to the Project area.

Schools
There are no schools located within 0.25 miles of the Project area. The nearest school, Tahoe Valley Elementary School, is located 0.6 miles south of the Project area, adjacent to Lake Tahoe Boulevard.

Airports
The Lake Tahoe Airport is located approximately 1.6 miles southwest of the Project area, east of the portion of US 50 also known as Emerald Bay Road. No private airstrips are observed in proximity to the Project area.

Emergency Response and Evacuation Plans
The City adopted the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan in 2022 (City of South Lake Tahoe 2022a). It was prepared in collaboration with the El Dorado County Sheriff, Governor’s Office Emergency Services, and other agencies and stakeholders. The City identifies both SR 89 and US 50 as primary evacuation routes serving the Project area.

Wildland Fire Hazards
The Tahoe region is at a high risk of wildfire spread because of the climate, steep topography, and high level of available fuel. Fire Hazard Severity Zones (FHSZs) are mapped by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) for the entire state. FHSZs are based on an evaluation of fuels, fire history, terrain, housing density, and occurrence of severe fire weather and are intended to identify areas where urban fires could result in catastrophic losses. FHSZs are categorized as: Moderate, High, and Very High. Due in part to its proximity and connection to the marina lagoon, the Project area is located within a mix of locally-designated Moderate, High, and Very High FHSZs, trending higher in terms of risk from west to east (CAL FIRE 2025).

4.9.2 Environmental Setting
Federal
Management of Hazardous Materials
Various federal laws address the proper handling, use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials, as well as requiring measures to prevent or mitigate injury to health or the environment if such materials are accidentally released. The EPA is the agency primarily responsible for enforcement and implementation of federal laws and regulations pertaining to hazardous materials. Applicable federal regulations pertaining to hazardous materials are primarily contained in Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Titles 29, 40, and 49. Hazardous materials, as defined in the Code, are listed in 49 CFR 172.101.

Management of hazardous materials is governed by the following laws:
• The Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 (15 US Code [USC] Section 2601 et seq.) regulates the manufacturing, inventory, and disposition of industrial chemicals, including hazardous materials. 925
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
82 Section 403 of the Toxic Substances Control Act establishes standards for lead-based paint (LBP) hazards in paint, dust, and soil.
• The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (42 USC 6901 et seq.) is the law under which EPA regulates hazardous waste from the time the waste is generated until its final disposal ("cradle to grave").
• The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (also called the Superfund Act or CERCLA) (42 USC 9601 et seq.) gives EPA authority to seek out parties responsible for releases of hazardous substances and ensure their cooperation in site remediation.
• The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (Public Law 99-499; USC Title 42, Chapter 116), also known as SARA Title III or the Emergency Planning and Community Right-toKnow Act of 1986 (EPCRA), imposes hazardous materials planning requirements to help protect local communities in the event of accidental release.
• The Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure (SPCC) rule includes requirements for oil spill prevention, preparedness, and response to prevent oil discharges to navigable waters and adjoining shorelines. The rule requires specific facilities to prepare, amend, and implement SPCC plans. The SPCC rule is part of the Oil Pollution Prevention regulation, which also includes the Facility Response Plan rule.

Transport of Hazardous Materials
The US Department of Transportation (DOT) regulates transport of hazardous materials between states and is responsible for protecting the public from dangers associated with such transport. The federal hazardous materials transportation law, 49 USC 5101 et seq. (formerly the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act 49 USC 1801 et seq.) is the basic statute regulating transport of hazardous materials in the United States. Hazardous materials transport regulations are enforced by the Federal Highway Administration, the US Coast Guard, the Federal Railroad Administration, and the Federal Aviation Administration.

State
Management of Hazardous Materials
In California, both federal and state community right-to-know laws are coordinated through the Governor’s Office of Emergency Services. The federal law, SARA Title III or EPCRA, described above, encourages and supports emergency planning efforts at the state and local levels and to provide local governments and the public with information about potential chemical hazards in their communities.

