South Lake Tahoe City Council
August 11, 2026

\\192.168.1.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\250201 Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA\Word\250201 Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA Noise 3-16-26.docx

INTRODUCTION
The Tahoe Keys Marina project consists of the redevelopment of the existing marina. This involves the construction of a storage facility, dock master building, park, boat launch area, parking, plaza, and four buildings. The project site is bordered by residential land use to the north and west, public land use to the east, and Venice Road to the south.

Figure 1 shows the project site plan. Figure 2 shows an aerial photo of the project site.

ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

BACKGROUND INFORMATION ON NOISE
Fundamentals of Acoustics
Acoustics is the science of sound. Sound may be thought of as mechanical energy of a vibrating object transmitted by pressure waves through a medium to human (or animal) ears. If the pressure variations occur frequently enough (at least 20 times per second), then they can be heard and are called sound. The number of pressure variations per second is called the frequency of sound and is expressed as cycles per second or Hertz (Hz).

Noise is a subjective reaction to different types of sounds. Noise is typically defined as (airborne) sound that is loud, unpleasant, unexpected or undesired, and may therefore be classified as a more specific group of sounds.

Perceptions of sound and noise are highly subjective from person to person.

Measuring sound directly in terms of pressure would require a very large and awkward range of numbers. To avoid this, the decibel scale was devised. The decibel scale uses the hearing threshold (20 micropascals), as a point of reference, defined as 0 dB. Other sound pressures are then compared to this reference pressure, and the logarithm is taken to keep the numbers in a practical range. The decibel scale allows a million-fold increase in pressure to be expressed as 120 dB, and changes in levels (dB) correspond closely to human perception of relative loudness.

The perceived loudness of sounds is dependent upon many factors, including sound pressure level and frequency content. However, within the usual range of environmental noise levels, perception of loudness is relatively predictable, and can be approximated by A-weighted sound levels. There is a strong correlation between A-weighted sound levels (expressed as dBA) and the way the human ear perceives sound. For this reason, the A-weighted sound level has become the standard tool of environmental noise assessment. 1160
Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA
City of South Lake Tahoe, CaliforniaFigure 1Project Site Plan Project Location 1161
Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA
CEQA City of South Lake Tahoe, CaliforniaFigure 2Noise Measurement Sites LT-3
ST-1
ST-2
ST-3
LT-2
LT-1
ST-5
ST-4
LT-4
Legend
# Project Site# Long Term Measurement# Short Term Measurement 1162
Tahoe Keys Marina
City of South Lake Tahoe, CA
Job #250201
March 16, 2026 www.SaxNoise.com

\\192.168.1.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\250201 Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA\Word\250201 Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA Noise 3-16-26.docx The decibel scale is logarithmic, not linear. In other words, two sound levels 10-dB apart differ in acoustic energy by a factor of 10. When the standard logarithmic decibel is A-weighted, an increase of 10-dBA is generally perceived as a doubling in loudness. For example, a 70-dBA sound is half as loud as an 80-dBA sound, and twice as loud as a 60-dBA sound.

Community noise is commonly described in terms of the ambient noise level, which is defined as the allencompassing noise level associated with a given environment. A common statistical tool is the average, or equivalent, sound level (Leq), which corresponds to a steady-state A-weighted sound level containing the same total energy as a time varying signal over a given time period (usually one hour). The Leq is the foundation of the composite noise descriptor, Ldn, and shows very good correlation with community response to noise.

The day/night average level (DNL or Ldn) is based upon the average noise level over a 24-hour day, with a +10- decibel weighing applied to noise occurring during nighttime (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) hours. The nighttime penalty is based upon the assumption that people react to nighttime noise exposures as though they were twice as loud as daytime exposures. Because Ldn represents a 24-hour average, it tends to disguise short-term variations in the noise environment.

Table 1 lists several examples of the noise levels associated with common situations. Appendix A provides a summary of acoustical terms used in this report.

TABLE 1: TYPICAL NOISE LEVELS
Common Outdoor Activities Noise Level (dBA) Common Indoor Activities --110-- Rock Band
Jet Fly-over at 300 m (1,000 ft.) --100--
Gas Lawn Mower at 1 m (3 ft.) --90--
Diesel Truck at 15 m (50 ft.),
at 80 km/hr. (50 mph) --80-- Food Blender at 1 m (3 ft.) Garbage Disposal at 1 m (3 ft.) Noisy Urban Area, Daytime
Gas Lawn Mower, 30 m (100 ft.) --70-- Vacuum Cleaner at 3 m (10 ft.) Commercial Area
Heavy Traffic at 90 m (300 ft.) --60-- Normal Speech at 1 m (3 ft.) Quiet Urban Daytime --50-- Large Business Office
Dishwasher in Next Room
Quiet Urban Nighttime --40-- Theater, Large Conference Room (Background) Quiet Suburban Nighttime --30-- Library
Quiet Rural Nighttime --20-- Bedroom at Night, Concert Hall (Background) --10-- Broadcast/Recording Studio
Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing --0-- Lowest Threshold of Human Hearing Source: Caltrans, Technical Noise Supplement, Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol. September, 2013. 1163
Tahoe Keys Marina
City of South Lake Tahoe, CA
Job #250201
March 16, 2026 www.SaxNoise.com

\\192.168.1.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\250201 Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA\Word\250201 Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA Noise 3-16-26.docx Effects of Noise on People
The effects of noise on people can be placed in three categories:
 Subjective effects of annoyance, nuisance, and dissatisfaction  Interference with activities such as speech, sleep, and learning  Physiological effects such as hearing loss or sudden startling Environmental noise typically produces effects in the first two categories. Workers in industrial plants can experience noise in the last category. There is no completely satisfactory way to measure the subjective effects of noise or the corresponding reactions of annoyance and dissatisfaction. A wide variation in individual thresholds of annoyance exists and different tolerances to noise tend to develop based on an individual’s past experiences with noise.

Thus, an important way of predicting a human reaction to a new noise environment is the way it compares to the existing environment to which one has adapted: the so-called ambient noise level. In general, the more a new noise exceeds the previously existing ambient noise level, the less acceptable the new noise will be judged by those hearing it.

With regards to increases in A-weighted noise level, the following relationships occur:
 Except in carefully controlled laboratory experiments, a change of 1-dBA cannot be perceived;  Outside of the laboratory, a 3-dBA change is considered a just-perceivable difference;  A change in level of at least 5-dBA is required before any noticeable change in human response would be expected; and
 A 10-dBA change is subjectively heard as approximately a doubling in loudness and can cause an adverse response.

Stationary point sources of noise – including stationary mobile sources such as idling vehicles – attenuate (lessen) at a rate of approximately 6-dB per doubling of distance from the source, depending on environmental conditions (i.e. atmospheric conditions and either vegetative or manufactured noise barriers, etc.). Widely distributed noises, such as a large industrial facility spread over many acres or a street with moving vehicles, would typically attenuate at a lower rate.
1164
Tahoe Keys Marina
City of South Lake Tahoe, CA
Job #250201
March 16, 2026 www.SaxNoise.com

\\192.168.1.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\250201 Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA\Word\250201 Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA Noise 3-16-26.docx

EXISTING NOISE AND VIBRATION ENVIRONMENTS

EXISTING NOISE RECEPTORS
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to noise than others. Land uses often associated with sensitive receptors generally include residences, schools, libraries, hospitals, and passive recreational areas. Sensitive noise receptors may also include threatened or endangered noise-sensitive biological species, although many jurisdictions have not adopted noise standards for wildlife areas. Noise sensitive land uses are typically given special attention in order to achieve protection from excessive noise.

Sensitivity is a function of noise exposure (in terms of both exposure duration and insulation from noise) and the types of activities involved. In the vicinity of the project site, sensitive land uses include residential condominiums located to the north and west, along Tahoe Keys Boulevard and Ala Wai Boulevard.

EXISTING GENERAL AMBIENT NOISE LEVELS
The existing noise environment in the project area is primarily defined by traffic on Venice Road, car/truck circulation on the project site, and boat noise. To quantify the existing ambient noise environment in the project vicinity, Saxelby Acoustics conducted continuous (24-hr.) noise level measurements at four locations on the project site and five additional short-term sites and observations. Noise measurement locations are shown on Figure 2. A summary of the noise level measurement survey results is provided in Table 2. Appendix B contains the complete results of the noise monitoring.

The sound level meters were programmed to record the maximum, median, and average noise levels at each site during the survey. The maximum value, denoted Lmax, represents the highest noise level measured. The average value, denoted Leq, represents the energy average of all the noise received by the sound level meter microphone during the monitoring period. The median value, denoted L50, represents the sound level exceeded 50 percent of the time during the monitoring period.

Larson Davis Laboratories (LDL) model 820 precision integrating sound level meters were used for the ambient noise level measurement survey. The meters were calibrated before and after use with a CAL200 acoustical calibrator to ensure the accuracy of the measurements. The equipment used meets all pertinent specifications of the American National Standards Institute for Type 1 sound level meters (ANSI S1.4). 1165
Tahoe Keys Marina
City of South Lake Tahoe, CA
Job #250201
March 16, 2026 www.SaxNoise.com

\\192.168.1.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\250201 Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA\Word\250201 Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA Noise 3-16-26.docx TABLE 2: SUMMARY OF EXISTING BACKGROUND NOISE MEASUREMENT DATA Location Date Ldn
Daytime
Leq
Daytime
L50
Daytime
Lmax
Nighttime
Leq
Nighttime
L50
Nighttime
Lmax
LT-1
6/27/25 47 47 41 64 38 35 52
6/28/25 49 47 43 65 41 36 54
6/29/25 48 48 42 65 38 35 53
Average 48 47 42 65 39 35 53
LT-2
6/27/25 52 52 47 71 40 37 53
6/28/25 53 53 47 71 42 37 54
6/29/25 53 54 48 72 40 37 56
Average 53 53 47 71 41 37 54
LT-3
6/27/25 57 54 47 75 50 40 67
6/28/25 55 55 47 75 46 40 64
6/29/25 55 55 47 75 45 41 63
Average 56 55 47 75 47 40 65
LT-4
6/27/25 46 45 39 64 37 34 51
6/28/25 46 44 39 62 37 34 49
6/29/25 48 47 39 66 39 34 55
Average 47 45 39 64 38 34 52
ST-1 6/26/25 N/A 44 43 62 N/A N/A N/A
ST-2 6/26/25 N/A 56 55 71 N/A N/A N/A
ST-3 6/30/25 N/A 52 51 59 N/A N/A N/A
ST-4 6/30/25 N/A 52 47 72 N/A N/A N/A
ST-5 6/30/25 N/A 55 50 69 N/A N/A N/A
 All values shown in dBA
 Daytime hours: 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.
 Nighttime Hours: 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
 Source: Saxelby Acoustics, 2025.

FUTURE TRAFFIC NOISE ENVIRONMENT AT OFF-SITE RECEPTORS

OFF-SITE TRAFFIC NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY
To assess noise impacts due to project-related traffic increases on the local roadway network, traffic noise levels are predicted at sensitive receptors for existing and future, project and no-project conditions.

Existing noise levels due to traffic are calculated using the Federal Highway Administration Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model (FHWA RD-77-108). The model is based upon the Calveno reference noise factors for automobiles, medium trucks and heavy trucks, with consideration given to vehicle volume, speed, roadway configuration, distance to the receiver, and the acoustical characteristics of the site. 1166
Tahoe Keys Marina
City of South Lake Tahoe, CA
Job #250201
March 16, 2026 www.SaxNoise.com

\\192.168.1.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\250201 Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA\Word\250201 Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA Noise 3-16-26.docx The FHWA model was developed to predict hourly Leq values for free-flowing traffic conditions. To predict traffic noise levels in terms of Ldn, it is necessary to adjust the input volume to account for the day/night distribution of traffic.

Project trip generation volumes were provided by the project traffic engineer (LSC), truck usage and vehicle speeds on the local area roadways were estimated from field observations. The predicted increases in traffic noise levels on the local roadway network for Existing conditions which would result from the project are provided in terms of Ldn.

Traffic noise levels are predicted at the sensitive receptors located at the closest typical setback distance along each project-area roadway segment. In some locations sensitive receptors may not receive full shielding from noise barriers or may be located at distances which vary from the assumed calculation distance.

Tables 3 summarize the modeled traffic noise levels at the nearest sensitive receptors along each roadway segment in the Project area. Appendix C provides the complete inputs and results of the FHWA traffic modeling.

TABLE 3: PREDICTED TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL AND PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Roadway Segment
Existing
Counts
(dBA Ldn)
Existing +
Project
(dBA Ldn)
Change (dBA)
Marina Access Driveway North of Venice Dr 41.1 42.6 1.5 Venice Dr East of Beach and Harbor Driveway 37.5 38.8 1.3 Venice Dr West of Beach and Harbor Driveway 44.5 45.7 1.2 TABLE 4: PREDICTED TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL AND PROJECT-RELATED TRAFFIC NOISE LEVEL INCREASES Roadway Segment
Existing No
Project1
(dBA Ldn)
Existing +
Project
(dBA Ldn)
Change (dBA)
Marina Access Driveway North of Venice Dr 42.4 42.6 0.2 Venice Dr East of Beach and Harbor Driveway 38.5 38.8 0.3 Venice Dr West of Beach and Harbor Driveway 45.5 45.7 0.2 1 Existing No Project conditions assumes the Fresh Ketch restaurant is operational.

Based upon the Tables 3 data, the proposed project is predicted to result in an increase in a maximum traffic noise level increase of 1.5 dBA or 0.3 dBA if the Fresh Ketch restaurant is operational. 1167
Tahoe Keys Marina
City of South Lake Tahoe, CA
Job #250201
March 16, 2026 www.SaxNoise.com

\\192.168.1.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\250201 Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA\Word\250201 Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA Noise 3-16-26.docx

EVALUATION OF PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE ON EXISTING SENSITIVE RECEPTORS Project site traffic circulation, boat launch ramp, and HVAC noise are considered to be the primary noise sources for this project. The following is a list of assumptions used for noise modeling. The data used is based upon a combination of manufacturer’s provided data and Saxelby Acoustics data from similar operations.

Boat Launch Ramp: Assumes typical boat activity will occur mostly during daytime hours. Noise sources include vehicle and trailer movements as well as boat engine startup and idle noise.

The boat ramp is predicted to generate noise levels of 44 dBA at 100 feet for 15 daytime hours and two nighttime hours, based on existing boat launch operations.

On-Site Circulation: Saxelby Acoustics used the data provided by LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. for the proposed project. The project is predicted to generate approximately 191 trips in the peak hour (with a net increase of only 37 in the peak hour). Saxelby Acoustics included an additional two heavy truck trips to account for garbage collection and deliveries. Parking lot movements are predicted to generate a sound exposure level (SEL) of 71 dBA SEL at 50 feet for cars and 85 dBA SEL at 50 feet for trucks. Nighttime traffic outside of the AM or PM peak hour is estimated to be approximately 20% of daytime trips during nighttime hours (10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.).

HVAC: Assumes 2-4 six-ton HVAC units for each building. The units were assumed to have a sound power level of 82 dBA with continuous daytime operation and 25% nighttime operation.

Saxelby Acoustics used the SoundPLAN noise prediction model. Inputs to the model included sound power levels for the proposed noise sources, existing and proposed buildings, terrain type, and locations of sensitive receptors. These predictions are made in accordance with International Organization for Standardization (ISO) standard 9613-2:1996 (Acoustics – Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors). ISO 9613 is the most commonly used method for calculating exterior noise propagation. Figure 3 shows the project operational noise level contours. Please note that these contours do not account for existing operations, only proposed future operations.
1168
40 45
46 46
46 44
42 41
40 40
42 Venice Drive
1 2
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11
3 Noise Level
dBA
<=45
45 < <=4646 < <=4747 < <=4848 < <=4949 < <=5050 < <=5151 < <=5252 < <=5353 < <=5454 < <=5555 < Scale 1:290
0 50 100 200 300 400
feet
Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQACity of South Lake Tahoe, CAFigure 3Project Generated Noise Levels(Noise level Day/Night, dBA) Legend
Project BoundaryProject BuildingExisting Building
F1 57 50F2 58 51F3 59 52 Noise Level
Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA
1169
Tahoe Keys Marina
City of South Lake Tahoe, CA
Job #250201
March 16, 2026 www.SaxNoise.com

\\192.168.1.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\250201 Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA\Word\250201 Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA Noise 3-16-26.docx

CONSTRUCTION NOISE ENVIRONMENT
During the construction of the proposed project, noise from construction activities would temporarily add to the noise environment in the project vicinity. As shown in Table 4, activities involved in construction would generate maximum noise levels ranging from 76 to 90 dB at a distance of 50 feet.

TABLE 5: CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT NOISE
Type of Equipment Maximum Level, dBA at 50 feet
Auger Drill Rig 84
Backhoe 78
Compactor 83
Compressor (air) 78
Concrete Saw 90
Dozer 82
Dump Truck 76
Excavator 81
Generator 81
Jackhammer 89
Pneumatic Tools 85
Source: Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide. Federal Highway Administration. FHWA-HEP-05-054. January 2006.

CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION ENVIRONMENT
The primary vibration-generating activities associated with the proposed project would occur during construction when activities such as grading, utilities placement, and parking lot construction occur. Table 5 shows the typical vibration levels produced by construction equipment.

TABLE 6: VIBRATION LEVELS FOR VARIOUS CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT Type of Equipment
Peak Particle Velocity at
25 feet
(inches/second)
Peak Particle Velocity at
50 feet
(inches/second)
Peak Particle Velocity at
100 feet
(inches/second)
Large Bulldozer 0.089 0.031 0.011
Loaded Trucks 0.076 0.027 0.010
Small Bulldozer 0.003 0.001 0.000
Auger/drill Rigs 0.089 0.031 0.011
Jackhammer 0.035 0.012 0.004
Vibratory Hammer 0.070 0.025 0.009
Vibratory Compactor/roller 0.210
(Less than 0.20 at 26 feet) 0.074 0.026
Source: Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Guidelines. Federal Transit Administration. May 2006. 1170
Tahoe Keys Marina
City of South Lake Tahoe, CA
Job #250201
March 16, 2026 www.SaxNoise.com

\\192.168.1.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\250201 Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA\Word\250201 Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA Noise 3-16-26.docx

REGULATORY CONTEXT

FEDERAL
HUD Criteria
The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) establishes an acceptable exterior noise environment of 65 dBA Ldn (also expressed as “DNL” or Day/Night Level) at exterior areas of residential uses.

Noise levels in the 65-75 dBA DNL range are considered Normally Unacceptable. However, 65-75 dBA DNL may be allowed, but require special approvals and additional sound attenuation measures. Such measures include a 5 dBA improvement to the building facade noise level reduction (NLR) for exterior noise levels in the 65-70 dBA range, and an improvement of 10 dBA for exterior noise levels in the 70-75 dBA range. The improvement is required in addition to “attenuation provided by buildings as commonly constructed in the area and requiring open windows for ventilation.”
Noise levels exceeding 75 dBA DNL are considered unacceptable and may only be allowed under special circumstances.

In addition, HUD established an interior noise level goal of 45 dBA DNL, while assuming a typical exterior-tointerior NLR of 20 dBA.

STATE
California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, Appendix G, indicate that a significant noise impact may occur if a project exposes persons to noise or vibration levels in excess of local general plans or noise ordinance standards, or cause a substantial permanent or temporary increase in ambient noise levels.

CEQA standards are discussed in more detail under the Thresholds of Significance section.

State Building Code, Title 24, Part 2 of the State of California Code of Regulations The State Building Code, Title 24, Part 2 of the State of California Code of Regulations, establishes uniform minimum noise insulation performance standards to protect persons within new buildings which house people, including hotels, motels, dormitories, apartment houses, and dwellings other than single-family dwellings. Title 24 mandates that interior noise levels attributable to exterior sources shall not exceed 45 dB Ldn or CNEL in any habitable room. Title 24 also mandates that for structures containing noise-sensitive uses to be located where the Ldn or CNEL exceeds 60 dB, an acoustical analysis must be prepared to identify mechanisms for limiting exterior noise to the prescribed allowable interior levels. If the interior allowable noise levels are met by requiring that windows be kept closed, the design for the structure must also specify a ventilation or air conditioning system to provide a habitable interior environment. 1171
Tahoe Keys Marina
City of South Lake Tahoe, CA
Job #250201
March 16, 2026 www.SaxNoise.com

\\192.168.1.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\250201 Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA\Word\250201 Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA Noise 3-16-26.docx LOCAL
TRPA Code of Ordinances

68.3.1 Single Noise Events
Single noise event threshold standards adopted by TRPA are based on the numerical value associated with the maximum measured level in acoustical energy during an event. This threshold establishes maximum noise levels of 82 dBA Lmax at 50 feet at 3,000 rpm, 75 dBA Lmax at the shoreline, or 88-90 dBA at 3.3 feet from the engine exhaust.

68.4 Community Noise Levels
TRPA shall use community noise equivalent levels (CNELs) to measure community noise levels. The plan area statements shall set forth CNELs that shall not be exceeded by any one activity or combination of activities (See subsection 11.6.10). In addition, community noise levels shall not exceed levels existing on August 26, 1982, where such levels are known. The CNELs set forth in the plan area statements are based on the land use classification, the presence of transportation corridors, and the applicable threshold. The CNEL corridor GIS data layer indicates the location of special noise corridors for highways and the South Lake Tahoe Airport. Consistent with the adopted TRPA Threshold Standards the maximum community noise equivalent levels (CNEL) for the Tahoe Keys Area Plan 102 is 55 dBA CNEL.

68.9 Exemptions to Noise Limitations
The standards of this chapter shall not apply to noise from TRPA-approved construction or maintenance project or the demolition of structures provides such activities are limited to the hours between 8 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. The standards of this chapter shall not apply to safety signals, warning devices or emergency pressure relief valves, and other similar devices. Emergency work to protect life property shall be exempt from noise standards, as shall be fireworks used in accordance with a state or local permit.

CRITERIA FOR ACCEPTABLE VIBRATION
Vibration is like noise in that it involves a source, a transmission path, and a receiver. While vibration is related to noise, it differs in that noise is generally considered to be pressure waves transmitted through air, whereas vibration usually consists of the excitation of a structure or surface. As with noise, vibration consists of an amplitude and frequency. A person’s perception to the vibration will depend on their individual sensitivity to vibration, as well as the amplitude and frequency of the source and the response of the system which is vibrating.

Vibration can be measured in terms of acceleration, velocity, or displacement. A common practice is to monitor vibration measures in terms of peak particle velocities in inches per second. Standards pertaining to perception as well as damage to structures have been developed for vibration levels defined in terms of peak particle velocities.

Human and structural response to different vibration levels is influenced by a number of factors, including ground type, distance between source and receptor, duration, and the number of perceived vibration events.

Table 6, which was developed by Caltrans, shows the vibration levels which would normally be required to 1172
Tahoe Keys Marina
City of South Lake Tahoe, CA
Job #250201
March 16, 2026 www.SaxNoise.com

\\192.168.1.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\250201 Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA\Word\250201 Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA Noise 3-16-26.docx result in damage to structures. The vibration levels are presented in terms of peak particle velocity in inches per second.

Table 6 indicates that the threshold for architectural damage to structures is 0.20 in/sec p.p.v. A threshold of

0.20 in/sec p.p.v. is considered to be a reasonable threshold for short-term construction projects.

TABLE 7: EFFECTS OF VIBRATION ON PEOPLE AND BUILDINGS
Peak Particle Velocity Human Reaction Effect on Buildings mm/second in/second

0.15-0.30 0.006-0.019 Threshold of perception; possibility of intrusion
Vibrations unlikely to cause damage of
any type

2.0 0.08 Vibrations readily perceptible
Recommended upper level of the
vibration to which ruins and ancient
monuments should be subjected

2.5 0.10 Level at which continuous vibrations
begin to annoy people
Virtually no risk of “architectural”
damage to normal buildings

5.0 0.20
Vibrations annoying to people in
buildings (this agrees with the levels
established for people standing on
bridges and subjected to relative
short periods of vibrations)
Threshold at which there is a risk of
“architectural” damage to normal
dwelling - houses with plastered walls
and ceilings. Special types of finish such
as lining of walls, flexible ceiling
treatment, etc., would minimize
“architectural” damage
10-15 0.4-0.6
Vibrations considered unpleasant by
people subjected to continuous
vibrations and unacceptable to some
people walking on bridges
Vibrations at a greater level than
normally expected from traffic, but
would cause “architectural” damage
and possibly minor structural damage
Source: Transportation Related Earthborne Vibrations. Caltrans. TAV-02-01-R9601. February 20, 2002.

IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

THRESHOLDS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines states that a project would normally be considered to result in significant noise impacts if noise levels conflict with adopted environmental standards or plans or if noise generated by the project would substantially increase existing noise levels at sensitive receivers on a permanent or temporary basis. Significance criteria for noise impacts are drawn from CEQA Guidelines Appendix G (Items XI [a-c]).
1173
Tahoe Keys Marina
City of South Lake Tahoe, CA
Job #250201
March 16, 2026 www.SaxNoise.com

\\192.168.1.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\250201 Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA\Word\250201 Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA Noise 3-16-26.docx Would the project:
a. Generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
b. Generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c. For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Noise Level Increase Criteria for Long-Term Project-Related Noise Level Increases The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines define a significant impact of a project if it “increases substantially the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas.” Generally, a project may have a significant effect on the environment if it will substantially increase the ambient noise levels for adjoining areas or expose people to severe noise levels. In practice, more specific professional standards have been developed.

These standards state that a noise impact may be considered significant if it would generate noise that would conflict with local project criteria or ordinances, or substantially increase noise levels at noise sensitive land uses. The potential increase in traffic noise from the project is a factor in determining significance. Research into the human perception of changes in sound level indicates the following:
 A 3-dB change is barely perceptible,
 A 5-dB change is clearly perceptible, and
 A 10-dB change is perceived as being twice or half as loud.

A limitation of using a single noise level increase value to evaluate noise impacts is that it fails to account for pre-project noise conditions. Table 7 is based upon recommendations made by the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON) to provide guidance in the assessment of changes in ambient noise levels resulting from aircraft operations. The recommendations are based upon studies that relate aircraft noise levels to the percentage of persons highly annoyed by the noise. Although the FICON recommendations were specifically developed to assess aircraft noise impacts, it has been accepted that they are applicable to all sources of noise described in terms of cumulative noise exposure metrics such as the Ldn.

TABLE 8: SIGNIFICANCE OF CHANGES IN NOISE EXPOSURE
Ambient Noise Level Without Project, Ldn Increase Required for Significant Impact <60 dB +5.0 dB or more
60-65 dB +3.0 dB or more
>65 dB +1.5 dB or more
Source: Federal Interagency Committee on Noise (FICON).

Based on the FICON data, an increase in the traffic noise level of 5 dB or more would be significant where the pre-project noise levels are less than 60 dB Ldn, or 3 dB or more where existing noise levels are between 60 to 65 dB Ldn. Extending this concept to higher noise levels, an increase in the traffic noise level of 1.5 dB or more may be significant where the pre-project traffic noise level exceeds 65 dB Ldn. The rationale for the FICON 1174
Tahoe Keys Marina
City of South Lake Tahoe, CA
Job #250201
March 16, 2026 www.SaxNoise.com

\\192.168.1.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\250201 Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA\Word\250201 Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA Noise 3-16-26.docx criteria is that, as ambient noise levels increase, a smaller increase in noise resulting from a project is sufficient to cause annoyance.

Temporary Construction Noise Impacts
With temporary noise impacts (construction), identification of “substantial increases” depends upon the duration of the impact, the temporal daily nature of the impact, and the absolute change in decibel levels. Per the TRPA Code of Ordinances, construction activities operating between 8:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m. are exempt from the ordinance (68.9).

TRPA has not adopted any formal standard for evaluating temporary construction noise which occurs within allowable hours. For short-term noise associated with Project construction, Saxelby Acoustics recommends use of the Caltrans increase criteria of 12 dBA (Caltrans Traffic Noise Protocol, 2020), applied to existing residential receptors in the project vicinity. This level of increase is approximately equivalent to a doubling of sound energy and has been the standard of significance for Caltrans projects at the state level for many years.

Application of this standard to construction activities is considered reasonable considering the temporary nature of construction activities.

PROJECT-SPECIFIC IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Impact 1: Would the project generate a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Traffic Noise Increases at Off-Site Receptors
The proposed project is not predicted to cause traffic noise levels to increase by more than 1.5 dBA. At this location traffic noise levels are predicted to increase from 41.1 dBA Ldn to 42.6 dBA Ldn. If the Fresh Ketch is operational, the net increase in traffic noise level is predicted to be no more than 0.3 dBA. These increases are less than the allowable 5.0 dBA increase where existing noise levels are less than 60 dBA, as shown in Table 7.

Additionally, while cumulative traffic volumes were not available, it is expected that the project’s contribution to cumulative noise level increases would become less as background traffic volumes increase due to nonproject related traffic. Therefore, under cumulative plus project conditions, it is expected that the increase due to the proposed project would be less than 1.5 dBA.

Therefore, impacts resulting from increased traffic noise would be considered less-than-significant, and no mitigation is required.
1175
Tahoe Keys Marina
City of South Lake Tahoe, CA
Job #250201
March 16, 2026 www.SaxNoise.com

\\192.168.1.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\250201 Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA\Word\250201 Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA Noise 3-16-26.docx Operational Noise at Existing Sensitive Receptors
Compliance with TRPA Standards
The proposed project falls under the TRPA Tahoe Kets Area Plan 102. The maximum allowable noise level within this Plan Area is 55 dBA CNEL. The closest sensitive receptors are shown in Figure 2. Figure 3 shows the noise level contours emanating from the project site. Table 8 below compares project-generated noise levels with the TRPA standards.

TABLE 9: PROJECT-GENERATED NOISE LEVELS AT SENSITIVE RECEPTORS Receiver Zoning District
Noise Level
Standard
(dBA CNEL)
Project Noise
Levels
(dBA CNEL)
Complies?
1 Tahoe Keys Area Plan 102 55 42 Yes
2 Tahoe Keys Area Plan 102 55 40 Yes
3 Tahoe Keys Area Plan 102 55 45 Yes
4 Tahoe Keys Area Plan 102 55 46 Yes
5 Tahoe Keys Area Plan 102 55 46 Yes
6 Tahoe Keys Area Plan 102 55 46 Yes
7 Tahoe Keys Area Plan 102 55 44 Yes
8 Tahoe Keys Area Plan 102 55 42 Yes
9 Tahoe Keys Area Plan 102 55 41 Yes
10 Tahoe Keys Area Plan 102 55 40 Yes
11 Tahoe Keys Area Plan 102 55 40 Yes
As shown in the table, the project is predicted to expose nearby residences to noise levels up to 46 dBA CNEL.

These noise levels are predicted to comply with the TRPA noise level standards.

Analysis of Significance of Long-Term Project-Related Noise Increases The TRPA Code of Ordinances does not establish a significance threshold for increases in stationary noise sources. In the absence of a specific threshold, Saxelby Acoustics utilizes the FICON criteria to assess increases in ambient noise environment. At the nearby residences, the average ambient noise level is predicted to be 47-53 dBA CNEL based upon the ambient noise level survey at sites LT-2 and LT-4. An increase of +5.0 dBA or greater would constitute a significant increase based upon Table 7. The resulting sum of ambient noise (47 dBA CNEL) plus project generated noise (46 dBA CNEL) would be 49.5 dBA CNEL. This would represent a maximum noise level increase of 2.5 dBA over ambient, which is less than the +5 dBA increase criterion.

Therefore, this is a less-than-significant impact, and no mitigation is required. 1176
Tahoe Keys Marina
City of South Lake Tahoe, CA
Job #250201
March 16, 2026 www.SaxNoise.com

\\192.168.1.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\250201 Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA\Word\250201 Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA Noise 3-16-26.docx Construction Noise
During the construction phases of the project, noise from construction activities would add to the noise environment in the immediate project vicinity. As indicated in Table 4, activities involved in construction would generate maximum noise levels ranging from 76 to 90 dBA Lmax at a distance of 50 feet. Construction activities would also be temporary in nature and are anticipated to occur during normal daytime working hours. The TRPA Code of Ordinances exempts construction noise from the noise ordinance between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:30 p.m.

Caltrans defines a significant increase due to noise as an increase of 12 dBA over existing ambient noise levels; Saxelby Acoustics used this criterion to evaluate increases due to construction noise associated with the project. As shown in Table 4, construction equipment is predicted to generate noise levels of up to 90 dBA Lmax at 50 feet. Construction noise is evaluated as occurring at the center of the site to represent average noise levels generated over the duration of construction across the project site. The nearest residential uses are located approximately 250 feet to the west as measured from the center of the project site. At this distance, maximum construction noise levels would be up to 76 dBA. Existing maximum noise levels in the vicinity of the sensitive receptors ranged from 70-82 dBA during daytime hours, as measured at sites LT-2 and LT-4. This would result in an increase above existing ambient maximum noise levels of up to 6 dBA, or less. Therefore, project construction would not cause an increase of greater than 12 dBA over existing ambient noise levels.

Noise would also be generated during the construction phase by increased truck traffic on area roadways. A project-generated noise source would be truck traffic associated with transport of heavy materials and equipment to and from the construction site. This noise increase would be of short duration and would occur during daytime hours.

The project also includes off-site improvements which include trenching for a water line connection along Venice Drive East and on Tahoe Keys Blvd to the intersection with Michel Drive. This would likely include the use of a pavement cutting saw, backhoe, paving equipment, and other miscellaneous equipment within 50 feet of existing noise-sensitive receptors. At this distance, construction noise would also be expected to range between 76 to 90 dBA Lmax. Receptors along this Tahoe Keys Blvd are located within approximately 50 feet of this activity. Therefore, construction noise would be expected to range between 76 to 90 dBA Lmax. Based upon noise measurements collected at site LT-3, existing daytime maximum noise levels were found to range between 68-87 dBA Lmax. Based upon the predicted off-site construction noise levels of up to 76-90 dBA Lmax, project construction is not expected to cause an increase of greater than 12 dBA over existing ambient noise levels.

Although construction activities are temporary in nature and would occur during normal daytime working hours, construction-related noise could result in sleep interference at existing noise-sensitive land uses in the vicinity of the construction if construction activities were to occur outside the normal daytime hours.

Therefore, impacts resulting from noise levels temporarily exceeding the threshold of significance due to construction would be considered potentially significant. Mitigation measure 1(a) would reduce construction noise impacts to less-than-significant.
1177
Tahoe Keys Marina
City of South Lake Tahoe, CA
Job #250201
March 16, 2026 www.SaxNoise.com

\\192.168.1.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\250201 Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA\Word\250201 Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA Noise 3-16-26.docx Mitigation Measures
1(a) TRPA shall establish the following as conditions of approval for any permit that results in the use of construction equipment:
 Construction shall be limited to 8:00 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.  All construction equipment powered by internal combustion engines shall be properly muffled and maintained.
 Quiet construction equipment, particularly air compressors, are to be selected whenever possible.  All stationary noise-generating construction equipment such as generators or air compressors are to be located as far as is practical from existing residences. In addition, the project contractor shall place such stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the project site.
 Unnecessary idling of internal combustion engines is prohibited.  The construction contractor shall, to the maximum extent practical, locate on-site equipment staging areas to maximize the distance between construction-related noise sources and noise-sensitive receptors nearest the project site during all project construction.

Timing/Implementation: Implemented prior to approval of grading and/or building permits Enforcement/Monitoring: Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Implementation of mitigation measures 1(a) would help to reduce construction-generated noise levels. With mitigation, this impact would be considered less-than-significant.

Impact 2: Would the project generate excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? Construction vibration impacts include human annoyance and building structural damage. Human annoyance occurs when construction vibration rises significantly above the threshold of perception. Building damage can take the form of cosmetic or structural.

The Table 5 data indicate that construction vibration levels anticipated for the project are less than the 0.2 in/sec threshold at distances of 26 feet. Sensitive receptors which could be impacted by construction related vibrations, especially vibratory compactors/rollers, are located approximately 26 feet, or further, from typical construction activities. At these distances construction vibrations are not predicted to exceed acceptable levels. Additionally, construction activities would be temporary in nature and would likely occur during normal daytime working hours.

This is a less-than-significant impact and no mitigation is required. 1178
Tahoe Keys Marina
City of South Lake Tahoe, CA
Job #250201
March 16, 2026 www.SaxNoise.com

\\192.168.1.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\250201 Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA\Word\250201 Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA Noise 3-16-26.docx Impact 3: For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
There are no airports within two miles of the project vicinity. Therefore, this impact is not applicable to the proposed project. This is a less-than-significant impact, and no mitigation is required. 1179
Tahoe Keys Marina
City of South Lake Tahoe, CA
Job #250201
March 16, 2026 www.SaxNoise.com

\\192.168.1.50\Saxelby Acoustics\General\Job Folders\250201 Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA\Word\250201 Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA Noise 3-16-26.docx

REFERENCES
American National Standards Institute. (1998). [Standard] ANSI S1.43-1997 (R2007): Specifications for integrating-averaging sound level meters. New York: Acoustical Society of America.

American Standard Testing Methods, Standard Guide for Measurement of Outdoor A-Weighted Sound Levels, American Standard Testing Methods (ASTM) E1014-08, 2008.

ASTM E1014-12. Standard Guide for Measurement of Outdoor A-Weighted Sound Levels. ASTM International. West Conshohocken, PA. 2012.

ASTM E1780-12. Standard Guide for Measuring Outdoor Sound Received from a Nearby Fixed Source. ASTM International. West Conshohocken, PA. 2012.

Barry, T M. (1978). FHWA highway traffic noise prediction model (FHWA-RD-77-108). Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of transportation, Federal highway administration, Office of research, Office of environmental policy.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Technical Noise Supplement, Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, September 2013.

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), Traffic Noise Analysis Protocol, May 2011.

Egan, M. D. (1988). Architectural acoustics. United States of America: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

Federal Highway Administration. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model User’s Guide. FHWA-HEP-05- 054 DOT-VNTSC-FHWA-05-01. January 2006.

Hanson, Carl E. (Carl Elmer). (2006). Transit noise and vibration impact assessment. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning and Environment.

International Electrotechnical Commission. Technical committee 29: Electroacoustics. International Organization of Legal Metrology. (2013). Electroacoustics: Sound level meters.

International Organization for Standardization. (1996). Acoustic - ISO 9613-2: Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors. Part 2: General methods of calculation. Ginevra: I.S.O.

LSC Transportation Consultants. Meyers Aquatic Invasive Species Inspection Station - Transportation Analysis.

September 24, 2024.

Miller, L. N., Bolt, Beranek, & and Newman, Inc. (1981). Noise control for buildings and manufacturing plants.

Cambridge, MA: Bolt, Beranek and Newman, Inc.

SoundPLAN. SoundPLAN GmbH. Backnang, Germany. http://www.soundplan.eu/english/ 1180
Appendix A: Acoustical Terminology
Acoustics   The science of sound.

Ambient Noise  The distinctive acoustical characteristics of a given space consisting of all noise sources audible at that location. In many cases, the term ambient is used to describe an existing or pre‐project condition such as the setting in an environmental noise study.

ASTC  Apparent  Sound  Transmission  Class.    Similar  to  STC  but  includes  sound  from  flanking  paths  and  correct  for  room reverberation. A larger number means more attenuation. The scale, like the decibel scale for sound, is logarithmic.

Attenuation   The reduction of an acoustic signal.

A‐Weighting   A  frequency‐response  adjustment  of  a  sound  level meter  that  conditions  the  output  signal  to  approximate  human response.

Decibel or dB   Fundamental  unit  of  sound, A Bell is  defined as  the logarithm  of  the  ratio  of  the  sound  pressure  squared  over  the reference pressure squared. A Decibel is one‐tenth of a Bell.

CNEL   Community Noise Equivalent Level. Defined as  the 24‐hour average noise level with noise occurring during evening hours (7 ‐ 10 p.m.) weighted by +5 dBA and nighttime hours weighted by +10 dBA.

DNL  See definition of Ldn.

IIC  Impact  Insulation  Class.  An  integer‐number  rating  of  how  well  a  building  floor  attenuates  impact  sounds,  such  as footsteps. A larger number means more attenuation. The scale, like the decibel scale for sound, is logarithmic.

Frequency   The measure of the rapidity of alterations of a periodic signal, expressed in cycles per second or hertz (Hz).

Ldn     Day/Night Average Sound Level. Similar to CNEL but with no evening weighting.

Leq     Equivalent or energy‐averaged sound level.

Lmax     The highest root‐mean‐square (RMS) sound level measured over a given period of time.

L(n)   The sound level exceeded a described percentile over a measurement period. For instance, an hourly L50 is the sound level exceeded 50% of the time during the one‐hour period.

Loudness   A subjective term for the sensation of the magnitude of sound.

NIC  Noise Isolation Class.  A rating of the noise reduction between two spaces.  Similar to STC but includes sound  from flanking paths and no correction for room reverberation.

NNIC  Normalized Noise Isolation Class.  Similar to NIC but includes a correction for room reverberation.

Noise     Unwanted sound.

NRC   Noise Reduction Coefficient. NRC is a single‐number rating of the sound‐absorption of a material equal to the arithmetic mean of the sound‐absorption coefficients in the 250, 500, 1000, and 2,000 Hz octave frequency bands rounded to the nearest multiple  of  0.05. It  is  a  representation  of  the  amount of  sound energy  absorbed  upon  striking  a  particular surface. An NRC of 0 indicates perfect reflection; an NRC of 1 indicates perfect absorption.

RT60     The time it takes reverberant sound to decay by 60 dB once the source has been removed.

Sabin   The unit of sound absorption. One square foot of material absorbing 100% of incident sound has an absorption of 1 Sabin.

SEL   Sound Exposure Level. SEL is a rating, in decibels, of a discrete event, such as an aircraft flyover or train pass by, that compresses the total sound energy into a one‐second event.

SPC  Speech Privacy Class. SPC is a method of rating speech privacy in buildings. It is designed  to measure the degree of speech  privacy  provided  by  a  closed  room,  indicating  the  degree  to  which  conversations  occurring  within  are  kept private from listeners outside the room.

STC   Sound Transmission Class. STC is an integer rating of how well a building partition attenuates airborne sound. It is widely used  to  rate  interior  partitions,  ceilings/floors,  doors,  windows  and  exterior  wall  configurations.    The  STC  rating  is typically used to rate the sound transmission of a specific building element when tested in laboratory conditions where flanking paths around the assembly don’t exist.   A larger number means more attenuation. The scale, like the decibel scale for sound, is logarithmic.

Threshold  The lowest sound that can be perceived by the human auditory system, generally considered of Hearing   to be 0 dB for persons with perfect hearing.

Threshold   Approximately 120 dB above the threshold of hearing. of Pain
Impulsive   Sound of short duration, usually less than one second, with an abrupt onset and rapid decay.

Simple Tone         Any sound which can be judged as audible as a single pitch or set of single pitches. 1181
Appendix B: Contious Ambient Noise
Measurement Results
1182
Site: LT-1
Project: Meter:

Leq Lmax L50 L90 Location: Calibrator:

Friday, June 27, 2025 0:00 38 53 36 33 Coordinates:

Friday, June 27, 2025 1:00 37 48 34 31
Friday, June 27, 2025 2:00 35 48 32 29
Friday, June 27, 2025 3:00 32 40 31 29
Friday, June 27, 2025 4:00 35 48 33 30
Friday, June 27, 2025 5:00 39 56 37 33
Friday, June 27, 2025 6:00 42 56 40 38
Friday, June 27, 2025 7:00 43 63 40 38
Friday, June 27, 2025 8:00 42 60 38 35
Friday, June 27, 2025 9:00 47 68 41 37
Friday, June 27, 2025 10:00 53 74 43 38
Friday, June 27, 2025 11:00 51 72 43 38
Friday, June 27, 2025 12:00 45 59 42 38
Friday, June 27, 2025 13:00 47 67 42 40
Friday, June 27, 2025 14:00 46 63 42 40
Friday, June 27, 2025 15:00 44 61 42 40
Friday, June 27, 2025 16:00 45 57 43 40
Friday, June 27, 2025 17:00 46 71 43 40
Friday, June 27, 2025 18:00 44 63 42 39
Friday, June 27, 2025 19:00 42 63 39 36
Friday, June 27, 2025 20:00 43 64 39 36
Friday, June 27, 2025 21:00 40 61 36 33
Friday, June 27, 2025 22:00 37 50 35 32
Friday, June 27, 2025 23:00 40 66 36 33
Leq Lmax L50 L90
47 64 41 38
38 52 35 32
40 57 36 33
53 74 43 40
32 40 31 29
42 66 40 38
47 92
CNEL 48 Night % 8
Day Low
Day High
Night Low
Night High
Ldn Day %
Night Average
CAL200
Friday, June 27, 2025 Friday, June 27, 2025
Statistics
Day Average
(38.936256, -120.0025)
Appendix B1a: Continuous Noise Monitoring Results
Date Time
Measured Level, dBA Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA
Northern Project Boundary
LDL 820-6
53 48 48
40 48
56 56
63 60
68 74
72 59
67 63
61 57
71 63 63 64
61 50
66 33
31 29 29 30
33 38 38
35 37
38 38 38 40 40 40 40 40 39
36 36
33 32 33
38 37
35 32
35 39
42 43 42
47 53
51 45
47 46 44 45
46 44
42 43
40 37
40 25
35 45
55 65
75 85
Measured Hourly Noise Levels, dBA
Time of Day
Measured Ambient Noise Levels vs. Time of Day
Lmax L90 Leq
Noise Measurement Site
LT-1
1183
Site: LT-1
Project: Meter:

Leq Lmax L50 L90 Location: Calibrator:

Saturday, June 28, 2025 0:00 37 49 36 33 Coordinates:

Saturday, June 28, 2025 1:00 35 44 33 31
Saturday, June 28, 2025 2:00 36 57 33 30
Saturday, June 28, 2025 3:00 35 52 33 30
Saturday, June 28, 2025 4:00 37 53 34 31
Saturday, June 28, 2025 5:00 41 66 38 33
Saturday, June 28, 2025 6:00 49 66 41 37
Saturday, June 28, 2025 7:00 42 62 39 37
Saturday, June 28, 2025 8:00 48 68 39 35
Saturday, June 28, 2025 9:00 50 70 42 38
Saturday, June 28, 2025 10:00 48 67 43 38
Saturday, June 28, 2025 11:00 46 61 43 40
Saturday, June 28, 2025 12:00 47 68 44 42
Saturday, June 28, 2025 13:00 47 63 44 41
Saturday, June 28, 2025 14:00 48 65 45 42
Saturday, June 28, 2025 15:00 48 71 44 41
Saturday, June 28, 2025 16:00 47 66 44 42
Saturday, June 28, 2025 17:00 50 66 48 44
Saturday, June 28, 2025 18:00 46 62 44 41
Saturday, June 28, 2025 19:00 46 66 42 38
Saturday, June 28, 2025 20:00 45 62 40 37
Saturday, June 28, 2025 21:00 37 55 36 33
Saturday, June 28, 2025 22:00 38 50 37 33
Saturday, June 28, 2025 23:00 38 53 37 33
Leq Lmax L50 L90
47 65 43 39
41 54 36 32
37 55 36 33
50 71 48 44
35 44 33 30
49 66 41 37
49 86
CNEL 50 Night % 14
Day Low
Day High
Night Low
Night High
Ldn Day %
Night Average
CAL200
(38.936256, -120.0025)
Saturday, June 28, 2025 Saturday, June 28, 2025
Statistics
Day Average
Appendix B1b: Continuous Noise Monitoring Results
Date Time
Measured Level, dBA Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA
Northern Project Boundary
LDL 820-6
49 44
57 52 53
66 66
62 68
70 67
61 68
63 65
71 66 66
62 66
62 55
50 53
33 31 30 30 31
33 37 37
35 38 38 40
42 41
42 41 42
44 41
38 37
33 33 33
37 35 36 35
37 41
49 42
48 50
48 46
47 47 48 48 47
50 46 46 45
37 38 38
25 35
45 55
65 75
85 Measured Hourly Noise Levels, dBA
Time of Day
Measured Ambient Noise Levels vs. Time of Day
Lmax L90 Leq
Noise Measurement Site
LT-1
1184
Site: LT-1
Project: Meter:

Leq Lmax L50 L90 Location: Calibrator:

Sunday, June 29, 2025 0:00 38 48 36 32 Coordinates:

Sunday, June 29, 2025 1:00 36 52 34 31
Sunday, June 29, 2025 2:00 38 58 33 30
Sunday, June 29, 2025 3:00 34 46 32 29
Sunday, June 29, 2025 4:00 36 49 34 30
Sunday, June 29, 2025 5:00 39 53 36 33
Sunday, June 29, 2025 6:00 39 58 37 35
Sunday, June 29, 2025 7:00 40 55 38 35
Sunday, June 29, 2025 8:00 48 69 40 37
Sunday, June 29, 2025 9:00 50 73 40 36
Sunday, June 29, 2025 10:00 46 66 42 39
Sunday, June 29, 2025 11:00 53 75 45 41
Sunday, June 29, 2025 12:00 49 66 44 42
Sunday, June 29, 2025 13:00 49 67 45 43
Sunday, June 29, 2025 14:00 48 68 44 41
Sunday, June 29, 2025 15:00 48 61 45 43
Sunday, June 29, 2025 16:00 50 68 46 43
Sunday, June 29, 2025 17:00 48 64 44 40
Sunday, June 29, 2025 18:00 44 63 41 35
Sunday, June 29, 2025 19:00 42 61 39 34
Sunday, June 29, 2025 20:00 42 63 39 35
Sunday, June 29, 2025 21:00 41 52 39 34
Sunday, June 29, 2025 22:00 38 50 35 31
Sunday, June 29, 2025 23:00 40 63 34 30
Leq Lmax L50 L90
48 65 42 38
38 53 35 31
40 52 38 34
53 75 46 43
34 46 32 29
40 63 37 35
48 94
CNEL 48 Night % 6
Day Low
Day High
Night Low
Night High
Ldn Day %
Night Average
CAL200
(38.936256, -120.0025)
Sunday, June 29, 2025 Sunday, June 29, 2025
Statistics
Day Average
Appendix B1c: Continuous Noise Monitoring Results
Date Time
Measured Level, dBA Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA
Northern Project Boundary
LDL 820-6
48 52
58 46
49 53
58 55
69 73
66 75
66 67 68
61 68
64 63
61 63
52 50
63 32 31 30 29 30
33 35 35
37 36
39 41 42 43
41 43 43
40 35 34 35 34
31 30
38 36
38 34
36 39 39 40
48 50
46 53
49 49 48 48 50 48
44 42 42
41 38
40 25
35 45
55 65
75 85
Measured Hourly Noise Levels, dBA
Time of Day
Measured Ambient Noise Levels vs. Time of Day
Lmax L90 Leq
Noise Measurement Site
LT-1
1185
Site: LT-2
Project: Meter:

Leq Lmax L50 L90 Location: Calibrator:

Friday, June 27, 2025 0:00 37 50 36 35 Coordinates:

Friday, June 27, 2025 1:00 37 54 37 36
Friday, June 27, 2025 2:00 37 43 36 35
Friday, June 27, 2025 3:00 36 44 36 35
Friday, June 27, 2025 4:00 37 48 37 36
Friday, June 27, 2025 5:00 43 64 39 36
Friday, June 27, 2025 6:00 45 63 41 39
Friday, June 27, 2025 7:00 50 70 44 39
Friday, June 27, 2025 8:00 46 65 42 39
Friday, June 27, 2025 9:00 53 69 49 43
Friday, June 27, 2025 10:00 55 72 48 44
Friday, June 27, 2025 11:00 54 73 50 44
Friday, June 27, 2025 12:00 52 71 48 43
Friday, June 27, 2025 13:00 56 76 54 47
Friday, June 27, 2025 14:00 53 75 50 44
Friday, June 27, 2025 15:00 52 71 49 46
Friday, June 27, 2025 16:00 54 75 50 45
Friday, June 27, 2025 17:00 54 74 47 42
Friday, June 27, 2025 18:00 52 71 47 41
Friday, June 27, 2025 19:00 50 73 40 37
Friday, June 27, 2025 20:00 46 65 42 37
Friday, June 27, 2025 21:00 41 61 37 36
Friday, June 27, 2025 22:00 37 54 36 34
Friday, June 27, 2025 23:00 40 59 36 34
Leq Lmax L50 L90
52 71 47 42
40 53 37 36
41 61 37 36
56 76 54 47
36 43 36 34
45 64 41 39
52 97
CNEL 52 Night % 3
Day Low
Day High
Night Low
Night High
Ldn Day %
Night Average
CAL200
(38.935036, -120.003236)
Friday, June 27, 2025 Friday, June 27, 2025
Statistics
Day Average
Appendix B2a: Continuous Noise Monitoring Results
Date Time
Measured Level, dBA Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA
Western Project Boundary
LDL 820-8
50 54
43 44
48 64 63
70 65
69 72 73 71
76 75
71 75 74
71 73
65 61
54 59
35 36 35 35 36 36
39 39 39
43 44 44 43
47 44 46 45
42 41
37 37 36 34 34
37 37 37 36 37
43 45
50 46
53 55 54
52 56
53 52
54 54
52 50
46 41
37 40
25 35
45 55
65 75
85 Measured Hourly Noise Levels, dBA
Time of Day
Measured Ambient Noise Levels vs. Time of Day
Lmax L90 Leq
Noise Measurement Site
LT-2
1186
Site: LT-2
Project: Meter:

Leq Lmax L50 L90 Location: Calibrator:

Saturday, June 28, 2025 0:00 37 52 36 34 Coordinates:

Saturday, June 28, 2025 1:00 37 46 37 36
Saturday, June 28, 2025 2:00 37 44 37 36
Saturday, June 28, 2025 3:00 37 48 37 36
Saturday, June 28, 2025 4:00 38 55 36 35
Saturday, June 28, 2025 5:00 43 65 39 37
Saturday, June 28, 2025 6:00 49 68 41 38
Saturday, June 28, 2025 7:00 44 63 40 38
Saturday, June 28, 2025 8:00 50 66 44 40
Saturday, June 28, 2025 9:00 53 76 50 44
Saturday, June 28, 2025 10:00 52 68 49 44
Saturday, June 28, 2025 11:00 52 71 49 44
Saturday, June 28, 2025 12:00 53 70 51 46
Saturday, June 28, 2025 13:00 54 75 50 45
Saturday, June 28, 2025 14:00 56 74 53 48
Saturday, June 28, 2025 15:00 56 78 50 46
Saturday, June 28, 2025 16:00 55 73 51 48
Saturday, June 28, 2025 17:00 56 75 50 46
Saturday, June 28, 2025 18:00 56 77 52 46
Saturday, June 28, 2025 19:00 49 68 42 39
Saturday, June 28, 2025 20:00 50 66 42 38
Saturday, June 28, 2025 21:00 48 69 38 35
Saturday, June 28, 2025 22:00 38 51 36 35
Saturday, June 28, 2025 23:00 39 58 36 34
Leq Lmax L50 L90
53 71 47 43
42 54 37 36
44 63 38 35
56 78 53 48
37 44 36 34
49 68 41 38
53 96
CNEL 53 Night % 4
Day Low
Day High
Night Low
Night High
Ldn Day %
Night Average
CAL200
(38.935036, -120.003236)
Saturday, June 28, 2025 Saturday, June 28, 2025
Statistics
Day Average
Appendix B2b: Continuous Noise Monitoring Results
Date Time
Measured Level, dBA Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA
Western Project Boundary
LDL 820-8
52 46
44 48
55 65
68 63
66 76
68 71 70
75 74
78 73
75 77
68 66
69 51
58 34 36 36 36 35 37 38 38
40 44 44 44
46 45
48 46
48 46 46
39 38
35 35 34
37 37 37 37 38
43 49
44 50
53 52 52 53 54
56 56 55 56 56
49 50
48 38 39
25 35
45 55
65 75
85 Measured Hourly Noise Levels, dBA
Time of Day
Measured Ambient Noise Levels vs. Time of Day
Lmax L90 Leq
Noise Measurement Site
LT-2
1187
Site: LT-2
Project: Meter:

Leq Lmax L50 L90 Location: Calibrator:

Sunday, June 29, 2025 0:00 37 51 35 34 Coordinates:

Sunday, June 29, 2025 1:00 38 45 38 37
Sunday, June 29, 2025 2:00 41 60 38 37
Sunday, June 29, 2025 3:00 37 49 37 36
Sunday, June 29, 2025 4:00 39 57 37 36
Sunday, June 29, 2025 5:00 43 67 38 37
Sunday, June 29, 2025 6:00 43 66 39 37
Sunday, June 29, 2025 7:00 45 64 39 37
Sunday, June 29, 2025 8:00 50 70 44 40
Sunday, June 29, 2025 9:00 55 76 48 42
Sunday, June 29, 2025 10:00 54 72 49 43
Sunday, June 29, 2025 11:00 58 79 51 47
Sunday, June 29, 2025 12:00 55 78 52 46
Sunday, June 29, 2025 13:00 58 76 54 49
Sunday, June 29, 2025 14:00 56 73 54 46
Sunday, June 29, 2025 15:00 53 64 50 46
Sunday, June 29, 2025 16:00 53 70 50 46
Sunday, June 29, 2025 17:00 57 80 51 45
Sunday, June 29, 2025 18:00 53 75 48 41
Sunday, June 29, 2025 19:00 51 71 44 38
Sunday, June 29, 2025 20:00 46 71 40 37
Sunday, June 29, 2025 21:00 48 67 41 37
Sunday, June 29, 2025 22:00 39 52 37 36
Sunday, June 29, 2025 23:00 42 62 37 36
Leq Lmax L50 L90
54 72 48 43
40 56 37 36
45 64 39 37
58 80 54 49
37 45 35 34
43 67 39 37
53 97
CNEL 53 Night % 3
Day Low
Day High
Night Low
Night High
Ldn Day %
Night Average
CAL200
(38.935036, -120.003236)
Sunday, June 29, 2025 Sunday, June 29, 2025
Statistics
Day Average
Appendix B2c: Continuous Noise Monitoring Results
Date Time
Measured Level, dBA Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA
Western Project Boundary
LDL 820-8
51 45
60 49
57 67 66
64 70
76 72
79 78
76 73
64 70
80 75
71 71
67 52
62 34
37 37 36 36 37 37 37
40 42 43
47 46
49 46 46 46 45
41 38
37 37 36 36
37 38
41 37 39
43 43 45
50 55 54
58 55
58 56
53 53
57 53
51 46
48 39
42 25
35 45
55 65
75 85
Measured Hourly Noise Levels, dBA
Time of Day
Measured Ambient Noise Levels vs. Time of Day
Lmax L90 Leq
Noise Measurement Site
LT-2
1188
Site: LT-3
Project: Meter:

Leq Lmax L50 L90 Location: Calibrator:

Friday, June 27, 2025 0:00 44 69 40 38 Coordinates:

Friday, June 27, 2025 1:00 42 66 37 36
Friday, June 27, 2025 2:00 37 45 36 35
Friday, June 27, 2025 3:00 37 44 37 35
Friday, June 27, 2025 4:00 48 70 38 37
Friday, June 27, 2025 5:00 51 74 40 38
Friday, June 27, 2025 6:00 51 74 45 42
Friday, June 27, 2025 7:00 54 71 45 41
Friday, June 27, 2025 8:00 56 79 46 40
Friday, June 27, 2025 9:00 56 82 46 41
Friday, June 27, 2025 10:00 55 75 49 43
Friday, June 27, 2025 11:00 54 74 47 44
Friday, June 27, 2025 12:00 55 70 50 46
Friday, June 27, 2025 13:00 55 79 47 42
Friday, June 27, 2025 14:00 53 72 47 43
Friday, June 27, 2025 15:00 55 76 47 43
Friday, June 27, 2025 16:00 55 81 49 45
Friday, June 27, 2025 17:00 54 71 49 45
Friday, June 27, 2025 18:00 54 71 47 44
Friday, June 27, 2025 19:00 53 74 45 42
Friday, June 27, 2025 20:00 52 68 45 41
Friday, June 27, 2025 21:00 53 82 41 39
Friday, June 27, 2025 22:00 47 70 41 39
Friday, June 27, 2025 23:00 57 88 41 39
Leq Lmax L50 L90
54 75 47 43
50 67 40 38
52 68 41 39
56 82 50 46
37 44 36 35
57 88 45 42
57 82
CNEL 58 Night % 18
Day Low
Day High
Night Low
Night High
Ldn Day %
Night Average
CAL200
(38.933275, -120.000428)
Friday, June 27, 2025 Friday, June 27, 2025
Statistics
Day Average
Appendix B3a: Continuous Noise Monitoring Results
Date Time
Measured Level, dBA Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA
Eastern Project Boundary
LDL 820-5
69 66
45 44
70 74 74
71 79
82 75 74
70 79
72 76
81 71 71
74 68
82 70
88 38
36 35 35
37 38
42 41 40 41
43 44
46 42 43 43
45 45 44 42 41
39 39 39
44 42
37 37
48 51 51
54 56 56 55 54 55 55
53 55 55 54 54 53 52 53
47 57
25 35
45 55
65 75
85 Measured Hourly Noise Levels, dBA
Time of Day
Measured Ambient Noise Levels vs. Time of Day
Lmax L90 Leq
Noise Measurement Site
LT-3
1189
Site: LT-3
Project: Meter:

Leq Lmax L50 L90 Location: Calibrator:

Saturday, June 28, 2025 0:00 47 70 41 39 Coordinates:

Saturday, June 28, 2025 1:00 39 47 38 37
Saturday, June 28, 2025 2:00 42 68 38 36
Saturday, June 28, 2025 3:00 38 49 37 36
Saturday, June 28, 2025 4:00 46 67 39 37
Saturday, June 28, 2025 5:00 48 74 40 38
Saturday, June 28, 2025 6:00 49 67 42 39
Saturday, June 28, 2025 7:00 54 71 47 42
Saturday, June 28, 2025 8:00 56 77 45 40
Saturday, June 28, 2025 9:00 56 74 47 41
Saturday, June 28, 2025 10:00 56 85 49 42
Saturday, June 28, 2025 11:00 54 78 46 41
Saturday, June 28, 2025 12:00 54 75 49 44
Saturday, June 28, 2025 13:00 52 68 48 45
Saturday, June 28, 2025 14:00 53 74 48 44
Saturday, June 28, 2025 15:00 54 82 48 45
Saturday, June 28, 2025 16:00 57 82 48 45
Saturday, June 28, 2025 17:00 54 72 50 45
Saturday, June 28, 2025 18:00 55 76 48 44
Saturday, June 28, 2025 19:00 55 76 46 42
Saturday, June 28, 2025 20:00 53 71 45 42
Saturday, June 28, 2025 21:00 51 70 43 41
Saturday, June 28, 2025 22:00 46 63 43 40
Saturday, June 28, 2025 23:00 47 67 41 39
Leq Lmax L50 L90
55 75 47 43
46 64 40 38
51 68 43 40
57 85 50 45
38 47 37 36
49 74 43 40
55 92
CNEL 56 Night % 8
Day Low
Day High
Night Low
Night High
Ldn Day %
Night Average
CAL200
(38.933275, -120.000428)
Saturday, June 28, 2025 Saturday, June 28, 2025
Statistics
Day Average
Appendix B3b: Continuous Noise Monitoring Results
Date Time
Measured Level, dBA Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA
Eastern Project Boundary
LDL 820-5
70 47
68 49
67 74
67 71
77 74
85 78
75 68
74 82 82
72 76 76
71 70
63 67
39 37 36 36 37 38 39
42 40 41 42 41
44 45 44 45 45 45 44
42 42 41 40 39
47 39
42 38
46 48 49
54 56 56 56
54 54 52 53 54
57 54 55 55
53 51
46 47
25 35
45 55
65 75
85 Measured Hourly Noise Levels, dBA
Time of Day
Measured Ambient Noise Levels vs. Time of Day
Lmax L90 Leq
Noise Measurement Site
LT-3
1190
Site: LT-3
Project: Meter:

Leq Lmax L50 L90 Location: Calibrator:

Sunday, June 29, 2025 0:00 47 71 43 39 Coordinates:

Sunday, June 29, 2025 1:00 43 55 43 39
Sunday, June 29, 2025 2:00 41 58 39 38
Sunday, June 29, 2025 3:00 39 46 38 37
Sunday, June 29, 2025 4:00 46 69 39 38
Sunday, June 29, 2025 5:00 48 70 40 39
Sunday, June 29, 2025 6:00 48 70 41 39
Sunday, June 29, 2025 7:00 52 71 41 39
Sunday, June 29, 2025 8:00 55 76 45 41
Sunday, June 29, 2025 9:00 57 79 47 41
Sunday, June 29, 2025 10:00 57 80 46 41
Sunday, June 29, 2025 11:00 58 87 50 44
Sunday, June 29, 2025 12:00 54 70 49 45
Sunday, June 29, 2025 13:00 56 74 50 45
Sunday, June 29, 2025 14:00 57 76 49 45
Sunday, June 29, 2025 15:00 57 76 49 45
Sunday, June 29, 2025 16:00 54 72 49 47
Sunday, June 29, 2025 17:00 54 69 48 43
Sunday, June 29, 2025 18:00 55 74 47 42
Sunday, June 29, 2025 19:00 52 75 45 41
Sunday, June 29, 2025 20:00 51 69 44 40
Sunday, June 29, 2025 21:00 53 75 43 40
Sunday, June 29, 2025 22:00 46 66 43 40
Sunday, June 29, 2025 23:00 44 65 40 38
Leq Lmax L50 L90
55 75 47 43
45 63 41 39
51 69 41 39
58 87 50 47
39 46 38 37
48 71 43 40
55 94
CNEL 56 Night % 6
Day Low
Day High
Night Low
Night High
Ldn Day %
Night Average
CAL200
(38.933275, -120.000428)
Sunday, June 29, 2025 Sunday, June 29, 2025
Statistics
Day Average
Appendix B3c: Continuous Noise Monitoring Results
Date Time
Measured Level, dBA Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA
Eastern Project Boundary
LDL 820-5
71 55
58 46
69 70 70 71
76 79 80
87 70
74 76 76
72 69
74 75
69 75
66 65
39 39 38 37 38 39 39 39 41 41 41
44 45 45 45 45
47 43 42 41 40 40 40 38
47 43
41 39
46 48 48
52 55
57 57 58
54 56
57 57
54 54 55
52 51
53 46
44 25
35 45
55 65
75 85
Measured Hourly Noise Levels, dBA
Time of Day
Measured Ambient Noise Levels vs. Time of Day
Lmax L90 Leq
Noise Measurement Site
LT-3
1191
Site: LT-4
Project: Meter:

Leq Lmax L50 L90 Location: Calibrator:

Friday, June 27, 2025 0:00 35 46 35 33 Coordinates:

Friday, June 27, 2025 1:00 34 48 33 32
Friday, June 27, 2025 2:00 32 47 31 30
Friday, June 27, 2025 3:00 31 42 31 30
Friday, June 27, 2025 4:00 34 47 33 31
Friday, June 27, 2025 5:00 40 58 36 33
Friday, June 27, 2025 6:00 41 65 39 37
Friday, June 27, 2025 7:00 44 65 40 37
Friday, June 27, 2025 8:00 45 75 39 35
Friday, June 27, 2025 9:00 43 62 38 34
Friday, June 27, 2025 10:00 50 71 40 37
Friday, June 27, 2025 11:00 49 71 41 36
Friday, June 27, 2025 12:00 42 59 38 36
Friday, June 27, 2025 13:00 45 68 39 36
Friday, June 27, 2025 14:00 45 67 40 37
Friday, June 27, 2025 15:00 43 65 40 38
Friday, June 27, 2025 16:00 40 50 39 37
Friday, June 27, 2025 17:00 42 56 40 38
Friday, June 27, 2025 18:00 42 67 39 36
Friday, June 27, 2025 19:00 39 62 36 34
Friday, June 27, 2025 20:00 45 70 38 35
Friday, June 27, 2025 21:00 38 56 35 33
Friday, June 27, 2025 22:00 36 51 34 33
Friday, June 27, 2025 23:00 37 54 35 33
Leq Lmax L50 L90
45 64 39 36
37 51 34 32
38 50 35 33
50 75 41 38
31 42 31 30
41 65 39 37
46 91
CNEL 46 Night % 9
Day Low
Day High
Night Low
Night High
Ldn Day %
Night Average
CAL200
(38.932033, -120.002583)
Friday, June 27, 2025 Friday, June 27, 2025
Statistics
Day Average
Appendix B4a: Continuous Noise Monitoring Results
Date Time
Measured Level, dBA Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA
Southern Project Boundary
LDL 820-1
46 48 47
42 47
58 65 65
75 62
71 71
59 68 67
65 50
56 67
62 70
56 51
54 33 32 30 30 31
33 37 37
35 34
37 36 36 36 37 38 37 38 36
34 35
33 33 33
35 34
32 31
34 40 41
44 45 43
50 49
42 45 45 43
40 42 42
39 45
38 36 37
25 35
45 55
65 75
85 Measured Hourly Noise Levels, dBA
Time of Day
Measured Ambient Noise Levels vs. Time of Day
Lmax L90 Leq
Noise Measurement Site
LT-4
1192
Site: LT-4
Project: Meter:

Leq Lmax L50 L90 Location: Calibrator:

Saturday, June 28, 2025 0:00 36 50 34 33 Coordinates:

Saturday, June 28, 2025 1:00 33 41 32 31
Saturday, June 28, 2025 2:00 32 42 31 30
Saturday, June 28, 2025 3:00 32 39 31 30
Saturday, June 28, 2025 4:00 35 51 33 30
Saturday, June 28, 2025 5:00 40 63 36 33
Saturday, June 28, 2025 6:00 43 63 38 35
Saturday, June 28, 2025 7:00 41 61 38 36
Saturday, June 28, 2025 8:00 46 66 37 33
Saturday, June 28, 2025 9:00 48 70 39 35
Saturday, June 28, 2025 10:00 46 66 40 36
Saturday, June 28, 2025 11:00 42 56 39 36
Saturday, June 28, 2025 12:00 43 58 39 37
Saturday, June 28, 2025 13:00 43 65 39 36
Saturday, June 28, 2025 14:00 46 64 40 38
Saturday, June 28, 2025 15:00 45 67 40 37
Saturday, June 28, 2025 16:00 44 65 39 37
Saturday, June 28, 2025 17:00 43 61 40 38
Saturday, June 28, 2025 18:00 41 55 39 37
Saturday, June 28, 2025 19:00 42 67 37 35
Saturday, June 28, 2025 20:00 41 59 38 35
Saturday, June 28, 2025 21:00 38 55 36 33
Saturday, June 28, 2025 22:00 36 46 35 33
Saturday, June 28, 2025 23:00 36 50 34 32
Leq Lmax L50 L90
44 62 39 36
37 49 34 32
38 55 36 33
48 70 40 38
32 39 31 30
43 63 38 35
46 88
CNEL 46 Night % 12
Day Low
Day High
Night Low
Night High
Ldn Day %
Night Average
CAL200
(38.932033, -120.002583)
Saturday, June 28, 2025 Saturday, June 28, 2025
Statistics
Day Average
Appendix B4b: Continuous Noise Monitoring Results
Date Time
Measured Level, dBA Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA
Southern Project Boundary
LDL 820-1
50 41 42
39 51
63 63 61
66 70
66 56 58
65 64
67 65
61 55
67 59
55 46
50 33 31 30 30 30
33 35 36
33 35 36 36 37 36 38 37 37 38 37
35 35
33 33 32
36 33 32 32
35 40
43 41
46 48
46 42 43 43
46 45 44 43 41 42 41
38 36 36
25 35
45 55
65 75
85 Measured Hourly Noise Levels, dBA
Time of Day
Measured Ambient Noise Levels vs. Time of Day
Lmax L90 Leq
Noise Measurement Site
LT-4
1193
Site: LT-4
Project: Meter:

Leq Lmax L50 L90 Location: Calibrator:

Sunday, June 29, 2025 0:00 35 51 34 32 Coordinates:

Sunday, June 29, 2025 1:00 35 57 33 31
Sunday, June 29, 2025 2:00 37 59 31 30
Sunday, June 29, 2025 3:00 31 34 31 30
Sunday, June 29, 2025 4:00 36 58 32 30
Sunday, June 29, 2025 5:00 39 60 36 33
Sunday, June 29, 2025 6:00 44 63 37 34
Sunday, June 29, 2025 7:00 41 62 36 34
Sunday, June 29, 2025 8:00 45 67 37 33
Sunday, June 29, 2025 9:00 51 73 40 35
Sunday, June 29, 2025 10:00 43 60 38 36
Sunday, June 29, 2025 11:00 55 82 44 39
Sunday, June 29, 2025 12:00 47 66 41 39
Sunday, June 29, 2025 13:00 45 68 42 39
Sunday, June 29, 2025 14:00 45 68 41 38
Sunday, June 29, 2025 15:00 45 60 41 38
Sunday, June 29, 2025 16:00 47 69 40 37
Sunday, June 29, 2025 17:00 44 65 40 37
Sunday, June 29, 2025 18:00 42 63 38 35
Sunday, June 29, 2025 19:00 44 65 37 35
Sunday, June 29, 2025 20:00 41 61 39 36
Sunday, June 29, 2025 21:00 39 62 36 34
Sunday, June 29, 2025 22:00 39 56 35 33
Sunday, June 29, 2025 23:00 39 60 34 32
Leq Lmax L50 L90
47 66 39 36
39 55 34 32
39 60 36 33
55 82 44 39
31 34 31 30
44 63 37 34
48 92
CNEL 48 Night % 8
Day Low
Day High
Night Low
Night High
Ldn Day %
Night Average
CAL200
(38.932033, -120.002583)
Sunday, June 29, 2025 Sunday, June 29, 2025
Statistics
Day Average
Appendix B4c: Continuous Noise Monitoring Results
Date Time
Measured Level, dBA Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA
Southern Project Boundary
LDL 820-1
51 57
59 34
58 60
63 62
67 73
60 82
66 68 68
60 69
65 63
65 61 62
56 60
32 31 30 30 30
33 34 34 33
35 36
39 39 39 38 38 37 37
35 35 36 34 33 32
35 35
37 31
36 39
44 41
45 51
43 55
47 45 45 45 47
44 42
44 41
39 39 39
25 35
45 55
65 75
85 Measured Hourly Noise Levels, dBA
Time of Day
Measured Ambient Noise Levels vs. Time of Day
Lmax L90 Leq
Noise Measurement Site
LT-4
1194
Appendix B: Short-Term Ambient Noise
Measurement Results
1195
Site: ST-1
Project: Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA Meter:

Location: Northeastern Boundary of Project Site Calibrator:

Coordinates:

Start:

Stop:

SLM: Model 831
Serial: 3141
Duration: 0:10
Leq: 44
Lmax: 62
Lmin: 39
L50: 43
L90: 40
(38.935658, -120.002378)
Appendix B5
Primary noise source was an idling boat. Secondary noise sources include trucks circulating the project site, people walking on the nearby trail, and a leaf blower.
: Short Term Noise Monitoring Results
2025-06-26 13:25:11
2025-06-26 13:35:11
Measurement Results, dBA
Notes
LDL 831-2
CAL200
Noise Measurement Site
12 18
25 26
29 31 32 30
28 28 28 30 32
34 34 33 33 34 32
29 28 27 25 24 21
9 18
22 30
34 36 37
33 34
37 35
41 45
50 53
46 47
58 55
49 44
41 38
31 26
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Measured Noise Level, dBA
1/3 Octave Band Center Frequency
Measured Ambient Noise Frequency Spectrum
Overall 1/3 Spectra Max 1/3 Spectra
ST-1
1196
Site: ST-2
Project: Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA Meter:

Location: Center of Project Site Calibrator:

Coordinates:

Start:

Stop:

SLM: Model 831
Serial: 3141
Duration: 0:10
Leq: 56
Lmax: 71
Lmin: 42
L50: 55
L90: 47
Appendix B6 : Short Term Noise Monitoring Results
LDL 831-2
CAL200
(38.934119, -120.001442)
2025-06-26 14:02:17
2025-06-26 14:12:17
Measurement Results, dBA
Notes
Primary noise source was an idling boat. Secondary noise sources include trucks/cars circulating the project site.