Because of the community right-to-know laws, information is collected from facilities that handle (e.g., produce, use, store) hazardous materials above certain quantities. The provisions of EPCRA apply to four major categories:
• emergency planning,
• emergency release notification,
• reporting of hazardous chemical storage, and
926
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
83 • inventory of toxic chemical releases.

The corresponding state law is Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code (Hazardous Materials Release Response Plans and Inventory). Under this law, qualifying businesses are required to prepare a Hazardous Materials Business Plan, which would include hazardous materials and hazardous waste management procedures and emergency response procedures, including emergency spill cleanup supplies and equipment. At such time as the applicant begins to use hazardous materials at levels that reach applicable state and/or federal thresholds, the plan is submitted to the administering agency.

DTSC, a division of the California Environmental Protection Agency, has primary regulatory responsibility over hazardous materials in California, working in conjunction with EPA to enforce and implement hazardous materials laws and regulations. As required by Section 65962.5 of the California Government Code, DTSC maintains a hazardous waste and substances site list for the state, known as the Cortese List. Individual regional water quality control boards (RWQCBs) are the lead agencies responsible for identifying, monitoring, and cleaning up leaking underground storage tanks (LUSTs). Lahontan RWQCB has jurisdiction over the Project area.

4.9.3 CEQA Checklist Summary
Would the Project:

CEQA Question Impact Determination
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact b) 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?
Less Than Significant Impact
with Mitigation
Incorporated
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? Less Than Significant Impact d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Less Than Significant Impact
with Mitigation
Incorporated
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area?
Less Than Significant Impact
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? Less Than Significant Impact g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Less Than Significant Impact 927
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
84 4.9.4 Answers to CEQA Checklist Questions
a) Would the Project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less Than Significant Impact
During construction, limited quantities of hazardous materials such as fuels, lubricants, solvents, and other construction-related chemicals would be used and stored on-site for equipment maintenance and operation. The use, storage, and management of construction-related fuels and other constructionrelated chemicals and construction materials would be managed in accordance with applicable regulations, including but not limited to the U.S. EPA, the U.S. Department of Transportation, the Department of Toxic Substances Control, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES), and local technical specifications under the STPUD. For example, and as part of the Project’s compliance with NPDES requirements, the SWPPP that would be prepared for the Project (refer to Section 2.5.3, above) would require that equipment fueling and maintenance, if performed at the job site, must be performed in a designated area utilizing secondary containment with a spill kit nearby.

During operation, the redeveloped marina would continue to support boat fueling activities. The replacement, 12,000-gallon, aboveground fuel storage tank would be located on the southeastern edge of the Project area, similar to existing conditions. The tank and associated fueling facilities would be operated consistent with federal, state, and Lahontan RWQCB requirements. This would include annual inspections and enforcement by the Lahontan RWQCB and the El Dorado County Environmental Management Department to ensure proper containment and maintenance.

Operational use of hazardous materials would otherwise be limited to small quantities of cleaning agents, landscaping chemicals, and maintenance supplies typical of marina and retail operations, as well as on-site fuel storage. The transport, use, and disposal of such materials would comply with state and local regulations. Because construction and operation of the Project would not involve new routine large-scale transport or disposal of hazardous substances and would comply with existing regulatory requirements (including those related to fuel storage), impacts would be less than significant. No mitigation is required.
b) 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?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated As noted above, existing on-site buildings were identified as containing limited quantities of hazardous materials, asbestos, and lead within existing tiles. Demolition of existing buildings would disturb these materials, which could generate airborne asbestos fibers, lead dust, or other contaminants if not properly managed, posing potential risks to workers and nearby receptors. The potential risk associated with removal of these materials would be addressed through compliance with National Emission 928
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
85 Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants requirements, Cal/OSHA Title 8, and EDCAQMD requirements for demolition and abatement such that no significant hazards would occur.

With respect to on-site fuel storage, the Project area currently contains a 12,000-gallon storage tank which is regularly inspected by the Lahontan RWQCB and the El Dorado County Environmental Management Department to ensure proper containment and maintenance. The Project would replace the existing storage tank with a new 12,000-gallon storage tank and would be subject to the same requirements for proper containment and maintenance, as well as regular inspection. As such, the Project would not result in an increase in the potential for upset and/or accident conditions related to the existing and proposed on-site fuel storage tank.

With respect to the historic recognized environmental condition identified at the site, the Project area is listed on the State Water Resources Control Board GeoTracker database for a 1997 release of petroleum hydrocarbons discovered during removal of a 1,000-gallon diesel underground storage tank, a 500- gallon waste oil underground storage tank, and associated piping and dispensers. Subsequent investigations identified residual contamination limited to soils and groundwater west of the existing marina buildings. Extraction and treatment systems operated from 1998 to 2008, and groundwater monitoring continued until 2014. Petroleum hydrocarbons and volatile organic compounds steadily declined and were not detected in upgradient wells after the early 2000s. As a result, the Lahontan RWQCB issued a No Further Action determination on May 19, 2020, confirming that remediation objectives had been met (Bureau Veritas 2021). Due to the historic presence of contaminated soils, there is a limited potential for impacted soil to persist underneath the existing on-site structures. For this reason, redevelopment of the Project area could result in release of hazardous materials associated with the prior storage tanks that were present within the Project area, and impacts would be potentially significant.

Mitigation Measures
HAZ-1: During construction (i.e., demolition, grading, or excavation) and if stained soil, hydrocarbon odor, or other indicators of contamination are encountered during excavation, the construction contractor shall halt all on-site activities until a qualified environmental professional can assess the potentially impacted soil. Impacted soil or groundwater shall be handled and disposed of in accordance with Lahontan RWQCB and Department of Toxic Substances Control requirements.

Significance After Mitigation
With implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, the potential for disturbance or accidental release of hazardous materials would be reduced to a less than significant level by requiring the assessment and treatment of any potentially affected soils identified on-site as soon as feasible. Following that initial determination, any affected soils would be disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations, thereby ensuring that impacts would be less than significant. c) 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? Less Than Significant Impact
929
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
86 The nearest school, Tahoe Valley Elementary School, is located approximately 0.6 miles south of the Project area. Construction and operation of the Project would not involve emissions or handling of hazardous materials beyond typical quantities of fuels, paints, and other building materials used during construction. The Project would not include any new storage or emission of hazardous materials, substances, or waste. Tahoe Keys Boulevard, which provides the most direct route to Tahoe Keys and the Project area, passes within 0.15 mile of Tahoe Valley Elementary School. However, as noted above under Section 4.9.3 a), materials transported to and from the site would be conducted in accordance with existing state and local regulations. As a result, no significant impacts or increased risk related to hazardous emissions or handling of hazardous materials within 0.25 miles of a school would occur.

Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. d) 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?
Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated The Project is located above a site which is included on a list compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. However, as discussed in 4.9.3(b) a No Further Action determination has been issued for the site, and the extent of remaining contamination is limited, if present at all. In addition, the Project would implement Mitigation Measure HAZ-1, which would ensure that disturbance of known and unknown hazardous materials do not result in a significant risk to the public. With implementation of the aforementioned mitigation measures, development in the Project area would not pose a significant hazard to the public or environment, and the impact would be less than significant. e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within 2 miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the Project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the Project area? Less than Significant Impact
The Lake Tahoe Airport is located approximately 1.6 miles southeast of the Project area. The Project is located within and adjacent to residential areas and is not in the overflight zone of the airport. The Project area does not lie within a noise impacted area airport as defined in the Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Lake Tahoe Airport (Environmental Science Associates 2019). The Project is located within Review Area 2, but does not approach any of the Lake Tahoe Airport’s airspace protection surfaces (transitional surface at 150 feet above the airport elevation and conical surface at 150 to 350 feet above the airport elevation) (Environmental Science Associates 2019). The elevation of the Project area is 20 feet below that of the existing runway and the proposed elevations for Project-related structures would not be sufficient to reach either surface. As such, the Project would not result in a change in airport operations or represent a safety hazard related to airport operations. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
930
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
87 f) Would the Project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less Than Significant Impact
Per the current Emergency Evacuation Map for the Tahoe Keys, Tahoe Keys Boulevard is an existing evacuation route for the eastern half of Tahoe Keys (City of South Lake Tahoe 2014). While the Project would temporarily impact Tahoe Keys Boulevard and Venice Drive East, this would result in temporary lane closures, and both roads would remain accessible with traffic controls during construction. More specifically, access for emergency vehicles and at least 1 lane of traffic with flaggers on either side of the lane closure would be maintained at all times in coordination with the South Lake Tahoe Fire Rescue and Public Works Department. However, the Project would not result in the modification of existing roadways or lane widths upon completion of construction. Further, the Project would not result in the physical modification of existing evacuation routes. Impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation is required.
g) Would the Project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? Less Than Significant Impact
While portions of the Project area are located within a locally-designated Very High FHSZ (CAL FIRE 2025), the proposed redevelopment would include new fire resistant landscaping and new firefighting infrastructure, which would be considered an improvement compared to existing conditions. Further, the Project area has not been subject to historic wildland fires (National Interagency Fire Center 2025).

The Project represents a replacement/modernization of existing on-site uses and would not introduce new/different uses to the Project area. Construction of new on-site structures would also be required to implement other applicable requirements of the Uniform Fire Code and CBC, including ignition-resistant construction, automatic interior fire sprinklers, on-site fire hydrant minimum flows, and adequate emergency and fire apparatus access. Additionally, facilities constructed as part of the Project would be subject to design and defensible space requirements that are intended to protect development from loss due to wildfire included in Section 13.5.3.F.4.a of TRPA Code of Ordinances, which requires use of native vegetation whenever possible, consistent with fire defensible space requirements.

Implementation of the Project would not exacerbate wildfire risks because defensible space would be maintained or improved within the Project area, and construction would comply with all applicable firerelated codes and regulations. Although the Project would increase the number of people traveling to and from the Project area (based on the projected increase in daily vehicle trips of 175), the number of visitors exposed to wildfire risk would not be a substantial increase over existing conditions. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. No mitigation is required. 931
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
88 4.10 Hydrology and Water Quality

4.10.1 Environmental Setting
Lake Tahoe is located in a basin that is fed by 63 tributary streams that drain directly into the lake. The Truckee River at the northwest end of the Tahoe Basin is the lake’s only outlet, ultimately flowing to Pyramid Lake in Nevada. A dam constructed at Tahoe City in the early 1900s regulates water flow to the Truckee River from the natural rim (6,223 feet above sea level) to the maximum legal lake level of 6,229.1 feet. The lake is 12 miles wide and 22 miles long with 72 miles of shoreline. Average precipitation is almost 16 inches each year in South Lake Tahoe (Western Regional Climate Center 2025), and it generally falls from October to May as snow in the higher elevations and as a mix of snow and rain in the lower elevations. Peak stream runoff is typically triggered by spring snowmelt in May and June.

The snowpack at lake level melts before the peak in snowmelt and runoff from the higher elevations.

The Project area primarily lies within the Upper Truckee River Watershed, the largest tributary watershed to Lake Tahoe. Other streams flow through the City, including Trout Creek, Heavenly Valley Creek, and several smaller ephemeral creeks including Bijou Creek, Bijou Park Creek, and Keller Creek.

There are also many unnamed water courses within the city limits that can produce considerable discharges during storm events. Stream flows tend to be high in the spring during snowmelt, with much lower flows during the late summer and fall.