Noise Measurement Site
25 28
31 33
35 42
38 41
38 44
47 42 43
47 45 47 45 44
42 39 37 35
31 32
25 23
33 36
39 41
59 50
62 53
57 62
59 59 60 61 62 62 62
58 57 55 54
49 56
45 0
10 20
30 40
50 60
70 80
Measured Noise Level, dBA
1/3 Octave Band Center Frequency
Measured Ambient Noise Frequency Spectrum
Overall 1/3 Spectra Max 1/3 Spectra
ST-2
1197
Site: ST-3
Project: Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA Meter:

Location: Western Boundary of Project Site Calibrator:

Coordinates:

Start:

Stop:

SLM: Model 831
Serial: 3141
Duration: 0:10
Leq: 52
Lmax: 59
Lmin: 50
L50: 51
L90: 51
Appendix B7 : Short Term Noise Monitoring Results
LDL 831-2
CAL200
(38.934869, -120.003092)
2025-06-30 11:01:32
2025-06-30 11:11:32
Measurement Results, dBA
Notes
Primary noise source was an AC generator. Secondary noise sources include boats coming in and leaving the dock and natural sounds such as birds, wind, and waves.

Noise Measurement Site
10 15
24 26
32 32
39 38 37
40 43
48 41 38 39 38 37 35 34 33 31 29 27
23 21 14
18 25
35 37 36
48 49 49 48 48
51 46 46
51 46 46 45
42 41 40
35 34
32 30
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Measured Noise Level, dBA
1/3 Octave Band Center Frequency
Measured Ambient Noise Frequency Spectrum
Overall 1/3 Spectra Max 1/3 Spectra
ST-3
1198
Site: ST-4
Project: Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA Meter:

Location: Center of Project Site Calibrator:

Coordinates:

Start:

Stop:

SLM: Model 831
Serial: 3141
Duration: 0:10
Leq: 52
Lmax: 72
Lmin: 41
L50: 47
L90: 43
Appendix B8 : Short Term Noise Monitoring Results
LDL 831-2
CAL200
(38.93444, -120.00172)
2025-06-30 11:18:14
2025-06-30 11:28:14
Measurement Results, dBA
Notes
Primary noise source was an idling boat. Secondary noise sources include trucks/cars passing through the project site and forklift circuilation.

Noise Measurement Site
21 24
31 41 41 38 37 35 36 37 38 38 39 39 40 41
44 41 42
39 38
35 34
30 27
28 38
42 52 53
42 46 46 46
51 51 49 51 51 51
61 68
62 65
59 60
58 57
54 50
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Measured Noise Level, dBA
1/3 Octave Band Center Frequency
Measured Ambient Noise Frequency Spectrum
Overall 1/3 Spectra Max 1/3 Spectra
ST-4
1199
Site: ST-5
Project: Tahoe Keys Marina TRPA CEQA Meter:

Location: Southern Boundary of Project Site Calibrator:

Coordinates:

Start:

Stop:

SLM: Model 831
Serial: 3141
Duration: 0:10
Leq: 55
Lmax: 69
Lmin: 42
L50: 50
L90: 45
Appendix B9 : Short Term Noise Monitoring Results
LDL 831-2
CAL200
(38.934053, -120.00105)
2025-06-30 11:36:45
2025-06-30 11:46:45
Measurement Results, dBA
Notes
Primary noise source was cars/trucks passing through.

Secondary noise sources include grinding, bobcat machinery, and people walking nearby.

Noise Measurement Site
16 23
32 33 34
37 38
40 40 39
43 43 44 45 44 44 44 44 43 41 40
37 36
31 28 18
28 43 46 44
49 48
53 54
51 53 54
57 57
59 58 60 58 59 58 58
53 54
47 44
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 Measured Noise Level, dBA
1/3 Octave Band Center Frequency
Measured Ambient Noise Frequency Spectrum
Overall 1/3 Spectra Max 1/3 Spectra
ST-5
1200
Appendix C: Traffic Noise Calculation
Inputs and Results
1201
Project #:

Description:Ldn/CNEL: LdnHard/Soft: Soft
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
Level,
dBA
1 Marina Access Driveway North of Venice Dr 1,993 90 0 10 1.0% 1.0% 25 350 0 19 9 4 41.1 2 Venice Dr East of Beach and Harbor Driveway 2,326 90 0 10 1.0% 1.0% 25 680 0 21 10 5 37.5 3 Venice Dr West of Beach and Harbor Driveway 2,614 90 0 10 1.0% 1.0% 25 250 0 23 11 5 44.5 19 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 020 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 021 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 022 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 023 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 024 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 025 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 026 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 027 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 028 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 Segment Roadway Segment
Appendix C-1
250201 Tahoe Keys Marina
FHWA-RD-77-108 Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model
Existing Traffic Counts
Contours (ft.) - No
Offset
Offset
Speed Distance (dB)
% Hvy.

Trucks
% Med.

Trucks
Night
%
Eve
%
Day
ADT %
1202
Project #:

Description:Ldn/CNEL: LdnHard/Soft: Soft
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
Level,
dBA
1 Marina Access Driveway North of Venice Dr 2,657 90 0 10 1.0% 1.0% 25 350 0 23 11 5 42.4 2 Venice Dr East of Beach and Harbor Driveway 2,990 90 0 10 1.0% 1.0% 25 680 0 25 12 5 38.5 3 Venice Dr West of Beach and Harbor Driveway 3,278 90 0 10 1.0% 1.0% 25 250 0 27 12 6 45.5 21 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 022 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 023 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 024 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 025 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 026 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 027 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 028 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 Offset
(dB)
Contours (ft.) - No
Offset
Eve
%
Night
%
% Med.

Trucks
% Hvy.

Trucks Speed Distance
Appendix C-2FHWA-RD-77-108 Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model 250201 Tahoe Keys MarinaExisting No Project (with Fresh Ketch Restaurant Operational) Segment Roadway Segment ADT
Day
%
1203
Project #:

Description:Ldn/CNEL: LdnHard/Soft: Soft
60 dBA
65 dBA
70 dBA
Level,
dBA
1 Marina Access Driveway North of Venice Dr 2,832 90 0 10 1.0% 1.0% 25 350 0 24 11 5 42.6 2 Venice Dr East of Beach and Harbor Driveway 3,165 90 0 10 1.0% 1.0% 25 680 0 26 12 6 38.8 3 Venice Dr West of Beach and Harbor Driveway 3,453 90 0 10 1.0% 1.0% 25 250 0 28 13 6 45.7 19 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 020 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 021 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 022 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 023 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 024 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 025 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 026 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 027 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 028 0 0 0 0 0 0.0% 0.0% 0 0 0 Offset
(dB)
Contours (ft.) - No
Offset
Eve
%
Night
%
% Med.

Trucks
% Hvy.

Trucks Speed Distance
Appendix C-3FHWA-RD-77-108 Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model 250201 Tahoe Keys MarinaExisting Plus Project Traffic
Segment Roadway Segment ADT
Day
%
1204
Appendix D
Transportation Study
1205
LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
2690 Lake Forest Road, Suite C
P.O. Box 5875
Tahoe City, CA 96145
530-583-4053 ▴ FAX: 530-583-5966
[email protected] ▴ www.lsctrans.com

TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
DATE:

TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

March 12, 2026
Eric Metz, Tahoe Keys SMI, LLC. Suntex Direct
Leslie Suen, LSC Transportation Consultants Inc.

SLT Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Transportation Analysis LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. has performed a transportation analysis for the proposed redevelopment of the Tahoe Keys Marina in the City of South Lake Tahoe, California. First, existing background traffic conditions are discussed. Next, the trip generation of the proposed project is estimated, and the following areas of impacts are addressed: Vehicle Miles Traveled Analysis for TRPA and a Parking Analysis for the City of South Lake Tahoe.

PROJECTDESCRIPTION
Tahoe Keys Marina is the largest marina (and the only inland marina) on Lake Tahoe. The marina has a full-service boat launch. In addition, the marina provides a Travel Lift and a Jib crane for sailboats. The 22-acre property has diesel and regular fuel, a number of charter vendors, and a water ski school.

Within the past five years, the Fresh Ketch restaurant provided dining options for marina guests. The Cove East recreational trail is located just east of the property that leads out to a wildlife viewing area and a nice secret beach on the shores of Lake Tahoe.

Plans for a full redevelopment of the marina are underway. Upon redevelopment of the marina, there will be no change in the number of slips or the number of charter vendors. However, the existing buildings will be rebuilt to provide updated office space, retail buildings, and several restaurants. A concession management plan will be put in place upon redevelopment of the marina. As part of this plan, charter vessels with a passenger capacity of 40 and above will be required to shuttle their visitors on-site. A mixed-use building, the Boat Barn, will replace the dry storage lot. The Boat Barn will house the Tahoe Keys Property Owners Association (TKPOA) water tanks and will provide a valet boat launching service. The Boat Barn will provide additional boat storage for customers of the marina with a summer capacity of 250 vessels and a winter capacity of 430 vessels. Upon redevelopment of the marina, all proposed parking will be paid parking, including self-park and valet. 1206
Tahoe Keys Marina Transportation Analysis Page 2

EXISTINGCONDITIONS
Throughout the study area, Tahoe Keys Boulevard runs north and south as a two-lane road. Between US 50 and Venice Drive, the posted speed limit is 30 miles per hour (mph). North of Venice Drive the speed limit drops to 25 mph. Tahoe Keys Boulevard is intersected by Venice Drive at a two-way stop-controlled (TWSC) intersection. Venice Drive is a two-lane road with a posted speed limit of 25 mph. The eastern end of Venice Drive concludes at the entrances to the Tahoe Keys Marina and the Cove East recreational trail. Tahoe Keys Boulevard intersects US 50 to the south at a 3-legged signalized intersection. US 50 is a five-lane road with a posted speed limit of 40 mph.

The marina does not currently have any nearby transit options. The closest bus stop, which is serviced by Tahoe Transportation District (TTD), is located 275 ft east of the Tahoe Keys Blvd/US 50 signalized intersection or 1.5 miles south of the site. Microtransit options are also unavailable near the site. South Lake Tahoe’s Lake Link microtransit service is available as far west as the Grocery Outlet located at 2358 Lake Tahoe Boulevard, South Lake Tahoe, California 96150, or 1.8 miles south of the site.

A Class II Bike Lane is found along Tahoe Keys Boulevard between Venice Drive and Eloise Avenue. This bike lane continues along Venice Drive from Tahoe Keys Boulevard east until it concludes at the Cove East recreational trail. Additional unmarked bicycle routes are located throughout the neighborhood south of the project site along Washington Avenue, Eloise Avenue, Tahoe Island Drive, and 12th Street.

Both Class II bike lanes as well as sidewalks are located along US 50 near the intersection with Tahoe Keys Boulevard. A permanent bike map showing the nearby bicycle routes is posted at the intersection of Tahoe Keys Boulevard and Venice Drive just below the northbound stop sign.

This study has been updated to include counts and data collection from summer 2025. Detailed data is presented in the memo SLT Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment – Summer Data Collection Summary (LSC, August 13, 2025).

TRIPGENERATION
The first step in the analysis of traffic impacts is to prepare an estimate of the number of trips generated by the existing land uses and the proposed project. Trip generation is the evaluation of the number of vehicle-trips that will either have an origin or destination at the project site. Daily vehicle trips and peakhour vehicle trips need to be determined to analyze the potential impacts of the proposed project.

Trip Generation of the Existing Uses
The Tahoe Keys Marina currently has a total of 305 slips. Standard daily trip-generation rates are provided in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation, 12th Edition Manual (ITE, 2025) and are applied to the marina as shown in Table 1. Accessory Uses According to the TRPA Code of Ordinances - Section 84.6.2.C, accessory uses for a marina are defined as:

Accessory Uses. Examples of accessory uses related to marinas include: marine sales and repairs, parking lots, maintenance facilities, employee facilities, secondary residence, wateroriented outdoor recreation concessions such as fishing guide services; parasailing; and recreation equipment rental; bars and restaurants, water-oriented services such as rowing clubs; boat rentals; storage and launching facilities; sport fishing activities; excursion boat and sightseeing facilities; and other marina-related activities, including but not limited to fuel sales and boat and engine repair.
1207
Tahoe Keys Marina Transportation Analysis Page 3
Currently, all office and retail land uses are used exclusively as an accessory to the marina uses. As such, no visitors are visiting these land uses as an exclusive trip without using the marina. The existing office and retail land uses are therefore deemed accessory and are excluded from further analysis, as shown in Table 1.

The existing Fresh Ketch restaurant was a fine dining establishment. Per the client, a high level of trips were made with the sole purpose of attending the restaurant rather than as an internal trip from the marina. This restaurant is therefore considered to be a non-accessory use and is analyzed separately from the marina rate.

Though water-oriented outdoor recreation concessions are also defined as marina accessory, the Tahoe Keys Marina has a higher-than-average number of charters when compared to the size of the marina. A total of 50 charters of various sizes are available, which go out multiple times per day. Given the size of the marina, approximately 26 charters would be expected to run out of the marina and would be included in the marina trip generation. To remain conservative, the charters with a passenger capacity above 10 passengers (a total of 24 charters) are analyzed as non-accessory to the marina. The 10- passenger limit was determined to be similar to the capacity of a private boat and the average boat rental capacity. The 24 charters (with a capacity of above 10 passengers) are analyzed based on a person-trip analysis (which is further discussed below). In addition, the berths associated with these non-accessory charters are removed from the total number of berths analyzed in the marina trip generation.

Non‐Accessory Charter Visitors
Table 2 presents a summary of the various charters at the marina based on a 2024 internal census taken for the marina. Per the marina staff and management personnel, commercial uses run at 100 percent occupancy on a peak summer day. To determine the number of visitor vehicles associated with the charters, the number of boats is multiplied by the passenger limit, then multiplied by the average trips per day, to result in the total number of people per day. Surveys were conducted in the summer of 2025, and respondents were then asked about the total number of individuals in their group. Of the 50 respondents, the average group size was found to be approximately 5 people per group. Of these 50 groups, a total of 71 vehicles were reported to be used to arrive at the marina, resulting in an average vehicle occupancy of 3.2 persons per vehicle, as shown in Figure 1. This results in 406 total vehicles, as shown in Table 2. As the 6-person charters and 10-person charters are deemed accessory to the marina, the total vehicles associated with the remaining charters is 294 vehicles, as shown in Table 2.

Trip generation rates for the charter visitors are shown in Table 1. Visitors are assumed to generate 2 daily trips. As charters are running continuously over the course of a day, approximately 2 percent of trips are assumed to occur during the AM Peak Hour, and 4 percent are assumed to occur during the PM peak hour.

Non‐Accessory Charter Employee Trips
The commercial charters have a total of 84 employees on the peak day. Approximately 40 of these employees are assumed to be associated with non-accessory charter uses and will also need a persontrip analysis to account for these additional trips. According to the United States Census Bureau's 2023 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates for the city of South Lake Tahoe, the vehicle occupancy rate for workers is approximately 1.1 persons per vehicle. Applying the vehicle occupancy rate to the employees results in 36 employee vehicles for the commercial charters, as shown in Table 2. Employees are assumed to stay on-site throughout their shift, resulting in a total of 2.0 daily trips. Per marina 1208
Tahoe Keys Marina Transportation Analysis Page 4
management, on a typically busy summer day, employees would either work an early shift starting at 6:00AM or a late shift starting at 3:00 PM.

Other Existing Land Uses
The restaurant “Fresh Ketch” and the employee housing units can be estimated using standard ITE rates.

The estimate of trip generation for the restaurant is best estimated based on the most applicable use of ‘Fine Dining Restaurant’. Fine dining was chosen because it meets the ITE definition through the distinction of a visitor’s typical stay which exceeds one hour as opposed to casual dining in which typical stays are less than 40 minutes. Standard rates are also applied to the employee housing units based on the land use ‘Multifamily (Low-Rise) Housing’. These standard rates are applied to the existing land uses, as shown in Table 1.

Reduction for Internal Trips
As is typical of a mixed-land use development, some persons generating a trip at the site would visit more than one of the land uses at the site during the same “trip.” Standard traffic engineering practice dictates that a reduction in total trip generation can be applied to the project, as some of the persons generating trips at one of the land uses can access another included land use without generating an additional vehicle trip at the common site access point(s). To provide an example, trips from marina users will also travel to the restaurant (Fresh Ketch) or restaurant guests will rent a jet ski after their meal.

The portion of the persons generating a trip at a mixed-use development that would visit two or more uses within the development is based on the types of uses within the development, the size of the individual uses, and the distances between them. The proportion of trips that remain internal to the site are based upon the guidance provided in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook regarding internal capture within a mixed-use development. For the existing land uses, the dynamic between the restaurant land use and the marina land use (plus its accessory uses) were utilized to generate an internal reduction. An average of 28 percent reduction for daily and 14 percent for PM peak hour is identified then applied specifically to each land use. The internal percentage reductions are shown in the middle column of Table 1.

Reduction for Non‐Auto Trips
Non-auto trips, such as trips made to/from the site via bike, walking, or transit, reduce trip generation.

The 2018 and 2014 Summer TRPA Travel Mode Share Survey data were analyzed to determine non-auto reductions for the summer season. Data from the surveys conducted at the South Y Commercial area and the Ski Run area were isolated. The South Y Commercial area is the closest survey location to the project site. Though the Ski Run area is farther away, a marina is located at the end of Ski Run Boulevard and is thus a comparable site. The surveys were filtered by those with a trip purpose of work or outdoor recreation. When looking at the outdoor recreation surveys, of the 111 survey trips, 35 percent were made via non-auto modes. When looking at the surveys with a trip purpose of work, of the 56 survey trips, 46 percent were made via non-auto modes. As only 25 surveys had a trip purpose of restaurant, the general non-auto of the area was used instead. In total, for all trip purposes, of the 329 survey trips, 29 percent were made via non-auto modes.

Taking all this data into consideration, the non-auto access rate for the marina and the charter visitors is assumed to be approximately 2 percent, as those visiting a marina will likely have many items and gear, and so it would be more inconvenient to travel by non-auto means. For the employees, the non-auto 1209
Tahoe Keys Marina Transportation Analysis Page 5
rate is estimated to be approximately 25 percent. As the employee housing units are assumed to work on-site, a non-auto reduction of 25 percent was applied to the units for work trips to/from the marina.

For the existing restaurant Fresh Ketch, the non-auto rate is conservatively assumed to be around 10 percent. The restaurant does have another access pattern that would increase this non-auto rate, as some people visit the restaurant via boat (dock and dine). Based on interviews with former restaurant owners, this accounted for about 10 percent of restaurant visitors on a busy summer day. To account for these patrons, an additional 10 percent non-auto reduction is applied to the restaurant for a total of a 20 percent non-auto reduction.

Trip Generation of Existing Uses at Site Driveways
Multiplying the land-use quantities by the ITE trip rates and taking reductions for internal and non-auto trips yields the vehicle trips generated at the site driveway for existing conditions. As shown in Table 1, the existing land uses generate a total of approximately 1,664 daily vehicle trips at the site driveway on a busy summer day, including 58 AM peak-hour vehicle trips (43 inbound plus 15 outbound) and 154 PM peak-hour vehicle trips (90 inbound plus 64 outbound).

Trip Generation of the Proposed Project
Under the TRPA definition of Marinas, many uses can be considered accessory to the Marina. But to be conservative it is assumed that some of the proposed land uses are larger than the typical Marina accessories and therefore, are not assumed to be accessory to the Marina. The accessory vs nonaccessory uses are detailed in Table 1, below. For example, the coffee shop would be a typical use and is considered an accessory use while the fine dining restaurants of about 22,000 square feet are likely larger than a typical Marina restaurant and are therefore considered non-accessory. Similarly charter trips are an accessory use but 50 daily charters are likely more than the typical Marina, so all charters over 12 people were considered non-accessory.

Since the non-accessory uses will still interact with the Marnia (including all accessory uses) there will be internal trip between them. For example, a 20-person charter may make a reservation to eat at the restaurant after their charter trip. Or people who work in the office may take their boat out after work.

Marina and Land Uses
Under the proposed project, the number of slips and charters associated with the marina is assumed to be unchanged. As such, the marina and charter employees are calculated based on the same methodology as existing conditions.

Under the proposed project, a concession management plan will go into effect. As part of this plan, the charters with a passenger limit of 40 and above will be required to shuttle their visitors on-site. As such, the trip generation for the charter passengers is reduced to the passengers associated with the charters that have a passenger capacity between 13 persons and 32 persons. A separate charter shuttle analysis is performed for the larger charters (over 40 passengers). To remain conservative, a shuttle occupancy of 20 persons was assumed as shown in Table 2. The charter shuttle vehicles then have the same trip generation rates applied as the charter visitors.

On land, the redeveloped marina will include the following land uses:
 Office in Buildings A and B (Office in Building A is accessory to the marina)  Retail in Buildings A and B (accessory to the marina)  Grab and Go Restaurant in Building B (accessory to the marina)  Fine Dining Restaurants in Buildings C and D
1210
Tahoe Keys Marina Transportation Analysis Page 6
 Coffee Shop in Building C (accessory to the marina)
Standard rates are applied to the proposed land uses, as shown in Table 1.

Boat Barn
The proposed Boat Barn will replace the existing dry boat storage area and is designed to accommodate up to 250 boats during the summer season. On peak days, it is assumed the Boat Barn will be 100 percent full.

The Boat Barn will feature a valet launch service, ensuring boats are placed in the water before their owners arrive. This process will occur outside of the boat ramp area, eliminating any impact on boat ramp usage. Given the convenience of the valet launch, a higher percentage of stored boats are expected to be used compared to the existing dry storage system. It is estimated that approximately 40 percent of boats in the Boat Barn will take their boats out on peak days.

While boat storage and launching facilities are considered accessory uses to a marina, the high utilization rate of the Boat Barn effectively functions as an increase in available berths. To account for this, the trip generation analysis estimates the percentage of boats expected to be launched on peak days by applying the 40 percent usage rate to the 250 boats, or an equivalent of 100 berths. The standard marina trip generation rate is then applied as shown in Table 1.

Reduction for Internal Trips
Consistent with the existing conditions, the proportion of trips that remain internal to the site are based upon the guidance provided in the ITE Trip Generation Handbook regarding internal capture within a mixed-use development. For the proposed land uses, the trips between the restaurant and retail land uses and the office and marina land uses (plus its accessory uses) were utilized to generate an internal reduction. An aggregated daily 32 percent reduction is identified and is applied to the trip generation for the proposed development. The internal percentage reductions based on land use and time of day are shown in the middle column of Table 1.

Reduction for Non‐Auto Trips
Non-auto trips, such as trips made to/from the site via bike, walking, or transit, reduce trip generation.

Before the proposed paid parking is considered and consistent with the existing conditions, the nonauto access rate for commercial water visitors and public slips is 2 percent. The employees are assumed to have approximately a 25 percent non-auto access rate. As the employee housing units are assumed to work on-site, a non-auto reduction of 25 percent was applied to the units. For the proposed restaurants, the non-auto access rate is conservatively assumed to be around 10 percent, with an additional 10 percent due to dock and dine.

Currently, all parking at the marina is free and unreserved; upon the redevelopment of the marina, all parking spaces will be subject to payment. The new parking plan will include both a self-paid, selfparking area and a paid valet parking area. While the marina currently has 325 parking spaces, the proposed redevelopment provides 251 spaces, including 69 valet parking spaces.

The effects of implementing paid parking can be seen in the Stateline, Nevada, casino core area. As shown in the Tahoe Blue Event Center – Parking Gate Data Summary memo (LSC, February 2025), upon the implementation of paid parking, peak-day trips were calculated to be approximately 44 percent lower. Although the study does not specify the cause of the reduction, including finding free parking nearby, increased non-auto trips, increase in drop-off activity, it highlights that paid parking can have a significant impact on trip volumes.
1211
Tahoe Keys Marina Transportation Analysis Page 7
However, this large reduction is not necessarily applicable to the Tahoe Key marina, given the nature of a marina, visitors typically bring gear and supplies, making non-auto, drop-off, and longer distance to free parking much less convenient. Additionally, there are no nearby transit stops. These factors further reduce the likelihood of visitors opting for non-auto travel.

To account for the effects of paid parking while maintaining a conservative approach, an additional 11 percent non-auto reduction is applied. The non-auto travel is a shift from away for standard vehicle trips to carpooling, biking, walking, and scootering trips.Note that at the time of this memo Lake Link currently does not extend to the Tahoe Keys area but plans have been announced to expand and service the area. Therefore it is assumed that Lake Link microtransit will be available when the proposed project begins operation and therefore would be another viable non-auto access option. Additionally, about one third of slips are rented by Tahoe Keys residents, with the paid parking these people would have a significant reason and it would be easy to shift to a non-auto mode of travel to the marina area.

Trip Generation of Proposed Uses at Site Driveways
Multiplying the land-use quantities by the trip rates and taking reductions for internal and non-auto yields the vehicle trips generated at the site driveways for the proposed project conditions. As shown in Table 1, the proposed land uses are forecasted to generate a total of approximately 1,839 daily vehicle trips at the site driveways on a weekday, including 58 AM peak-hour vehicle trips (42 inbound plus 16 outbound) and 191 PM peak-hour vehicle trips (113 inbound plus 78 outbound).

Trip Generation Net Impact
Comparing the daily trip generation of the proposed land uses and that of the existing land uses indicates that the proposed redevelopment would result in a net increase of 175 daily vehicle-trips (or an 11-percent increase) at the site access driveways over the course of a peak summer day. Total AM peak hour trips would remain the same, and a slight increase of 37 trips would occur during the PM peak hour.

VEHICLE‐MILESTRAVELED(VMT)ANALYSIS
Vehicle-miles traveled analysis is provided to meet TRPA requirements. VMT is evaluated in accordance with the latest TRPA Project Impact Assessment (PIA) Guidelines (August 26, 2024). VMT analysis is conducted on an annual average daily basis, reflecting the standard for overall greenhouse gas emissions. VMT for each existing and proposed land use is calculated by multiplying peak day trip generation by a peak day-to-average annual daily factor to get average annual daily trips. Next, the average annual daily trips are multiplied by the zone’s average trip length to obtain daily VMT as shown in Table 3. Per TRPA standards, the annual daily trips are multiplied by the average trip length within PIA zone 14, as TRPA only regulates VMT within the Tahoe Basin.

Peak Day to Average Annual Day Factors
Peak day trips are converted to average annual daily trips to obtain TRPA’s VMT standard design time period. The peak season of the marina is summertime, defined as June through September, when the boat ramp is open and the marina is regularly operating. The off-season is defined as October through May. This peak day to average annual factor was developed for each land use as follows:
 Marina Visitors/Boat Barn Visitors—Per Marina staff, the majority of those with public slips launch their boats around April or May and then retrieve their boats in September.

Approximately 100 percent of those with a public slip will go out on a peak day. However, during the peak season, on average, public slip owners will go out on average 2.5 times per week. 1212
Tahoe Keys Marina Transportation Analysis Page 8
Based on this, the peak day-to-average annual day factor for marina visitor trip generation is estimated to be 0.30. This factor is also applied to the trips associated with the proposed Boat Barn.
 Charter Visitors—During peak season, all 50 charters are operational. During the off-season, the majority of charters are pulled from the water and shut down for the season. However, a few charters operate year-round. Based upon a review of the seasonal variation for commercial water visitors, the peak day-to-average annual day factor for commercial water visitor trip generation is estimated to be 0.42.
 Marina Employees (excluding restaurant employees)—The majority of employees associated with the marina are seasonal workers. However, some of the marina staff work full-time at the marina. Based upon a review of the seasonal variation for the employees, the peak day-toaverage annual day factor for the employee trip generation is estimated to be 0.46.  Restaurants— The existing restaurant is comprised of all indoor seating and thus no reductions to average annual day are warranted. The proposed restaurants have outdoor seating areas with table service that will be closed in the winter. Of the 22,744 square feet of dining 8,151 will be outdoor dinning. Therefore for 6 months of the year the restaurant square footage will be reduce to 64% of the total restaurant area. This equates to a peak day to average annual day factor of 0.82. This equate to a total of an 18 percent reduction in VMT for the outdoor seating being closed in the colder months. As directed by TRPA staff, land uses that are closed seasonally may be removed when calculating VMT on an average annual basis.  Office—Typical offices are open 5 out of 7 days per week. This calculates to a peak day to average annual factor of 0.71.

The peak day-to-average annual day factors for remaining uses are assumed to be 1.0, which indicates the use is operational consistently every day of the year.

Average Trip Length
The final data element needed to define VMT is the average vehicle-trip length (in miles). The proposed project is located in PIA zone 14. In this zone, the Tahoe Basin Average Trip Length is 5.31 miles. PIA zone 14 is composed of the marina and some residences located in the Tahoe Keys neighborhood north of Venice Drive. Therefore this trip length is determined to be appropriate for the proposed marina redevelopment trips as well. For VMT within the Tahoe Basin, this trip length is applied to all land uses for both the existing and the proposed project, as shown in the TRPA VMT Analysis portion of Table 3.

VMT Associated with Seasonal Launches
A total of 2,851 vessels are associated with the marina slips, TKPOA launches, the Tahoe Keys Beach and Harbor Association, and additional launches based on TRPA stickers. All seasonal launches are assumed to launch once per year in the spring and retrieve their boats in the fall. Assuming each vessel has an inbound and outbound trip associated with the launch and retrieval, results in a total of 11,398 trips for the year associated with seasonal launches. Dividing the total trips by 365 days in a year results in a total of 32 average annual daily trips.
1213
Tahoe Keys Marina Transportation Analysis Page 9
Existing VMT
The VMT analysis for the marina is summarized in Table 3. For this multi-use project, each land use is analyzed independently and then summed. As shown in the upper portion of Table 3, the total daily vehicle trips on an average day are calculated to be 1,063 trips for the existing land uses. Multiplying this figure by the average trip length for each use category and summing over all categories yields a total annual average daily VMT generated by the marina of 5,644 VMT within the Tahoe Basin. Of this total, over half (62 percent) is generated by the restaurant.

Proposed VMT
The VMT analysis for the marina is summarized in Table 3. For this multi-use project, each land use is analyzed independently and then summed. As shown in the lower portion of Table 3, the total daily vehicle trips on an average annual day is calculated to be 1,104 trips for the proposed project.

Multiplying this figure by the average trip length for each use category and summing over all categories yields a total annual average daily VMT generated by the marina of 5,862 VMT within the Tahoe Basin.

Of this total, 32 percent is generated by the marina, Boat Barn, and charters, while 65 percent is generated by the multiple restaurants.

Project’s Impact on VMT
As shown in Table 3, the marina redevelopment would result in a net increase in annual average Tahoe Basin daily VMT of 218 VMT (or a 4-percent increase) compared to the existing marina. Based on current TRPA standards, the low-VMT screening criteria based on the project location is 715 daily VMT. The project is therefore considered to have a less than significant impact on VMT and can be screened as a low-VMT generating project.

PARKINGANALYSIS
This parking analysis is provided to meet City of South Lake Tahoe requirements.

Parking Demand of the Proposed Project
The applicable parking code for this project is the City of South Lake Tahoe Code, which establishes parking requirements for marina uses based on the number of slips and employees. Consistent with the trip generation methodology, the non-accessory charters, fine dining restaurants, and office spaces are excluded from the standard marina rate and analyzed separately.

The number of peak-day employees associated with the marina under proposed conditions is as follows:
 Suntex (includes Boat Barn employees) – 23
 Accessory Charters – 44
 Non-Accessory Charters – 40
 Boat Rentals – 30
 Boat Showroom – 6
 Valet – 10
To ensure an accurate representation of marina parking demand, the marina rate was applied to the 281 slips (305 total slips minus the 24 non-accessory charter slips), the effective berths associated with the proposed Boat Barn, and the 113 marina employees. Additionally, to avoid double-counting of employees, the three employees residing in the on-site employee housing units are assumed to already 1214
Tahoe Keys Marina Transportation Analysis Page 10
be parked on site and, therefore, removed from the marina employee line item, resulting in a calculation for 110 marina employees.

Non‐Accessory Charter Parking Demand
As charter shuttles could be accommodated near the side of the boat barn out of the way of parking or travel back to their designated pickup area, the passengers associated with the charters with a passenger limit of 40 or more are excluded from analysis. The Tahoe Keys Marina Master Plan (May 2002) determined parking demand for tour boats based on passenger capacity, with a rate of one space per three passengers. Applying this rate to the 325 passengers associated with non-accessory charters results in the required charter-related parking demand.

For non-accessory charter employees, a person-trip analysis is conducted. The marina employee parking rate is applied, with a 1.1 vehicle occupancy factor used for charter employees.

Additional Parking Considerations
For the remaining uses, the City of South Lake Tahoe Code parking ratio was applied. The rate for the employee housing units is based on the multi-family rate and the number of bedrooms in each unit.

Since all employee housing units contain more than one bedroom, additional guest parking is required, resulting in a total demand of 6 spaces for residents and 1 space for guests. Table 4 presents the evaluation of the parking demand associated with the proposed land uses.

Parking Demand
After applying the parking reductions, the resulting peak parking demand for the project is 369 spaces (before shared parking) as summarized in Table 4.

Shared Parking Analysis
Not all of the individual land uses generate peak parking needs at the same time of day. For example, a fine dining restaurant’s peak parking demand occurs between 7:00 PM and 9:00 PM whereas an office building’s parking demand will peak at 10:00 AM. A “shared parking” analysis of parking needs for each hour of the day is therefore conducted. Using the methodology presented in the Urban Land Institute’s Shared Parking Manual (February 1, 2020), this analysis applies a series of factors reflecting the proportion of parking demand in each hour to the parking demand during the peak hour. These proportions are shown in Table 5.

For the marina and boat barn, the percentages were based on a combination of “public park/open destination” and “active entertainment”. For the charter visitors, a peak parking demand was based on the charter schedules. For the marina employees, the client has indicated that employees will work one of two shifts. The two shifts are assumed to be from 6:00 AM – 3:00 PM and 3:00 PM – 12:00 AM.

Assuming half of the employees work one shift and the remaining work the other shift, a peak parking demand is based on these two shifts.

The peak parking demand for the site as a whole is expected to occur midday (from 2:00 PM to 3:00 PM, when almost all uses are at peak occupancy), with 291 spaces.

Proposed Parking Supply
A total of 251 parking spaces are proposed. The parking supply includes 69 triple-stacked valet spaces in the parking lot. Comparing this to the parking demand results in a deficit of 40 parking spaces. 1215
Tahoe Keys Marina Transportation Analysis Page 11
Parking Mitigation
As the project results in a parking deficit in the peak hour, the client has agreed to implement an employee parking program. This program would involve encouraging an increase in non-auto access, providing carpool matching resources, and implementing a limit to each charter's employee parking allowance. Upon implementation of this program, the employee parking demand would be reduced by approximately 50 percent. Note to be conservative this reduction in parking is not assumed to reduce trips or VMT because while some employees will shift to carpools and non-auto modes, some employees will take rideshares or get dropped off. The increase in trips from rideshares and dropping off and pick up may negate the reduction from carpools and non-auto trips. Therefore, to be conservative no reduction to VMT or trips is assumed with implementation of the employee parking program.

The estimated impact of this mitigation measure is shown in Table 6. As shown, implementing this mitigation measure resolves the parking space shortfall down to a five parking space shortfall. The 5- space shortfall would only occur rarely for 1 hour on a peak summer Saturday or about 13 hours a year (on the 13 peak summer Saturdays). Therefore, this parking deficit is considered negligible, and the project is considered to have adequate parking with the employee parking program.

CONCLUSIONS
The following conclusions are made based on this analysis:
 The existing marina currently generates approximately 1,664 daily vehicle trips, with 58 in the AM peak hour and 154 trips in the PM peak hour.
 The proposed project is expected to generate approximately 1,839 daily vehicle trips, with 58 in the AM peak hour and 191 in the PM peak hour.
 The project’s impact on trip generation is an increase of 175 daily trips, no increase in AM peak hour trips, and an increase of 37 PM peak hour trips.
 The existing project generates approximately 5,644 average annual daily VMT.  The proposed project is estimated to generate 5,862 average annual daily VMT.  The project’s impact on VMT would be an increase of 218 average annual daily VMT and is therefore below the 715 low-VMT generating project screening criteria and is screened out of further analysis.
 The total peak parking demand, accounting for shared parking, is 291 parking spaces. As the proposed parking supply is 251 parking spaces, there is a parking deficit of 40 parking spaces.  Implementing an employee parking program would reduce the employee parking demand by approximately 50 percent which would resolve the parking deficit. 1216
Tahoe Keys Marina Transportation Analysis Page 12
Table 1: Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment - Trip Generation Analysis AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour
Description
ITE
Code ITE Land Use Quantity Unit Daily In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total In Out Total Existing Uses
Marina3 420 Marina 281 Berths 2.61 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.13 0.08 0.21 28% 0% 20% 2% 517 6 13 19 28 18 46 Existing Office Space 712 Small Office Building 22.204 KSFExisting Retail Space 822 Strip Retail Plaza 12.603 KSFCharter Visitors4 294 Visitor Vehicles 2.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.04 28% 0% 20% 2% 415 6 0 6 3 6 9 Charter Employees4 36 Employee Vehicles 2.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0% 0% 0% 25% 54 27 0 27 0 14 14 Employee Housing 220 MulƟfamily (Low-Rise) 3 DU 6.21 0.10 0.31 0.41 0.32 0.20 0.52 0% 0% 0% 25% 14 0 1 1 1 0 1The Fresh Ketch Restaurant 931 Fine Dining Restaurant 15.002 KSF 79.03 0.33 0.08 0.41 5.59 2.51 8.10 30% 0% 14% 20% 664 4 1 5 58 26 84 TOTAL EXISTING USE 28% 0% 14% 1,664 43 15 58 90 64 154
Proposed Uses
Marina3 420 Marina 281 Berths 2.61 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.13 0.08 0.21 32% 13% 18% 13% 434 5 10 15 25 17 42 Additional Marina Uses (Buildings 1-4)5 420 Marina 14.931 KSFBuilding A Office 712 Small Office Building 7.398 KSF Building A and B Retail 822 Strip Retail Plaza 13.485 KSFBuilding B Restaurant 933 Fast Food Restaurant no Drive-Through 4.777 KSF Building C Coffee Shop 936 Coffee/Donut Shop no Drive-Through 1.850 KSF Boat Barn6 420 Marina 100 Berths 2.61 0.02 0.05 0.07 0.13 0.08 0.21 32% 13% 18% 13% 154 2 3 5 9 6 15 Charter Visitors4 206 Visitor Vehicles 2.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.04 32% 13% 18% 13% 244 3 0 3 2 4 6 Charter Employees4 36 Employee Vehicles 2.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0% 0% 0% 36% 46 23 0 23 0 12 12 Charter Shuttles4,7 16 Shuttle Vehicles 2.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.04 0% 0% 0% 0% 32 0 0 0 0 1 1Employee Housing 220 MulƟfamily (Low-Rise) 3 DU 6.21 0.10 0.31 0.41 0.32 0.20 0.52 0% 0% 0% 25% 14 0 1 1 1 0 1Building B Office 712 Small Office Building 8.763 KSF 14.39 1.36 0.28 1.64 0.73 1.43 2.16 50% 25% 50% 27% 46 7 1 8 2 5 7Building C Restaurant 931 Fine Dining Restaurant 9.551 KSF 79.03 0.33 0.08 0.41 5.59 2.51 8.10 30% 50% 16% 31% 365 1 0 1 31 14 45Building D Restaurant 931 Fine Dining Restaurant 13.193 KSF 79.03 0.33 0.08 0.41 5.59 2.51 8.10 30% 50% 16% 31% 504 1 1 2 43 19 62 TOTAL PROPOSED USE 30% 13% 18% 1,839 42 16 58 113 78 191 PROJECT NET IMPACT 175 -1 1 0 23 14 37
NOTE: DVTE = Daily Vehicle Trip Ends; KSF = 1,000 square feetNote 1: Standard daily trip and weekday PM rates are provided in the ITE Trip Generation, 12th Edition manual (2025).Note 2: Non-Auto trips include travel made via boat for Dock and Dine. For the proposed us es, non-auto trips includes increased carpool, walk, bike, and TART connect usage due to paid parking. Note 3: The marina rate includes uses associated with the slips, boat rentals, marina employees and day launches. The marina ra te is based on ITE 11th edition.Note 4: These are the 'Non-Accessory Charters' from Table 2 and are therefore not included in the marina land use. Note 5: Additional marina uses includes common area, bathrooms and various support areas. Note 6: As the Boat Barn will have regular activity out on the water due to the valet service, the Boat Barn is analyzed based on an effective number of berths. Note 7: Under proposed conditions, the 40+ passenger charters will be required to shuttle their visitors on-site.Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

Person-Trip AnalysisPerson-Trip AnalysisPerson-Trip Analysis Trip Generation Rates1
Percent Reduction
for Internal Trips
Person-Trip AnalysisPerson-Trip Analysis
AM
Peak Hour
PM
Peak Hour
Accessory to the MarinaAccessory to the MarinaAccessory to the MarinaAccessory to the MarinaAccessory to the MarinaAccessory to the MarinaAccessory to the Marina Daily
Percent
Reduction
for NonAuto
Trips2
Daily
(DVTE)
Project Generated Vehicle Trips at Site Access
Points
1217
Tahoe Keys Marina Transportation Analysis Page 13
Table 2: Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment - Peak Day Charter Visitors Description
Accessory to the
Marina # of Boats
Passenger
Limit
Total Peak
Passengers
Trips
per Day
People per
Day
Vehicle
Occupancy
Daily
Vehicles
Existing Commercial Charters
6-Person Charter Accessory 21 6 126 2 252 3.2 80
10-Person Charter Accessory 5 10 50 2 100 3.2 32
13-Person Charter Non-Accessory 15 13 195 2 390 3.2 122 16-Person Charter Non-Accessory 1 16 16 2 32 3.2 10
18-Person Charter Non-Accessory 1 18 18 2 36 3.2 12
20-Person Charter Non-Accessory 2 20 40 2 80 3.2 26
24-Person Charter Non-Accessory 1 24 24 2 48 3.2 16
32-Person Charter Non-Accessory 1 32 32 2 64 3.2 20
40-Person Charter Non-Accessory 1 40 40 2 80 3.2 26
48-Person Charter Non-Accessory 1 48 48 2 96 3.2 30
49-Person Charter Non-Accessory 1 49 49 2 98 3.2 32
Subtotal Accessory Charters 26 176 352 112
Subtotal Non-Accessory Charters 24 462 924 294
Subtotal All Existing Charters 50 638 1,276 406
Proposed Commercial Charters
6-Person Charter Accessory 21 6 126 2 252 3.2 80
10-Person Charter Accessory 5 10 50 2 100 3.2 32
13-Person Charter Non-Accessory 15 13 195 2 390 3.2 122 16-Person Charter Non-Accessory 1 16 16 2 32 3.2 10
18-Person Charter Non-Accessory 1 18 18 2 36 3.2 12
20-Person Charter Non-Accessory 2 20 40 2 80 3.2 26
24-Person Charter Non-Accessory 1 24 24 2 48 3.2 16
32-Person Charter Non-Accessory 1 32 32 2 64 3.2 20
40-Person Charter1,2 Non-Accessory 1 40 40 2 80 20 4
48-Person Charter1,2 Non-Accessory 1 48 48 2 96 20 6
49-Person Charter1,2 Non-Accessory 1 49 49 2 98 20 6
Subtotal Accessory Charters 26 176 352 112
Subtotal Non-Accessory Charters (<40 passengers) 21 325 650 206 Subtotal Non-Accessory Charters ( ≥40 passengers) 3 137 274 16 Subtotal All Proposed Charters 50 638 1,276 334
Note 1: Under proposed conditions, passenger charter vessels with 40 or more passengers will be required to shuttle their visitors on-site.

Note 2: The average shuttle vehicle is assumed to be a minibus that can accommodate 20 visitors.

Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
1218
Tahoe Keys Marina Transportation Analysis Page 14
Table 3: Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment - Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) Description
Peak Day
Trips 1
Peak Day - to -
Average
Annual Factor
Average Annual
Daily Vehicle
Trips
Tahoe Basin
Average Trip
Length (Miles)2
Annual Average
Daily Tahoe
Basin VMT
% of Total Avg
Daily VMT
Existing Uses
Marina 517 0.30 155 5.31 824 15%
Charter Visitors 415 0.42 173 5.31 918 16%
Charter Employees 54 0.46 25 5.31 132 2%
Employee Housing 14 1.00 14 5.31 74 1%
The Fresh Ketch Restaurant 664 1.00 664 5.31 3,526 62%
Seasonal Launches - - 32 5.31 170 3%
Total Exisitng Marina 1,664 1,063 5,644
Proposed Uses
Marina 434 0.30 130 5.31 691 12%
Charter Visitors 244 0.42 102 5.31 540 9%
Charter Employees 46 0.46 21 5.31 113 2%
Employee Housing 14 1.00 14 5.31 74 1%
Building D Restaurant 504 0.82 413 5.31 2,195 37%
Seasonal Launches - - 32 5.31 170 3%
Charter Shuttles 32 0.42 13 5.31 71 1%
Boat Barn Launches 154 0.30 46 5.31 245 5%
Building B Office 46 0.71 33 5.31 174 3%
Building C Restaurant 365 0.82 299 5.31 1,589 28%
Total Proposed Use 1,839 1,104 5,862
PROJECT NET IMPACT 175 41 218
Percent Change 11% 4% 4%
Low VMT Screening Criteria for TRPA 715
VMT Mitigation Needed 0
DU= Dwelling Unit. KSF = 1,000 Square Feet
Shaded cells indicate new uses.