The Project area overlies the TVS Groundwater Subbasin (California Department of Water Resources 2018). The TVS Groundwater Subbasin is considered a medium priority basin by the California Department of Water Resources and is managed under an Alternate Groundwater Sustainability Plan by STPUD (STPUD 2025b). The Project is within the jurisdictional limits of the Lahontan RWQCB, which uses the Lahontan Basin Plan as its regulating document, and the Project area is located within the North Lahontan Basin, which includes Lake Tahoe and surrounding regions within the state of California (Lahontan RWQCB 2025). The Basin Plan outlines beneficial uses for the TVS subbasin. Beneficial uses are municipal and domestic water supply, industrial service water supply, and agricultural water supply.

The 2021 STPUD Urban Groundwater Management plan also covers the City of South Lake Tahoe area (Kennedy Jenks 2021). Groundwater depths within the Project area are typically 3 to 4 feet below ground surface (Reno Tahoe Geo Associates, Inc. 2024).

Flood Risk
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) implements the National Flood Insurance Program. Per Section 60.3(d)(3) of the National Flood Insurance Program regulations regarding floodplain management, the placement of fill, new construction, substantial improvements, and other development within the adopted regulatory floodway cannot result in any increase in flood levels during occurrences of the base flood discharge (100-year event). The Project area lies within Zone X, which is outside of the 100-year flood zone (FEMA 2024).
932
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
89 4.10.2 Regulatory Setting
Federal
Clean Water Act
The EPA is the lead federal agency responsible for water quality management. The Clean Water Act is the primary federal law that governs and authorizes water quality control activities by EPA as well as the states. Various elements of the Clean Water Act address water quality. These are discussed below.

Clean Water Act Water Quality Criteria/Standards
Pursuant to federal law, EPA has published water quality regulations under Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Section 303 of the Clean Water Act requires states to adopt water quality standards for all surface waters of the United States. As defined by the act, water quality standards consist of designated beneficial uses of the water body in question and criteria that protect the designated uses.

Section 304(a) requires EPA to publish advisory water quality criteria that accurately reflect the latest scientific knowledge on the kind and extent of all effects on health and welfare that may be expected from the presence of pollutants in water. Where multiple uses exist, water quality standards must protect the most sensitive use. As described in the discussion of state regulations below, the State Water Resources Control Board and its nine RWQCBs, including the Lahontan RWQCB, have designated authority in California to identify beneficial uses and adopt applicable water quality objectives.

Clean Water Act Section 303(d) Impaired Waters List
Under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, states are required to develop lists of water bodies that do not attain water quality objectives after implementation of required levels of treatment by point source dischargers (municipalities and industries). Section 303(d) requires that the state develop a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for each of the listed pollutants. A TMDL is the amount of the pollutant that the water body can receive and still comply with water quality objectives. The TMDL is also a plan to reduce loading of a specific pollutant from various sources to achieve compliance with water quality objectives. In California, implementation of TMDLs is achieved through water quality control plans, known as Basin Plans, of the state RWQCBs, which are explained in further detail below.

National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program was established in the Clean Water Act to regulate municipal and industrial discharges to surface waters of the United States.

NPDES permit regulations have been established for broad categories of discharges including point source waste discharges and nonpoint source stormwater runoff. Each NPDES permit identifies limits on allowable concentrations and mass emissions of pollutants contained in the discharge. Sections 401 and 402 of the Clean Water Act contain general requirements regarding NPDES permits. “Nonpoint source” pollution originates over a wide area rather than from a definable point. Nonpoint source pollution often enters receiving water in the form of surface runoff and is not conveyed by way of pipelines or discrete conveyances. Two types of nonpoint source discharges are controlled by the NPDES program: discharges caused by general construction activities and the general quality of 933
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
90 stormwater in municipal stormwater systems. The goal of the NPDES nonpoint source regulations is to improve the quality of stormwater discharged to receiving waters to the maximum extent practicable.