Note 1: Reference Table 2 for trip generation of existing and proposed land uses.

Note 2: The Tahoe Keys Marina is located in PIA Zone 14 which has a zone average trip length of 5.31 miles.

Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.

TRPA VMT Analysis
1219
Tahoe Keys Marina Transportation Analysis Page 15
Table 4: Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment - Parking Analysis Description Quantity Unit Parking Ratio Category
Required Parking
Spaces for
Individual Use
Internal
Reduction
Non-Auto
Reduction
Peak Parking
Spaces Required
After Reductions
Proposed Uses
281 Slips Marina 0.33 spaces per slip 94 18% 13% 67110 Employees2,3 Marina 1.00 space per employee 110 0% 36% 70 Boat Barn 100 Slips Marina 0.33 spaces per slip 33 18% 13% 24Charter Peak Passengers4 325 Passengers Person-Trip 0.33 spaces per passenger 108 18% 13% 77 Charter Employees 36 Employee Vehicles Person-Trip 1.00 space per employee vehicle 36 0% 36% 23 2 spaces per 2+ bedroom unit 6 0% 0% 61 guest space per 4 units 1 0% 0% 1 Building 3 + 4 Restaurants - Fine Dining 22.7 KSF Eating and Drinking Places 1 space per 150 square feet 152 16% 31% 88Office 8.8 KSF Professional Office 1 space per 250 square feet 35 50% 27% 13TOTAL PROPOSED USE 575 369 NOTE: DU = Dwelling Units; KSF = 1,000 square feetNote 1: Parking rates are found in the South Lake Tahoe City Code sections 6.10.410 and 6.85.030Note 2: Marina employees include employees with Suntex, the Boat Barn, Boat Rentals, Boat Showroom, Accessory Charter and the valet. Note 3: Employees from the employee housing were removed from this number to avoid double counting.Note 4: Total passengers assumes each charter is at maximum capacity. Excludes the accessory charters and the large charters that are shuttled in. Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. and South Lake Tahoe City Code Parking Rate1
MarinaEmployee Housing 3 DU Employee Housing
1220
Tahoe Keys Marina Transportation Analysis Page 16
Table 5: Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment - Hourly Shared Parking Demand Hour of Day
Marina/
Boat Barn
Non-Accessory
Charter Visitors
Marina and
Charter Employees
Fine Dining
Restaurant Office
Employee
Housing
Total Peak
Demand
Individual Use Demand 91 77 93 88 13 7 369
Hourly Variation in Parking Demand (Percent of Peak Demand) 6 am 1% 4% 50% 0% 3% 89%
7 am 5% 13% 50% 3% 14% 91%
8 am 10% 26% 50% 7% 48% 92%
9 am 25% 42% 50% 11% 88% 92%
10 am 50% 51% 50% 26% 100% 92%
11 am 65% 57% 50% 47% 96% 92%
12 pm 85% 62% 50% 77% 79% 92%
1 pm 95% 64% 50% 77% 82% 92%
2 pm 100% 66% 75% 69% 95% 92%
3 pm 95% 64% 100% 45% 91% 92%
4 pm 90% 57% 75% 54% 79% 92%
5 pm 95% 49% 50% 79% 56% 94%
6 pm 100% 38% 50% 96% 23% 96%
7 pm 95% 25% 50% 100% 14% 100%
8 pm 90% 13% 50% 100% 5% 100%
9 pm 65% 4% 50% 100% 3% 100%
10 pm 10% 0% 50% 96% 1% 100%
11 pm 0% 0% 50% 50% 0% 98%
12 am 0% 0% 50% 15% 0% 95%
Parking Demand
Total Hourly
Demand
Proposed
Parking Spaces1
Parking Deficit/
Surplus
6 am 1 3 47 0 0 6 57 251 194
7 am 5 10 47 3 2 6 73 251 178
8 am 9 20 47 6 6 6 94 251 157
9 am 23 32 47 10 11 6 129 251 122
10 am 46 39 47 23 13 6 174 251 77
11 am 59 44 47 41 12 6 209 251 42
12 pm 77 48 47 68 10 6 256 251 -5
1 pm 86 49 47 68 11 6 267 251 -16
2 pm 91 51 70 61 12 6 291 251 -40
3 pm 86 49 93 40 12 6 286 251 -35
4 pm 82 44 70 48 10 6 260 251 -9
5 pm 86 38 47 70 7 7 255 251 -4
6 pm 91 29 47 84 3 7 261 251 -10
7 pm 86 19 47 88 2 7 249 251 2
8 pm 82 10 47 88 1 7 235 251 16
9 pm 59 3 47 88 0 7 204 251 47
10 pm 9 0 47 84 0 7 147 251 104
11 pm 0 0 47 44 0 7 98 251 153
12 am 0 0 47 13 0 7 67 251 184
Source: Shared Parking (Urban Land Institute Shared Parking, 3rd Edition, 2020).

Note 1: A total of 251 parking spaces are proposed to be provided for the marina, 69 of which are triple stacked valet parking.

Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
1221
Tahoe Keys Marina Transportation Analysis Page 17
Table 6: Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment - Hourly Shared Parking Demand - With Mitigations Hour of Day
Marina/
Boat Barn
Non-Accessory
Charter Visitors
Marina and
Charter Employees
Fine Dining
Restaurant Office
Employee
Housing
Total Peak
Demand
Individual Use Demand 91 77 47 88 13 7 323
Hourly Variation in Parking Demand (Percent of Peak Demand) 6 am 1% 4% 50% 0% 3% 89%
7 am 5% 13% 50% 3% 14% 91%
8 am 10% 26% 50% 7% 48% 92%
9 am 25% 42% 50% 11% 88% 92%
10 am 50% 51% 50% 26% 100% 92%
11 am 65% 57% 50% 47% 96% 92%
12 pm 85% 62% 50% 77% 79% 92%
1 pm 95% 64% 50% 77% 82% 92%
2 pm 100% 66% 75% 69% 95% 92%
3 pm 95% 64% 100% 45% 91% 92%
4 pm 90% 57% 75% 54% 79% 92%
5 pm 95% 49% 50% 79% 56% 94%
6 pm 100% 38% 50% 96% 23% 96%
7 pm 95% 25% 50% 100% 14% 100%
8 pm 90% 13% 50% 100% 5% 100%
9 pm 65% 4% 50% 100% 3% 100%
10 pm 10% 0% 50% 96% 1% 100%
11 pm 0% 0% 50% 50% 0% 98%
12 am 0% 0% 50% 15% 0% 95%
Parking Demand
Total Hourly
Demand
Proposed
Parking Spaces1
Parking Deficit/
Surplus
6 am 1 3 24 0 0 6 34 251 217
7 am 5 10 24 3 2 6 50 251 201
8 am 9 20 24 6 6 6 71 251 180
9 am 23 32 24 10 11 6 106 251 145
10 am 46 39 24 23 13 6 151 251 100
11 am 59 44 24 41 12 6 186 251 65
12 pm 77 48 24 68 10 6 233 251 18
1 pm 86 49 24 68 11 6 244 251 7
2 pm 91 51 35 61 12 6 256 251 -5
3 pm 86 49 47 40 12 6 240 251 11
4 pm 82 44 35 48 10 6 225 251 26
5 pm 86 38 24 70 7 7 232 251 19
6 pm 91 29 24 84 3 7 238 251 13
7 pm 86 19 24 88 2 7 226 251 25
8 pm 82 10 24 88 1 7 212 251 39
9 pm 59 3 24 88 0 7 181 251 70
10 pm 9 0 24 84 0 7 124 251 127
11 pm 0 0 24 44 0 7 75 251 176
12 am 0 0 24 13 0 7 44 251 207
Source: Shared Parking (Urban Land Institute Shared Parking, 3rd Edition, 2020).

Note 1: A total of 251 parking spaces are proposed to be provided for the marina, 69 of which are triple stacked valet parking.

Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc.
1222
Tahoe Keys Marina Transportation Analysis Page 18
1223

ALL PUBLIC COMMENTS RECEIVED

DURING PUBLIC CIRCULATION PERIOD
1224
From: Jesus Diaz
To: John Hitchcock
Cc: Amy Diaz
Subject: My wife and I fully support the Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project Date: Friday, April 17, 2026 2:37:00 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mr. Hitchcock:

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.

Best regards,
Jesus
Jesus Diaz
(305) 458-2900
[email protected]
1225
From: Roll, Stuart@Tahoe
To: John Hitchcock
Cc: Prior, Kevin@Tahoe; Greenberg, Jen@Tahoe
Subject: Conservancy Comment Letter for Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project Date: Monday, May 4, 2026 3:49:20 PM
Attachments: Tahoe_Keys_Marina_Redevelopment_CEQA_Conservancy_Comments_5_4_2026docx.pdf CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear John,
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.

Cheers,
Stuart Roll | Watershed Program Supervisor
California Tahoe Conservancy
1061 3rd St, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
(530)-543-6031 office | 530-318-3256 mobile
tahoe.ca.gov
Show your love for Tahoe:
tahoeplates.com
1226

B O A R D M E M B E R S

NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY
Wade Crowfoot, Secretary
Julie Alvis, Designee

DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
Joe Stephenshaw, Director
Michele Perrault, Designee

SENATE PUBLIC MEMBER
Jay Hansen

ASSEMBLY PUBLIC MEMBER
Chris Tapio

CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
Keith Roberts

EL DORADO COUNTY
Brooke Laine

PLACER COUNTY
Cindy Gustafson
U.S. FOREST SERVICE
(EX-OFFICIO)
Rosalie Herrera

JASON VASQUES
Executive Director

JANE FREEMAN
Deputy Director
1061 Third Street
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
PHONE 530-542-5580
FAX 530-542-5567
EMAIL [email protected]
tahoe.ca.gov
May 4, 2026
John Hitchcock
Planning Manager
City of South Lake Tahoe
1052 Tata Lane
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Re: California Tahoe Conservancy Comment on the Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Public Draft CEQA Mitigated Negative Declaration
Dear John,
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.

Sincerely,
Stuart Roll
Conservancy Acting Natural Resources Director
Cc: Kevin Prior, Conservancy Lands Division Director
Jen Greenberg, Conservancy Acting Watershed Program Supervisor 1227
From: Al Miller
To: PublicComment; John Hitchcock; Cody Bass; Heather Horgan; Keith Roberts; David Jinkens; Scott Robbins; [email protected]; [email protected]
Cc: Lahontan; Letton, Ben@Waterboards; Julie Regan; Graham St. Michel Subject: Comments on the CEQA IS/MND for Tahoe Keys Marina Remodel Project Date: Saturday, May 30, 2026 5:05:08 PM
Attachments: Tahoe Keys Marina Remodel - Comments on a Negative Declaration incl Attachments, 6-11-26 City PC Meeting.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Mr. Hitchcock,
I extend my thanks to you and the City for revising the public comment period for the public CEQA review to end at 5pm June 1, 2026. Please see my written comments attached. I've merged the three files (two attachments) into a single pdf for convenience. Please inform me if there will be any change to the June 11, 2026 Planning Commision meeting when the public hearing in this matter is planned. Thank you for considering my comments on this Project.

Regards, Alan Miller, Professional Engineer
1228
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina IS/MND Alan Miller, PE 5/30/26 City Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 1 of 45 Public interest Comments on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project, April 2026, City of South Lake Tahoe Via email to [email protected] and others
May 30, 2026
Planning Commissioners, City Council Members, Agency staff and Interested Persons, Thank you for the opportunity to comment. Please include the following comments and attachments on the above cited Project for your public record and your consideration of the Project. I have combined all comments into one file for convenience.

Alan Miller, Professional Engineer
Table of Contents
Executive Summary . . . 3
Planning Framework
Commenter Credentials
Nature of the Comments . . . 5
Introductory Remarks on the Project and Documentation . . . 6 Storm Water Management . . . 8
Construction Activity
Marina General Permit . . . 9
Storm Water Mitigation Lacks Details
Managing Storm Water as Snow . . . 10
Fire Water Storage and Management . . . 11
CEQA Exemptions
Antidegradation Requirements and Wastes from Continuance and Expansion of Uses . . . 14 1229
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina IS/MND Alan Miller, PE 5/30/26 City Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 2 of 45 Antidegradation Policy For Lake Tahoe And Cumulative Loading . . . 16 A Brief History related to Water Quality at Lake Tahoe . . . 17 Environmental Impact Report Requirements . . . 18
Predictions; Overview of Planning/Approval Processes . . . 20 Related Planning Efforts . . . 21
Comments on the Project Description . . . 23
Parking Effects . . . 26
Boating . . . 28
Dredging . . . 29
Contamination Issues – Alum and Microplastics . . . 30
History of Alum Use
West Channel Dredging . . . 32
TKM, TKBHA and Microplastics . . . 33
Effects on Consumable Fish . . . 36
Indirect Effects . . . 38
Comments on the Initial Environmental Study . . . 39
Aesthetics . . . 40
Aquatic Invasive Species . . . 43
Risk of Upset . . . 44
Conclusion
Attachments . . . 45
1230
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina IS/MND Alan Miller, PE 5/30/26 City Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 3 of 45 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.

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 1231
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina IS/MND Alan Miller, PE 5/30/26 City Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 4 of 45 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 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.
1232
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina IS/MND Alan Miller, PE 5/30/26 City Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 5 of 45 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 nit-picking. 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 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 post-retirement 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 1233
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina IS/MND Alan Miller, PE 5/30/26 City Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 6 of 45 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-ofplace 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.

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 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 1234
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina IS/MND Alan Miller, PE 5/30/26 City Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 7 of 45 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.

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. 1235
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina IS/MND Alan Miller, PE 5/30/26 City Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 8 of 45 Fresh Catch and Fuel Dock; flaking paint on bldg, vessel hull. Emissions to soil and waters.

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.

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 zerodischarge permit with regard drainage leaving the construction site for the first inch of rain.

How will that requirement be met during demolition and construction? 1236
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina IS/MND Alan Miller, PE 5/30/26 City Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 9 of 45 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.

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. 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 1237
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina IS/MND Alan Miller, PE 5/30/26 City Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 10 of 45 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.

Managing Storm Water as Snow
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 year-round 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?
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 1238
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina IS/MND Alan Miller, PE 5/30/26 City Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 11 of 45 prevent significant effects. See additional comments related to parking/public access and dredging in sections that follow.

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.

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 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 1239
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina IS/MND Alan Miller, PE 5/30/26 City Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 12 of 45 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.

Scuffed Pier Floats Emit Microplastics by Abrasion
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 1240
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina IS/MND Alan Miller, PE 5/30/26 City Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 13 of 45 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. 1241
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina IS/MND Alan Miller, PE 5/30/26 City Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 14 of 45 East Channel - New Bulkhead (Example) Extending to Lake Tahoe 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. 1242
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina IS/MND Alan Miller, PE 5/30/26 City Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 15 of 45 TKPOA, TKBHA, TKM, Straightened Upper Truckee River, UTR Marsh 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.
1243
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina IS/MND Alan Miller, PE 5/30/26 City Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 16 of 45 Antidegradation Policy For Lake Tahoe And Cumulative Loading 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. 1244
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina IS/MND Alan Miller, PE 5/30/26 City Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 17 of 45 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 1245
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina IS/MND Alan Miller, PE 5/30/26 City Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 18 of 45 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 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.

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. 1246
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina IS/MND Alan Miller, PE 5/30/26 City Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 19 of 45 The procedures to overlook or pay lip-service to policies on “antidegradation” and cumulative effects are long-standing 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 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 1247
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina IS/MND Alan Miller, PE 5/30/26 City Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 20 of 45 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.

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 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 1248
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina IS/MND Alan Miller, PE 5/30/26 City Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 21 of 45 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.

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) 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 1249
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina IS/MND Alan Miller, PE 5/30/26 City Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 22 of 45 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 1250
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina IS/MND Alan Miller, PE 5/30/26 City Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 23 of 45 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.

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 lesssensitive 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 1251
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina IS/MND Alan Miller, PE 5/30/26 City Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 24 of 45 decisionmakers of the full extent of all reasonably foreseeable environmental impacts before project approval.

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-of1252 Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina IS/MND Alan Miller, PE 5/30/26 City Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 25 of 45 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.

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 “growthinducing 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). 1253
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina IS/MND Alan Miller, PE 5/30/26 City Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 26 of 45 Parking Effects
User-Created Path/Parking along Venice Drive on the Project Site, potential proper sidewalk Location; dump truck.

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.
1254
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina IS/MND Alan Miller, PE 5/30/26 City Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 27 of 45 Parking on eroded compacted soil adjacent Upper Truckee River; street lacks storm water treatment and walkway, in terrible condition, cracks 4 inches wide and more, shared with pedestrians, note stroller.

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.)
1255
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina IS/MND Alan Miller, PE 5/30/26 City Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 28 of 45 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, 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.
1256
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina IS/MND Alan Miller, PE 5/30/26 City Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 29 of 45 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?
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.
1257
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina IS/MND Alan Miller, PE 5/30/26 City Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 30 of 45 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 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 1258
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina IS/MND Alan Miller, PE 5/30/26 City Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 31 of 45 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 1259
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina IS/MND Alan Miller, PE 5/30/26 City Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 32 of 45 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 turbidity-curtain enclosure was raised above acutely toxic levels of alum for a period exceeding three days, thus ensuring 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. 1260
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina IS/MND Alan Miller, PE 5/30/26 City Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 33 of 45 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.

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 of the 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 1261
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina IS/MND Alan Miller, PE 5/30/26 City Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 34 of 45 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. 1262
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina IS/MND Alan Miller, PE 5/30/26 City Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 35 of 45 Tahoe Keys Lagoon, TKBHA Piers in Lower portion and left side, TKM Piers to right side 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 1263
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina IS/MND Alan Miller, PE 5/30/26 City Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 36 of 45 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.

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.
1264
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina IS/MND Alan Miller, PE 5/30/26 City Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 37 of 45 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 1265
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina IS/MND Alan Miller, PE 5/30/26 City Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 38 of 45 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.

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 1266
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina IS/MND Alan Miller, PE 5/30/26 City Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 39 of 45 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.

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. 1267
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina IS/MND Alan Miller, PE 5/30/26 City Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 40 of 45 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, longdistance 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). . . 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. 1268
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina IS/MND Alan Miller, PE 5/30/26 City Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 41 of 45 Cell Tower against Mountain Landscape, Cove East to left. 42-foot buildings will block mountain views
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. 1269
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina IS/MND Alan Miller, PE 5/30/26 City Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 42 of 45 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 1270
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina IS/MND Alan Miller, PE 5/30/26 City Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 43 of 45 recognize the towers as toxic biohazards with no valid health and safety data for them but, until then, the FCC and telecoms rule and trespass. Lessees collect fees from the telecoms for the towers and bear potential liabilities for the uninsurable telecom industry.) Two-story Fresh Catch from marina side, with Cell Tower – estimated height 50 feet, behind; provides scale for 42-foot buildings; buildings twice as high will block mountain views 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 1271
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina IS/MND Alan Miller, PE 5/30/26 City Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 44 of 45 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? 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 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.

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. 1272
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina IS/MND Alan Miller, PE 5/30/26 City Planning Commission meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 45 of 45 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!
Attachments: Preliminary Photo Report on Deteriorating Plastic Structures at Lake Tahoe; by Alan Miller, PE May 29, 2023
An Independent Report on Lake Tahoe Water Quality Based on a Review of Available Public Information: Part 1: A Conceptual Model for Lake Tahoe with a Focus On Microplastics and the Total Maximum Daily Load Regulation for Lake Tahoe; Part 2: Focusing on Review of the Tahoe Environmental Research Center’s 2025 State of the Lake Report and Recommended Actions to Aid the Restoration of Lake Tahoe; by Alan Miller, Civil and Environmental Engineer, August 26, 2025
1273
Preliminary Photo Report – Marinas at Lake Tahoe 3/29/23 Page | 1 Preliminary Photo Report on Deteriorating Plastic Structures at Lake Tahoe By Alan Miller, PE May 29, 2023
Deteriorating PVC decking, with polystyrene (PS) “popcorn” in the water from disintegrating ballasts. Tahoe Keys Marina. (8063)
Plastic decking deteriorated from weathering and flaking off as microplastics over waters.

Typical of the hundred of plastics docks at Tahoe Keys Marina. (7982) 1274
Preliminary Photo Report – Marinas at Lake Tahoe 3/29/23 Page | 2 Introductory Remarks
This report is a preliminary examination of plastic shorezone structures at Lake Tahoe, all in California, for documenting conditions at certain marinas and other selected water locations accessible to the public. The sheer quantity of plastic is staggering, and difficult to show in pictures without a report of extraordinary length. These photos therefore serve as representative examples of conditions notably more extensive. The Tahoe City Marina (TCM) and Tahoe Keys Marina (TKM) are large, esp. the latter, I soon tired of photographing individual (labeled) piers in the hundreds at TKM, which were generally in similar deteriorated conditions as shown above.

This report provides a short photo tour and highlights areas where plastic wastes are being discharged to the water environment in violation of California water quality laws and prohibitions. A variety of materials and plastics will be shown, with a focus on the fixed structures. That said, it has to be noted that there are numerous other sources of plastic associated with mobile sources: boats, their vinyl interiors, floats, covers and tarps, curtains, manufactured wood products (plywood made with polymer glues), and numerous other things which are not a focus of this report, but are sources in and near waters that must be considered. Unlike many other sources of microplastics, ALL of these microplastic pollution sources may be subject to regulatory control and have historically not been. I suspect that the many plastic decking products begin to deteriorate shortly after installation, at invisible rates, until the unraveling becomes readily visible. Thus, no need for microscopes and expensive water testing to know there’s a problem, only to characterize and quantify the extent.

I worked my entire career with the marinas at Lake Tahoe, and oversaw the renewal of the Lake Tahoe Marina General Permit adopted by the Lahontan Water Board in 2016, specific for Lake Tahoe, which is still in effect. Shoreline structures at Lake Tahoe and boating (with the exception of sewage management, 2-stroke engine ban and aquatic invasive species) are viewed and managed much like in any other water body nationwide, but Lake Tahoe is not like other water bodies. It is both ultra-pure and ultra-large, due to its tremendous depths. This provides an average hydraulic residence time reportedly on the order of 600 years, due to it single outflow. Thus contaminants such as plastic will accumulate over time, much as they do in the various gyres of the oceans, contaminate the water and occlude clarity. I assert that Lake Tahoe is under severe unrecognized threat of plastic contamination, which has barely begun to be studied by water sampling, with the public and private plastic docks lake-wide a ticking plastic time bomb. Marinas are concentrated sources, but homeowner docks are numerous and many consist in whole or part of plastics. They are not a focus of this report. Concentrated or dispersed, the plastics are generally subject to removal from the water column by settling only 1275
Preliminary Photo Report – Marinas at Lake Tahoe 3/29/23 Page | 3 if the plastic particles are heavier than water, where they will contaminate sediments, particularly in the near-shore environments.

If boating is to continue at Lake Tahoe to serve public recreation, the likely far-worse sources of plastics which are subject to control and abatement/removal over time are the fixed plastic shoreline structures subject to regulations. That is therefore the starting point for abating the prohibited discharges of plastic litter and microplastics, especially with available viable alternatives: rock, wood, metal, concrete. Lake Tahoe has already absorbed a lot of sin. Any delay in regulatory action will only make the problems worsen.

Photos are organized by Marina in the main, with captions and annotations beneath the photo. (Numbers are for my reference.) Information is presented in the following order:

1. Tahoe Keys Marina

2. Tahoe Keys Homeowner Lagoons

3. Ski Run Marina

4. Lakeside Marina

5. Tahoe City Marina

6. Obexer’s Marina
1276
Preliminary Photo Report – Marinas at Lake Tahoe 3/29/23 Page | 4 Tahoe Keys Marina (TKM); April 29, 2023
Welcome to the Tahoe Keys Marina! This is the pier adjacent the boat ramp, a portion of TKM.

Plywood decking contains epoxies and glues and extends the entire length of this long pier.

Plastic in the walkway, versus side extensions, is subject to heavy foot traffic, dragging things, rolling things, etc., and likely deteriorated first. When was plywood installed? Whether the plywood is applied over deteriorating plastic in the walkway is a question subject to further inspection. Plywood is subject to weathering and deterioration. Lovely grey though. (7959) 1277
Preliminary Photo Report – Marinas at Lake Tahoe 3/29/23 Page | 5 Spalling and flaking plastic decking shows plastics are friable with weathering and become microplastics. To state the obvious, there is nowhere for the plastics to go but into the water.

Degradation like this appears to be widespread but inconsistent and results in the “checkerboard” patterns, shown in the following side-deck photos, from different deterioration rates; all are eroding, and there are hundreds.
(7958) (7978)
1278
Preliminary Photo Report – Marinas at Lake Tahoe 3/29/23 Page | 6 Four of six boat ramps missing docks, broken and submerged by winter snow and ice, postthaw. Condo side, facing southerly. (7985) Plastic carpet over plywood. Such plastic turf replacements are not uncommon at the marinas I visited. Green color, attractive to waterfowl. (7991)
1279
Preliminary Photo Report – Marinas at Lake Tahoe 3/29/23 Page | 7 Deteriorating weathered plywood. (7993) Held together with plastic tape. (7995) Some older pier decks are concrete, which hold up better, or wood. Here is a floating dock extension (above center pier, whitish) that is partly covered by plastic sheathing. (8011) 1280
Preliminary Photo Report – Marinas at Lake Tahoe 3/29/23 Page | 8 Fuel dock area, plywood and plastic panels. Note cracking, abrasions. (8020) (8022) (8023) 1281
Preliminary Photo Report – Marinas at Lake Tahoe 3/29/23 Page | 9 One of many “popcorn” pier deck floats, plastic covers missing; note floating particulates dispersing in water in first photo. Close-up of deteriorating plastics, most likely polystyrene.

What lurks below the waterline? How much of the original plastic mass is missing? (8049) (8050)
1282
Preliminary Photo Report – Marinas at Lake Tahoe 3/29/23 Page | 10 Close up of polystrene pollutants. (8056)
Deteriorating “checkerboard” decks, south end with boat hoist shown, top middle. Popcorn in water. (8062)
1283
Preliminary Photo Report – Marinas at Lake Tahoe 3/29/23 Page | 11 Floating microplastics; algae bloom, plastics, boat hoist area, lower photo. (8060) (8064) 1284
Preliminary Photo Report – Marinas at Lake Tahoe 3/29/23 Page | 12 Turbidity curtain, plastic, stored adjacent to waters. Presumably ready for deployment, but covered in a coating of fine white microplastic dust from weathering and/or UV light exposure. (8071)
1285
Preliminary Photo Report – Marinas at Lake Tahoe 3/29/23 Page | 13 Telecommunications macrotower, near boat hoist, between the TKM and Upper Truckee River/Marsh restoration site; photo facing east. Could there be any connection with tower electromagnetic radiation emissions and the poor water quality conditions observed in this location? Microwaves penetrate water, are used for cooking by exciting water molecules. (8066)
1286
Preliminary Photo Report – Marinas at Lake Tahoe 3/29/23 Page | 14 The tower shown previously is just one of 722 towers and 286 antennas in a three-mile radius, as shown circled, including the (blue) Upper Truckee River beside the Airport, all of the “nearshore” areas along Highway 50, and over and near waters, including the Tahoe Keys and TKM, where degraded shorezone conditions have been the subject of much public and scientific interest in recent years. Radiation exposure is cumulative, every antenna in a specified range adding to the energies and durations. Microwaves are known to interact strongly with the water molecule, depending on the frequency and energy levels. It is known to destroy the tetrahedral microstructure of water at certain frequencies. The effects of electromagnetic energies have long been known to the military, and their telecom allies, but they are not adding to the scientific inquiries.

It is unknown what effects the microwaves may be having on the ultra-pure waters of Lake Tahoe or it largest tributary. Besides the direct effects of microwaves on waters, beyond but including heating, I speculate that there could be adverse effects on organisms in the aquatic environment, perhaps subtle, effects that degrade the environment generally and together with other factors shift localized ecologies and water quality conditions to less desirable states, i.e., fostering AIS, algae growth, poor clarity, etc.
1287
Preliminary Photo Report – Marinas at Lake Tahoe 3/29/23 Page | 15 Tahoe Keyss Homeowner Lagoons
Tahoe Keys Lagoon, west of Lido, 8/5/22, after dual treatments for AIS. Note intact docks and piers, algal bloom, poor water quality, waters closed to boating (“the lost season” for many). (5003)
1288
Preliminary Photo Report – Marinas at Lake Tahoe 3/29/23 Page | 16 Algae in full bloom, 8/22/22, post-treatments, a blue variety never before seen at Lake Tahoe, to my knowledge. May it never be seen again. (5154) [Side note: coincidentally, this was the day I filed my Appeal on the Ski Run Tower.]
1289
Preliminary Photo Report – Marinas at Lake Tahoe 3/29/23 Page | 17 Close-up of a floating blue-grey patch, presumably algae. 8/22/22. Horrific stench. These patches would dry in the sun and accumulate on the shoreline, where they persisted until Fall. I have not seen such photos presented by the TRPA to the public in connection with the treatment projects. (5153)
1290
Preliminary Photo Report – Marinas at Lake Tahoe 3/29/23 Page | 18 Same area as prior photos, west of Lido, 8/29/22; windblown algae on surface of bloom, foaming, slightly tinged with blue. Note intact docks.

Same area following year, 4/20/23, water rising fast. Note poor turbidity. (7642) 1291
Preliminary Photo Report – Marinas at Lake Tahoe 3/29/23 Page | 19 Note the number of submerged, damaged docks, especially on the far bank. 8/20/23 (7643) Docks submerged by heavy winter snows, Spring 2023. (7487) 1292
Preliminary Photo Report – Marinas at Lake Tahoe 3/29/23 Page | 20 Submerged plastic dock, typical of the many that will require repairs following the winter of 2022-2023. (7513)
Plastic docks buried and broken by winter snow and ice, Spring 2023. (7519) 1293
Preliminary Photo Report – Marinas at Lake Tahoe 3/29/23 Page | 21 Ski Run Marina; 5/18/22 and 4/27/23
Ski Run Marina, with its rental boat fleet, looking south, with plastic decking laid on sand near beach, abraded by sandy shoes, walkers, equipment. (4229) Ski Run Marina, looking north. Lots of plastics, generally in reasonably good condition, though still subject to abrasion by sand, as shown in cracks, and weathering. Note turbidity curtain surrounding (yellow). (4234)
1294
Preliminary Photo Report – Marinas at Lake Tahoe 3/29/23 Page | 22 Discarded plastic shard from turbidity curtain in use, plastic deteriorating. (4241) Close up of typical plastic decking showing weathering, surface wear and scratches from sand. (4245)
1295
Preliminary Photo Report – Marinas at Lake Tahoe 3/29/23 Page | 23 Plastic floats baking in the sun. (4232)
Abrasion of plastics at metal ramp interfaces is typical. (4231) 1296
Preliminary Photo Report – Marinas at Lake Tahoe 3/29/23 Page | 24 Spring 2023, plastic popcorn in the water. Vinyl boat interiors, plastic fabrics, decking. (7896) 1297
Preliminary Photo Report – Marinas at Lake Tahoe 3/29/23 Page | 25 Lakeside Marina; 8/8/22
Small marina. Wrap-around plastic decking, generally in good condition, adjacent boat ramp. (50 31)
(5035)
1298
Preliminary Photo Report – Marinas at Lake Tahoe 3/29/23 Page | 26 Some minor weathering and surface deterioration of decking on close inspection. (5033) 1299
Preliminary Photo Report – Marinas at Lake Tahoe 3/29/23 Page | 27 Lakeside Marina office. Realistic as it appears, my recall is this “lawn” is plastic astroturf. Notice “strips” parallel to shadow at right. This was in August following a period of dry years. (5037) 1300
Preliminary Photo Report – Marinas at Lake Tahoe 3/29/23 Page | 28 Tahoe City Marina; 9/15/22
GATED, Access Restricted. The TCM contains a new part, and an old part, which was retained with marina expansion under TRPA’s Master Planning Process for marinas a decade ago or so. (5462)
No shortage of plastics at TCM. The following photos are in the newer part, which tends to be in better condition. (5458)
1301
Preliminary Photo Report – Marinas at Lake Tahoe 3/29/23 Page | 29 Plastic sheathing material (5463)
Checkerboards. (5467)
Ramp with rug/cover. (5469)
1302
Preliminary Photo Report – Marinas at Lake Tahoe 3/29/23 Page | 30 Quite a lot of concentrated plastic to consider, many sources, cumulatively. (5473) Easterly side, this would be the older part if memory serves. (5483) 1303
Preliminary Photo Report – Marinas at Lake Tahoe 3/29/23 Page | 31 Example of decking in the older sections, ramp at top of photo. (5464) Weathered, scuffed, scratched, stained decking. (5485)
1304
Preliminary Photo Report – Marinas at Lake Tahoe 3/29/23 Page | 32 Abrasion at ramp connections, weathered plywood. (5484) Plastic astroturf along entire length of sheet piles. (5476) 1305
Preliminary Photo Report – Marinas at Lake Tahoe 3/29/23 Page | 33 Obexer’s Marina; 9/15/22
Looking northerly, fuel dock on far end. (5449)
Looking easterly, fuel dock on far end. Note severely degraded plastic decking at entryway. All of the observed decking is in a state of decay at this marina, while still capable of serving functionally. Observations at Obexer’s marina include a high number of degraded deck boards, plastic with breakage, cuts, chips, abrasion and general deterioration, as follows. (5454) 1306
Preliminary Photo Report – Marinas at Lake Tahoe 3/29/23 Page | 34 Checkerboard decks, ramp abrasion.(5410)
Deteriorated decking. (5416)
Some replacements were obviously needed. The material in the foreground is weathered, friable and subject to further weathering and dispersal. How bad did it get prior to replacement? (5438)
1307
Preliminary Photo Report – Marinas at Lake Tahoe 3/29/23 Page | 35 Severely weathered plastic deck board with other less-weathered plastic deck boards.(5420) End-view of plastic deck boards showing cracking. (5430) 1308
Preliminary Photo Report – Marinas at Lake Tahoe 3/29/23 Page | 36 Summary Comments
There is much more information to present on a plastic surface which has barely been scratched, but this gets at the concerns. This is but a small sampling of existing marinas, public piers and launches, private docks, and shorezone structures at Lake Tahoe, many of which are comprised of plastics in an accelerating state of decay. This report is enough to give a flavor and sense of what is happening at our Lake with regard to microplastics and where it will lead unchecked. This is despite any currently applicable Permit “conditions” or requirements.

Time is of the essence for regulators to intervene to disrupt the ongoing waste discharges, which are prohibited by law, and detrimental to beneficial uses of water, going on under their watch. The affair with unbridled plastics in the aquatic environment at Lake Tahoe must end. To do otherwise courts disastrous water quality consequences lakewide. As the circumstances show, and with many repairs and replacements and new structures needed following the last winter, bringing in more plastics and plastic pollution should be prevented in my view, if at all possible, and fast. Thus, this “preliminary” report to help stimulate action.

Now that research has discovered microplastics in Lake Tahoe, in light of this report we may plausibly surmise that they are not all from airborne dust and landscape runoff, bringing monopine and other unchecked wastes, but are related to the structures emplaced in the shorezone, as has been allowed without due examination of the potential adverse environmental effects.

This in-lake source of plastic pollution and its potential effects on Lake Tahoe water clarity is outside the realm of the Total Maximum Daily Load regulation developed for Lake Tahoe and, based on the record, was overlooked and given no consideration with regard to water clarity and research models.
1309
August 27, 2025 Testimony to TRPA Governing Board and TERC Director Stephanie Hampton Concerning the 2024 and 2025 State of the Lake Reports
Alan Miller, Civil and Environmental Engineer
Last week when your agenda came out about the presentation planned for the State of the Lake report with last year’s data, I dove in to follow up some comments I sent you last month on the Johannesson pier related to water quality, microplastics and the Total Maximum Daily Load regulations here in the basin. You have my written comments in the form of an updated independent water quality report with my engineering perspectives on the data from the last several years of reports and TMDL program. I suggest you read it.

It shows Lake Tahoe is in a crisis and what it points to is a need for change. Change the approaches to regional management, change the regulations to accord with the laws, both at TRPA and the Lahontan Water Board, and implement the existing laws in place to protect the environment. You need to stop ignoring the waste discharge prohibitions in your own regional plan and cease approving of plastic shorezone structures that have contaminated the lake with microplastics. You need to clean up the toxic mess you have caused and created. You need to do a much better job of evaluating environmental impacts and stop being the Tahoe Regional Piecemealing Agency.

My analysis concludes that the TMDL for Lake Tahoe with your partners in CA and NV has not halted and will not halt the continued decline of clarity and overall lake health. If I am correct, and I challenge anyone to refute my findings based on scientific evidence, it means that 1310
restoration promises under it are not possible, if they ever were. While some valuable restoration work has been accomplished I think in other ways it was perceived as a license for business as usual as long as the municipalities meet their load reduction targets, and that isn’t working.

The State of the Lake Reports are the annual “report cards” for the agency actions basin-wide and it’s another “F” this last year. They are the most important monitoring reports because that is all TRPA has to track the effects of its activities on the most-important threshold, water quality. The inactions to change and cumulative project effects TRPA has ignored for so long are now evident with the ongoing declines in water quality, a situation that will not reverse with status-quo management.

My report points out that TERC, the Lahontan Water Board, and to some extent TRPA, is under new executive management. Time will tell if any these people are leaders with followers. They are limited by those they serve, the boards, and that’s what’s led to this moment. Lake Tahoe is at a tipping point, so they need empowerment and help to make wise changes. Unless some large initiatives are started now, it looks like its 60 feet of clarity or less from here on out, and that Lake Tahoe will become a toxic pit filled with microplastics while the cash cow is milked to death. It’s like asking TRPA to grow new eyes, a brain, a heart and hands to change course.

That’s what’s needed. You have my recommendations.
1311
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 1; Alan Miller, PE Page 1 of 38 An Independent Report on Lake Tahoe Water Quality
Based on a Review of Available Public Information
Part 1: A Conceptual Model for Lake Tahoe
with a Focus On Microplastics and the
Total Maximum Daily Load Regulation for Lake Tahoe
By
Alan Miller, Civil and Environmental Engineer
South Lake Tahoe California
August 26, 2025
(Note to the reader: the information in Part 1 of this Report was first provided in Public Interest Comments to the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Governing Board, meeting of July 23, 2025, Agenda item X.A. Remand of Appeal Stock/Johannessen Single-Parcel Pier Permit, and has been reformatted here without substantial revision other than removal of project-specific comments and findings.) 1312
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 1; Alan Miller, PE Page 2 of 38

TABLE OF CONTENTS
GENERAL COMMENTS WITH REGARD TO WATER QUALITY . . . 4

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
CALIFORNIA’S WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN FOR LAKE TAHOE

PROHIBITIONS ON WASTE DISCHARGES
BENEFICIAL USES OF WATER . . . 5
Potential Significant Impacts to Beneficial Uses . . . 6 Global Microplastics
Controlling Impacts of Microplastics – Prevention . . . 7

WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES
ANALYSIS OF TAHOE ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER REPORTS . . . 8

INTRODUCTORY GENERAL COMMENTS
A BATHTUB MODEL FOR LAKE TAHOE . . .

The Rim . . . 9
The Showers
Aerial Loading of Carbon and Particulates . . . 12
What Goes In, Stays In; Retention Time
Microplastics in the Bathtub . . . 13
The Bathtub Ring . . . 15
SAVING LAKE TAHOE – HOW IT BEGAN; DR. GOLDMAN, PhD
The Contentious TRPA Shoreline Plan and Boating
The Total Maximum Daily Load Regulation . . . 16
1313
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 1; Alan Miller, PE Page 3 of 38 COMMENTS ON THE 2024 STATE OF THE LAKE REPORT . . . 17
Observations on Clarity and Upwelling in 2023
Dilution Masks Pollution . . . 18
Consistent Degradation Reflects Overall Lake Clarity and Health . . . 19

UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER MARSH RESTORATION
THE TMDL HAS NOT ALTERED CONSISTENT DEGRADATION . . . 20 UPDATES FROM THE 2024 LAKE TAHOE CLARITY REPORT . . . 21 Complete Mixing Effects?
Nutrients from Deep Mixing . . . 22
Primary Productivity . . . 23
Averages; Effects and Limitations . . . 24
MICROPLASTICS . . . 25

POLYETHYLENE AND POLYPROPYLENE
Marinas and Piers are the Largest Sources of Plastics in the Shorezone . . . 26 Polyester Sources in the Shorezone
Other Plastics in the Shorezone
Quantities of Microplastics in Lake Tahoe are Likely Much Greater than Testing Shows . . . 28 Microplastics and Clarity . . . 29
Composite Plastic Materials; Outdoor Decking
Changes in Plastic Composites Will Not Solve the Microplastics Problem at Lake Tahoe . . . 30 Marketed Composite Plastic Products Available Now – Screenshots . . . 31 CONCLUDING REMARKS – WITNESSING A TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS . . . 36

REFERENCES
Keep Tahoe Pure; Microplastics Endure
Use Wood, Metal and Stone in the Shorezone
1314
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 1; Alan Miller, PE Page 4 of 38

GENERAL COMMENTS WITH REGARD TO WATER QUALITY

WATER QUALITY STANDARDS
The USEPA implements water quality “standards” pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act, and has formally (and legally) delegated most program implementation to the states, with certain exceptions. The CA Water Boards implement the CWA under the California Water Code which preceded the CWA. TRPA has a role in federal CWA water quality planning. I am not familiar with NV water quality laws, which likely do not exceed CA’s.

CA doesn’t have water quality “standards” per se for Lake Tahoe as in the CWA; you won’t find that term in the CA regulations. CA has designated “beneficial uses” for the surface and ground “waters of the state” and narrative and/or numeric “water quality objectives” that support those beneficial uses, and may also prohibit disposal of wastes of certain types or in certain areas, i.e., sewage wastes are prohibited in the Tahoe basin. It also has a “non-degradation” objective for high-quality waters such as Lake Tahoe that are generally expected to support all beneficial uses, though it has not been very skillfully or effectively employed, as in the case of Lake Tahoe which has been allowed to degrade for decades, impermissibly in my view, to this day.

CALIFORNIA’S WATER QUALITY CONTROL PLAN FOR LAKE TAHOE
Lahontan Water Board has its Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region, or “Basin Plan” which contains regulations implemented in permits called “waste discharge requirements,” which are Board orders, and other regulatory actions. The principal charge on the Lahontan Water Quality Board is to control the discharge of “wastes,” broadly defined, that may adversely affect water quality to the detriment of beneficial uses using the narrative and numeric water quality objectives and prohibitions when allowing waste discharges. See the Lahontan Basin Plan at
https://waterboards.ca.gov/lahontan/water_issues/programs/basin_plan/ for details.

PROHIBITIONS ON WASTE DISCHARGES
Probably the first things to understand are general prohibitions (Basin Plan, p 4.1-1). Violation of these prohibitions may result in fines or other sanctions from the Water Board, or it may simply look away and take no action in its discretion. Sometimes prohibition is the best means of control. Applicable Basin Plan prohibitions include, and are not limited to, the following:

Regionwide Prohibitions

1. The discharge of waste that causes violation of any narrative or numeric water quality objective contained in this Plan is prohibited.
1315
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 1; Alan Miller, PE Page 5 of 38

2. Where any numeric or narrative water quality objective contained in this Plan is already being violated, the discharge of waste that causes further degradation or pollution is prohibited.

3. The discharge of waste that could affect the quality of waters of the state that is not authorized by the State or Regional Board through waste discharge requirements, waiver of waste discharge requirements, NPDES permit, cease and desist order, certification of water quality compliance pursuant to Clean Water Act section 401, or other appropriate regulatory mechanism is prohibited.

If a waste-generating activity is not “exempt” it’s supposed to be regulated in some way.

Prohibitions specific to Lake Tahoe are in Chapter 5, for example:

1. The discharge attributable to human activities of any waste or deleterious material to surface waters of the Lake Tahoe HU is prohibited. An exemption to this prohibition may be granted whenever the Regional Board finds all of the following:
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.

2. 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.

BENEFICIAL USES OF WATER
Beneficial uses may be adversely affected (discussed blow) by plastic structures in the Lake Tahoe shorezone and there are reasonable alternatives for such plastics use to mitigate this source for new or replacement structures; wood, metal and stone/concrete. It all ties back to the beneficial uses and objectives. What are the beneficial uses of the waters of Lake Tahoe that may be adversely affected by microplastics, and cumulatively with all the other projectsources of microplastics? Definitions of Beneficial Uses are listed and described in Chapter 2.

I’ve left some descriptions in below while leaving most out as self-evident and included only those I assert may be adversely affected by microplastics:

Agricultural Supply. Aquaculture. Preservation of Biological Habitats of Special Significance (refuges, parks, sanctuaries, ecological reserves, etc.). Cold Freshwater Habitat. Commercial 1316
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 1; Alan Miller, PE Page 6 of 38 and Sportfishing. Tribal Tradition and Culture (uses that support the rights or lifeways of California Native American tribes). Freshwater Replenishment. Ground Water Recharge.

Industrial Service Supply. Migration of Aquatic Organisms. Municipal and Domestic Supply.

Industrial Process Supply. Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Species (uses that support habitat necessary for the survival and successful maintenance of plant or animal species established under state and/or federal law as rare, threatened or endangered). Water Contact Recreation.

Noncontact Water Recreation (uses not limited to, picnicking, beachcombing, aquatic life study, fishing, sightseeing, and aesthetic enjoyment). Spawning, Reproduction, and Development (uses of waters that support high quality aquatic habitat necessary for reproduction and early development of fish and wildlife. Subsistence Fishing. Tribal Subsistence Fishing. Wildlife Habitat (uses for preservation and enhancement of vegetation and prey species used by wildlife, such as waterfowl). Water Quality Enhancement.

Potential Significant Impacts to Beneficial Uses
Without going into detail on each, I assert legitimate arguments could be made that any or all of the above beneficial uses may be adversely affected by toxins in microplastics, or affected aesthetically such as by clarity loss from microplastics. There is plenty of info in the literature, with more coming every day, about the toxic effects of plastics on human health and the environment. There is very little encouraging news that way, with too many plastics of too many types to study, assess and manage, testing difficulties and lack of specific regulatory standards and/or regulations. There are no unaffected control sites; plastic contamination is global. Thus, the need for narrative objectives (i.e., no toxins in toxic amounts) and prohibition requirements (to prevent) come into the water quality control picture.

Global Microplastics
There has been blindness to the insidious and widespread contamination of the global environment with microplastics by regulatory agencies of all stripes, including every agency at Lake Tahoe with authority over pier approvals. They are following the failed USEPA policies on plastics that have resulted in contaminating air, water, soil and all biologic organisms with manmade toxins at detrimental levels. Evidence of the notorious contamination of Lake Tahoe with microplastics has not restored sight to the blind as yet, the idiotic abandonment of the precautionary principle by all with regard to approving new sources of microplastics in the shorezone. This has continued through my appeal in 2022 of a project involving microplastics (hear my recorded testimony at the September 2022 meeting of the Governing Board), my litigation over same, my public comments and petitions to TRPA, the Water Boards (State and Regional) and other agencies over marinas and piers as prime sources of microplastics in Lake Tahoe in 2022 through 2024, and my Petition and other writings to TRPA concerning 1317
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 1; Alan Miller, PE Page 7 of 38 microplastics in 2025. They violate their charges routinely under blind, rote permitting policies, just as here; with TRPA it is done under fraudulent environmental review requirements.

Controlling Impacts of Microplastics - Prevention
There is information to indicate that exposure to microplastics adversely affects growth and development of plants and wildlife, is generally “deleterious,” and that plastics and toxins in plastics concentrate up the food web to contaminate benthic organisms, algae, copepods, fish, waterfowl, birds, bears and other wildlife, even crossing the blood-brain barrier in humans.