National Flood Insurance Act
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is tasked with responding to, planning for, recovering from, and mitigating against disasters. The Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration within FEMA is responsible for administering the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and administering programs that aid with mitigating future damages from natural hazards.

FEMA prepares Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) that delineate the regulatory floodplain to assist local governments with the land use planning and floodplain management decisions needed to meet the requirements of NFIP. Floodplains are divided into flood hazard areas, which are areas designated per their potential for flooding, as delineated on FIRMs. Special Flood Hazard Areas are the areas identified as having a one percent chance of flooding each year (otherwise known as the 100-year flood). In general, the NFIP mandates that development is not to proceed within the regulatory 100-year floodplain if the development is expected to increase flood elevation by 1 foot or more.

State
Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
California’s primary statute governing water quality and water pollution issues with respect to both surface waters and groundwater is the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1970 (PorterCologne Act). The Porter-Cologne Act grants SWRCB and each of the nine RWQCBs power to protect water quality, and is the primary vehicle for implementation of California’s responsibilities under the CWA. The applicable RWQCB for the proposed project is the San Francisco Bay RWQCB. SWRCB and the San Francisco Bay RWQCB have the authority and responsibility to adopt plans and policies, regulate discharges to surface and groundwater, regulate waste disposal sites, and require cleanup of discharges of hazardous materials and other pollutants. The Porter-Cologne Act also establishes reporting requirements for unintended discharges of any hazardous substances, sewage, or oil or petroleum products.

Under the Porter-Cologne Act, each RWQCB must formulate and adopt a water quality control plan (known as a “Basin Plan”) for its region. The Basin Plan lists the beneficial uses that the San Francisco Bay RWQCB has identified for local aquifers, streams, marshes, rivers, and the San Francisco Bay, as well as Water Quality Objectives (WQOs) and criteria that must be met to protect these uses. The San Francisco Bay RWQCB implements the Basin Plan by issuing and enforcing waste discharge requirements (WDRs), including permits for nonpoint sources such as the urban runoff discharged by a City’s stormwater drainage system. The Basin Plan also describes watershed management programs and water quality attainment strategies. Through the Basin Plan, the San Francisco Bay RWQCB executes its regulatory authority to enforce the implementation of TMDLs, and to ensure compliance with surface WQOs. The Basin Plan includes both narrative, and numerical WQOs designed to provide protection for all designated and potential beneficial uses in all its principal streams and tributaries. Applicable beneficial uses include municipal and domestic water supply, irrigation, non-contact and contact water 934
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study and Checklist South Lake Tahoe, California April 2026
91 recreation, groundwater recharge, freshwater replenishment, hydroelectric power generation, and preservation and enhancement of wildlife, fish, and other aquatic resources.

Regional
Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region
Water quality standards and control measures for surface and ground waters of the Lahontan Region are contained in the Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (Basin Plan). The Basin Plan designates beneficial uses for water bodies. It establishes water quality objectives, waste discharge prohibitions, and other implementation measures to protect those beneficial uses. Chapter 5 of the Basin Plan, Water Quality Standards and Control Measures for the Lake Tahoe Basin, summarizes a variety of control measures for the protection and enhancement of Lake Tahoe.

The Basin Plan was first adopted in 1975, and most recently updated in 2014. The Basin Plan contains both narrative and numeric water quality objectives for the region. The Basin Plan amendments include additional language related to: “mixing zones” for dilution of discharged water, compliance schedules for NPDES permits, discharge prohibition exemptions for low threat discharges such as incidental runoff from landscape irrigation or construction dewatering, simplification of existing prohibition exemptions, and the removal of language describing programs administered by TRPA.

General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction The Lahontan RWQCB adopted the NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit for the Lake Tahoe Basin in March 2016 (Order No. R6T-2016-0010). Projects disturbing more than 1 acre of land during construction must file a Notice of Intent with Lahontan RWQCB to be covered under this permit.

South Lake Tahoe City CouncilAugust 11, 2026

South Lake Tahoe City Council
August 11, 2026