Plastics may contain “heavy metals” such as lead (Pb) and other additives which are also toxic.

Particles of microplastics shed from the piers may tend to disperse in the water while heavier components may settle out and deposit on the bottom in a zone around them that has toxic elements in the sediment that can be taken up by people (swimmers), and aquatic and terrestrial organisms.

Prohibition and prevention therefore looms large as the primary cost-effective means for control of microplastics at Lake Tahoe—and elsewhere. I further assert microplastics from approved projects have already caused or contributed majorly to microplastic contamination in Lake Tahoe and recognition of the fate of such plastics in the Lake Tahoe environment is needed, for instances, when planning new proposed piers and conducting marina “master planning” at the Tahoe Keys Marina to redress toxic plastic discharges. Humans may be able to eventually treat the water they drink to make it safe, while wildlife and aquatic organisms must live with or within and survive amidst the toxins.

WATER QUALITY OBJECTIVES
What are the relevant CA water quality objectives for microplastics? There are many, and again I will cite those I see as most threatened by microplastics (Basin Plan Chapter 3).

Toxicity: All waters shall be maintained free of toxic substances in concentrations that are toxic to, or that produce detrimental physiological responses in human, plant, animal, or aquatic life. Compliance with this objective will be determined by use of indicator organisms, analyses of species diversity, population density, growth anomalies, bioassays of appropriate duration and/or other appropriate methods as specified by the Regional Board. The survival of aquatic life in surface waters subjected to a waste discharge, or other controllable water quality factors, shall not be less than that for the same water body in areas unaffected by the waste discharge. . . .” (Basin Plan, p 3.7).

Numerical objectives are not available for all plastics in use but there are objectives for certain chemicals in plastics and the regulations include a “catch-all” phrase under “Chemical Constituents” (the last part):
1318
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 1; Alan Miller, PE Page 8 of 38 Waters designated (for municipal supply) shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in excess of the maximum contaminant level (MCL) or secondary maximum contaminant level (SMCL) based upon drinking water standards specified in the following provisions of Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations, which are incorporated by reference into this plan . . . . Waters shall not contain concentrations of chemical constituents in amounts that adversely affect the water for beneficial uses.” The above are just some of the relevant water quality “standards” pertaining to microplastics.

Lake Tahoe Clarity is a separate distinct objective that is not being met while further “consistent degradation” (per TERC) is allowed to continue. Read Basin Plan Chapter 5 for details.

ANALYSIS OF TAHOE ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH CENTER REPORTS

INTRODUCTORY GENERAL COMMENTS
The comments in this section provide my independent review of the 2024 State of the Lake Report for Lake Tahoe published by Tahoe Environmental Research Center (TERC), with a focus on the Clarity Appendix and microplastics for purposes here. TERC has issued their reports annually for many years reportedly, among other reasons, to guide restoration efforts at Lake Tahoe. They don’t really say how that happens, how data and research is used to inform and guide policies, say of the TRPA or the CA Regional Water Quality Control Board, Lahontan Region, or the U.S Army Corps of Engineers or USEPA, which has a Tahoe office. They put certain information like the State of the Lake Reports out for the general public and lay agency decision-maker, while presumably working “behind-the scenes” with the agencies, and agencies can do what they want with them. From what I can tell, the agencies don’t do anything with the reports, beyond perhaps reading them.

My challenge to TRPA and the others is to point to one thing, just one, in their policies over the last decade that have changed as a direct result of “following the science.” TRPA may add their spin to the reports; I don’t presume the researchers are free of influence from their funders.

Even if that is untrue, there are compelling trends showing consistent degradation of Lake clarity and water quality, and other plagues. TERC presents their data and the merest discussions providing their interpretations, reasons unknown. These comments therefore augment the limited discussions provided by TERC and others (TRPA).

A BATHTUB MODEL FOR LAKE TAHOE
First I want to present a conceptual model for Lake Tahoe, an analogy that ought to help clarify for all what is going on with Lake Tahoe clarity and the overall water quality for which it is an indicator. I call it LAKE BATHTUB.
1319
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 1; Alan Miller, PE Page 9 of 38 (For an informative video depicting the sides and bathymetry of the bathtub along with a brief historical perspective/facts see this link from UC Davis Tahoe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kxySVKiWfU.)
See below the screen shot from a U.S. Geological Survey public report showing Lake Tahoe with the rim shaded by rock type. Visualize Lake Tahoe as a bathtub, but a very, very cold, deep one that holds an extraordinary amount of what was once ultra-pure water since the last glaciers retreated over 11,000 years ago. The Washoe people occupied the Lake Tahoe region since then, until they were booted out 100-150 years ago.

The Rim
Lake Tahoe is sort of oval like a bathtub with a rim that slopes in from almost no width at the single outlet, the Truckee River in Tahoe City, to many miles wide from the headwaters of the largest tributary input, the upper Truckee River in S. Lake Tahoe. But our bathtub is not smoothsided and the bottom is irregular, plunging to depths more than 1600 feet. It’s more like one of those plastic bathtub spas that have the water jets built into the sides and a couple of arm rests and benches, the south shore being the shallower end of the tub. We have to include these jets in the model because Lake Tahoe has internal currents that slowly circulate waters in response to winds, thermal changes and input currents from 63 named streams that flow into Lake Tahoe. Every so often, it’s like the winds or jets turn on high (or medium) and the bathtub is mixed either partly or completely from top to bottom, oxygenating the deeper waters in the process. It’s very cold and dark at the bottom with tremendous hydraulic pressures and not much going on biologically.

We have the bathtub with its “rim” and its biggest inputs (> one-third) flowing in on the south shore, with Trout Creek the second largest stream input, with a discharge point in the general vicinity of the UTR. The top six feet of Lake Tahoe is literally operated to keep the bathtub from overflowing the top drain, the Lake Tahoe Dam outlet, and to provide water below Lake Tahoe in accordance with federal requirements and the complex “Truckee River Operating Agreement.” All of the sediment particles that flow in are basically retained, trapped in the bathtub where they settle out or swirl about in the currents, and seldom reach the outlet except with extreme regional flooding, when the bathtub has overflowed and made quite a mess, as one might expect (e.g., 1997).

The Showers
The bathtub sits outdoors year-round and has an omni-directional shower with twice as many showerheads on the west shore. In late-fall to early spring it receives rain and snow, the lands 1320
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 1; Alan Miller, PE Page 10 of 38 to the rim get a series of “showers” that rinse all the watershed surfaces down and toward the receiving waters (streams, ground water) and storm drain outfalls to the bathtub, and carry that “annual load” or mass of substances into the tub. Sunny days are many, with the strongest sunlight in summer. That sunlight, together with wind, evaporates tremendous volumes of water from the surface of the bathtub—it doesn’t all go out the single river drain. That evaporation concentrates the pollutants in the remaining water over time, as salt concentrations increase from boiling water. Concentrations shall rise from evaporation effects absent dilution or other attenuation (e.g., chemical-precipitation reaction or off-gassing). 1321
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 1; Alan Miller, PE Page 11 of 38 1322
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 1; Alan Miller, PE Page 12 of 38 Aerial Loading of Carbon and Particulates
The sun also heats the water and provides energy to drive photosynthesis and primary productivity in the upper parts where the sunlight reaches. That allows plant cells to pull carbon into the lake from the atmosphere to build their cells, whether diatoms, algae or rooted plants, another increasing “mass input” of carbon into the tub from the air that did not exist historically, before the algae now present. There never used to be significant algae; it is abnormal, let alone the toxic algae blooms in the Tahoe Keys I first reported to the Water Board in 2018. Some algae add their own toxins to water. Other air inputs are dust, ash, soot, Central Valley pesticides in wind drift from the Great Central Valley, and particulates from geoengineering, such as Desert Research Institute has conducted for six decades (without environmental impact reports) and they do not act alone as geoengineers; spraying or seeding the skies over the tub with very fine particles and soot to control the weather or get rid of toxic waste coal fly-ash has been routine for decades, globally and at Lake Tahoe. If you haven’t noticed these quite frequently in the last decade at Lake Tahoe you aren’t paying attention. (From DRI’s website:

What Goes In, Stays In; Retention Time
Beginning to get the picture? More details follow below but basically what we have is erosion products being washed off the rim and into the tub every year, natural soils and vegetation, and products from the built environment, with some fraction being captured by upland control measures called “Best Management Practices.” Plus, substances are coming in from the air.

When I was a child I often bathed in the same bath water as my three siblings. Every time one 1323
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 1; Alan Miller, PE Page 13 of 38 of us, especially me, took a bath the water got a bit more clouded with the soils from our play, and then it was “down the drain” for the dirty water. Lake Tahoe is essentially the same as my childhood bathtub—with one major difference: there is essentially no drain, only a very, very slow drain, mainly for water—not pollutants. Not in our human life-span for practical purposes will the bathtub be drained of its inputs. Whatever water and other substances in the water column of Lake Tahoe are cycling there may have been there for 600 years or longer. That’s how long it takes to change all the water in the tub “on average” without overflowing the outlet drain too rapidly, six centuries.

Microplastics in the Bathtub
Before leaving the “Lake Bathtub” model recall that my imaginary bathtub is made of plastic.

Imagine if you will then, that you had an actual plastic bathtub that you left out in the sun and weather for 30 years or more in the Lake Tahoe weather extremes and floated about in occasionally on Lake Tahoe. What do you think its condition would be? Like new, or slowly wasting and eroding away, brittle, broken, essentially waste that is unusable? That is the fate of plastics in time. The bulk plastics shed microplastics or nanoplastics from their surfaces at that point and the plastic wastes from the boating community go into the bathtub. There are regulations against such “discharges” of toxic waste plastic, at least in CA, and they have never been enforced at Lake Tahoe or elsewhere to my knowledge, potential impacts considered “de minimus” by the policy-makers, not worth considering in other words.

Plastic structures in and over waters have been and are thus treated as “de minimus” sources of plastic contamination wherever they are, among many sources of plastics. So they have not been considered—until recently, and it is now being “discovered” that waters globally are contaminated with micro and nanoplastics. It’s plastic trash break-up products—but not trash only that is contaminating the waters. It is the “bathtub effect” of long hydraulic residence time that makes the accumulated contamination greater and therefore more detectable and critical at Lake Tahoe, plus the harsh sunlight and weather extremes aging the plastics rapidly. See photos of plastic-composite docks at the Tahoe Keys Marina below, pitted and flaking apart into the water, termed “friable.” The many docks there are (finally) slated for replacement. “Popcorn” is styrofoam plastic from float ballasts.

A note on trash is that many persons and organizations have removed gross tonnage of trash from the Lake Tahoe shorelines and near-shore areas in recent years, including plastics. That’s great, as these have potential to become microplastics over time. There is also work to examine microplastics in bottom sediment based on a recent news report (Lake Tahoe Tribune). The latter may be important to inform dredging activities, which could re-suspend and release plastics deposited in the sediment. Importantly, macro-plastic trash which has not disintegrated 1324
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 1; Alan Miller, PE Page 14 of 38 can’t account for the high levels of microplastics suspended and/or dissolved in the water column.
1325
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 1; Alan Miller, PE Page 15 of 38 The Bathtub Ring
Like any bathtub, Lake Tahoe gets dirtier and dirtier with every rinse of the watershed, and it has been doing that since the early 1960s, out of balance. The noticeable effects along the shorelines are just like a “bathtub ring”—some litter and other pollutants in runoff from the settled areas settle out or cling to the shoreline where the waters are shallow and sunlight penetrates, plants take hold, slimy rocks appear. Year after year the “ring” grows, but that has only recently been monitored and inadequately. Only the transparency in the deep waters of the open lake have a long term secchi-disc clarity record, begun by U.C. Davis professor Dr.

Charles Goldman, and from these data comes the familiar “annual average” clarity graphs.

SAVING LAKE TAHOE – HOW IT BEGAN; DR. GOLDMAN, PHD
The way I see it, Dr. Goldman came in the late 1960s (with Laurel Ames and a few others) and said (paraphrase), speaking for Lake Tahoe, “It is too much! All the sewage, all the erosion from urban development and cars driving on everything, all the meadows filled and built on, the Tahoe Keys! And all the highways with their sand and salt and cut slopes and eroding shoulders, the skiers, tourists and boaters . . . Lake Tahoe will only decline until such inputs are brought into balance with what can be absorbed and attenuated within the native threshold carrying capacity. And that capacity is being way, way exceeded, with plans for even more. It will be destroyed!”
Dr. Goldman was hated, threatened, and vilified in the press and elsewhere by the exploiters for his anti-development views. Most people don’t know that now that he is the revered emeritus professor in his old age. Nonetheless, he persisted and was able to get legislation passed to require sanitary sewers and export sewage basin-wide, thus buying a little time by majorly reducing nutrient loads to Lake Tahoe. That was absolutely critical. There were some lawsuits by the League to Save Lake Tahoe that stemmed some development, e.g., at Emerald Bay. The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency was born out of the perceived crisis in the bathtub, and the Lahontan Water Board established a primary office in the Tahoe basin, with a focus on reducing storm runoff and erosion from development. Another notable Goldman was Steve at the CA Tahoe Conservancy, a close associate, an erosion control expert and watershed restoration leader for two decades.

The Contentious TRPA Shoreline Plan and Boating
There was a multi-decade wresting match with TRPA over their plans and regulations, not including the many illegal regulations I have pointed out and will again here with Enclosures, particularly for the “shorezone.” The latter has always been contentious with shoreline or “littoral” property owners. Large boats had to stop putting sewage and bilge water into the bathtub. Other than that, boating activities got no attention other than the marinas and piers, 1326
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 1; Alan Miller, PE Page 16 of 38 which installations came under the permitting thumbs of the TRPA and the Lahontan Water Board (where I worked first-hand with permits for them for over two decades) and other agencies. There was evidence that boat fuel-oil from two-stroke marine engines was fouling the waters and, to TRPA’s credit, it enacted a controversial two-stroke engine “ban” that had nationwide ripples in the industry.

The Total Maximum Daily Load Regulation
The next major regulatory development at Lake Tahoe involved a substantial “makeover” to put a new face on an old regulatory program—namely, controlling erosion. This was called the “Total Maximum Daily Load” and is not actually Total, Maximum, or Daily. This regulation, developed by the states of CA and NV and adopted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, was intended to describe the mentioned carrying capacity for annual pollutant inputs, namely particles, and dissolved nitrogen and phosphorus (“nutrients” N and P that feed algal growth). Pursuant to federal Clean Water Act requirements and designations of Lake Tahoe as “Outstanding National Resource Waters” for which no long-term degradation is permissible, the TMDL was focused on reversing decades-long clarity declines to restore historic clarity. I will comment more on the TMDL further below, and mention here that it shifted the restoration focus to eroded and other particles that were tiny, tiny nanoparticles, 20 micrometers (µm) or less, due to the way they affect light and thus “clarity” – a measure of how far light penetrates.

The TMDL was born in 2011 and was loosely joined with the prior Environmental Improvement Program (EIP), a TRPA program to track projects toward restoration goals, projects by others (mostly). Status quo is implementing these failing programs. We have to get into the details of the clarity reports for the information to support that last statement. 1327
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 1; Alan Miller, PE Page 17 of 38 COMMENTS ON THE 2024 STATE OF THE LAKE REPORT
Observations on Clarity and Upwelling in 2023
The graph above shows average summer water clarity using TERC data (the spikes). I drew the red line. See Enclosure 1, also. There is an admission the summer averages are trending badly, "consistent degradation." The first graph has the annual averages of clarity measurements and the text is: "The greatest individual value recorded in 2023 was 123 feet (37.5 m) on March 2.

This was the result of an ephemeral lake ‘upwelling.’ Upwellings are episodic events produced by strong winds and are not reflective of the overall lake clarity and health. The lowest clarity reading was 26.2 feet (8 m) on May 24." The greatest individual clarity value in 2023 is 123 feet, and is among the 12 highest values in the 55-year record. Before that event, in 2023 the clarity was likely closer to the winter averages, say 70 feet.

This post-upwelling water clarity was an anomaly per the report, something that happens randomly at varying intervals and extents: the Lake mixed from top to bottom due to strong winds, bringing clear water up from the great depths to dilute the surface-layer contaminants versus more usual conditions when the Lake is temperature-stratified. In the “overturn” the surface-layer pollutants may have been sent to the bottom or settled more quickly, or some combination of these things may have occurred. In addition, in the months prior to March 2, 2023, the Tahoe region was generally in a deep freeze, with a record snowpack building and limited runoff, which runoff continued through April and into May when things really began to melt and move.
1328
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 1; Alan Miller, PE Page 18 of 38 As noted in TERC’s 2023 State of the Lake Report (p 5):

The minimum reading of 8 m (May 24, 2023) is the lowest ever recorded in the history of continuous Tahoe monitoring (since 1968). On this day, the field team remarked on how much greener the water appeared and that the zooplankton tows collected significant amounts of algae. A ‘live’ phytoplankton sample (an equal composite of water samples collected at 5 and 10 m water depth) was collected and analyzed by TERC using a light microscope 72h later. Observations of Asterionella, Dinobryon, Staurastrum and Cosmarium were recorded with these latter two species potentially contributing to the green color observed.

Nice observations, but lacking any explanations. As noted, the lowest reading, 8 meters or 26.2 feet, was on May 24. That’s 97 feet of clarity drop in two months. Apparently there was significant algae growth on and before May 24, 2023 based on the report; it didn’t all grow on May 24. That observation may be attributable to the increased water clarity (during winter 2022-2023, especially March) increasing the depths to which sunlight could penetrate and stimulate algae growth, combined with the influx of nutrients from the depths that accompanies upwelling. After that upwelling Lake Tahoe set a new record-low for being clouded with sediments and algae.

Dilution Masks Pollution
Since water clarity was at an anomalous high when the massive 2023 runoff year began all that clear water near the surface received the load of sediments and other pollutants in the runoff.

If that complete mixing hadn't occurred right before the big runoff, clarity would have dropped, not from 123 feet, but more like from 70 feet. In other words, all that clear water was there to absorb and attenuate the surface impacts. Had that not been the case, clarity would have likely dropped to even far less than the 26.2-foot minimum value observed. The average of these extreme winter values is (123 feet + 26.2 feet)/2 = 74.6 feet. That’s a bit higher than the annual average clarity of 71.9 feet in 2022. That average of the extreme values is even clearer than the winter averages of recent years and makes the annual average of 68.2 feet in 2023 look fantastic based on the spring sediment load delivered—but it is actually just the opposite because the upwelling was an anomaly. It was pure luck that it occurred right before the most heavily-loaded runoff season in decades began, delivering way more particulates and dissolved nutrients than any “annual average” years. The fantastic is misleading with regard to what really occurred, more like fantasy.

Even so, that anomalous clarity event can’t realistically be taken out of the record; it affected not only the March 2, 2023 measurement with an extraordinary “boost” in clarity, but elevated ALL the subsequent measurements in 2023, if not beyond that time. That’s why 27 secchi disc 1329
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 1; Alan Miller, PE Page 19 of 38 measurements, including the extremes, produced an average annual value of 68.2 feet. What we could do for estimation purposes is assume some winter value closer to the average, say 70 feet, and that the upwelling didn’t occur in 2023. Then the “average” with the extreme loading would be LESS THAN (70 feet + 26.2 feet)/2 = 48.1 feet. It would be less than that because the minimum value 26.2 feet would have likely been much less without the attenuating effects of the upwelling event. Say minimum clarity went to 20 feet instead of 26.2 feet: in that case the average would be (70 feet + 20 feet)/2 = 45 feet as an estimate, etc., way below the average.

Consistent Degradation Reflects Overall Lake Clarity and Health The effect of including the anomalous high clarity readings on the time-series graph of annual averages over the years is to make the “best fit” curve show greater clarity values, possibly even showing the rate of clarity loss is slower, when the long-term graph of annual averages appears to be approximately parabolic (exponential) with a substantial decreasiong trend until very recently. Average annual clarity is decreasing monotonically over time, “consistent degradation” in the words of the TERC report. The main point with the mixing is that it sort of saved the 2024 annual average clarity graph from showing much steeper declines than would otherwise be evident, and the second point is no one can predict when or if the next turnover event will occur and so it is “. . . not reflective of the overall lake clarity and health,” as stated in the report. The clarity measurements are real, but they have to be analyzed in terms of the statistically “lucky break” that was the timing and duration of the upwelling.

UPPER TRUCKEE RIVER MARSH RESTORATION
Another thing to consider is the UTR is the largest urban stream and the largest tributary to Lake Tahoe in the basin, and together with Trout Creek, another substantial urban tributary, passes through the now somewhat-restored Upper Truckee River (UTR) marsh. The UTR/marsh restoration project may therefore provide the largest and most important sediment trap in the basin. I say somewhat-restored because the Tahoe Keys subdivision and marina still occupies a large part of the UTR marsh, formerly the largest wetland complex in the Sierra-Nevada mountain range. The restoration by California Tahoe Conservancy has so-far not eliminated the straightened reach of the UTR adjacent the marina harbor, a major conduit for sediment delivery to Lake Tahoe at times of extreme runoff and flooding, though flow pressures on it have been eased by other restoration activities to an extent. The restoration in the lower reach between US 50 and Lake Tahoe was largely functional in 2022-2023, starting before 2018 if memory serves (it was a staged affair). If it hadn't been functional, May clarity in 2023 would likely have been worse, no doubt, so “yay” for that project! Nonetheless the effects of UTR restoration still don't really “show up” markedly as an attenuator in the graphs of seasonal or annual clarity averages since 2018.
1330
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 1; Alan Miller, PE Page 20 of 38

THE TMDL HAS NOT ALTERED CONSISTENT DEGRADATION
The foregoing analysis points to a much more critical water quality condition with regard to clarity in Lake Tahoe than a mere reflection on the “average” graphs provides. The averages only tell part of the story with regard to the extremes, and with important implications for the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) regulation enacted in 2011. The TMDL was the product of a multi-year state-led computer modeling estimation tool, The Clarity Model, developed by the CA Water Boards and NV Department of Environmental Protection under both encouragement and duress from US Environmental Protection Agency to meet federal Clean Water Act requirements. This modeling was accomplished with the aid of researchers and others, including TRPA, USFS_LTBMU, UC Davis and UC Reno, Desert Research Institute, local governments, etc. Since late 2011, despite meeting annual TMDL pollutant reduction targets for runoff from the urban areas the clarity graphs have continued to show only “continued degradation.” Claims that winter clarity averages “are steady” and have ceased declining may be largely attributable to the “average winter clarity” of Lake Tahoe in 2022-2023 (91.9 feet) compared to the prior year as affected by the extreme measurement of 123 feet on March 2, 2023, late winter. Pollutants continue to accumulate more rapidly than they can be attenuated, even with the latest “upwelling” and thus average annual clarity continues its decline, albeit more slowly graphically thanks to the luck of the high winds that caused the turnover/upwelling.

Looking at the graph of individual secchi depths for 2021, 2022, and 2023, you can see there was another extremely clear winter reading at that index station in early January 2022, approximately 138 feet! One would postulate that this would improve the readings for at least a time if not the whole year. However, just days later readings returned to around 75 feet, declined thereafter to around 55 feet in June and subsequently improved somewhat thereafter.

That was apparently a shorter-lived anomaly and, like the other, is also probably “. . . not reflective of the overall lake clarity and health.” Looking at the dark “2023” line with the dip to 123, observe that the clarity remained relatively high until early May, when it thereafter fell from well over 85 feet to 26.2, almost a 60-foot drop within one month! That is the effect of the tremendous load delivered in May 2023, a part of the total load not accounted for by the TMDL load-reduction estimation tools; these tools only estimate pollutants (sediments) removed from municipal stormwater drainage systems by human actions. Many of these drainage systems were overwhelmed, damaged, eroded, etc., during 2023 and functioning sub-optimally. The graph shows clarity limped back slowly from that 26.2-foot low over the next several months, most likely attributable to sediments settling from the surface zone. Clarity then hovered in the 50 to 60 foot range at this index station going from fall into winter 2023-2024. 1331
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 1; Alan Miller, PE Page 21 of 38 UPDATES FROM THE 2024 LAKE TAHOE CLARITY REPORT
2024 data is discussed in the 2025 TERC reports and so forth, a year in arrears. The following screenshot is Figure 1 from the 2024 Lake Tahoe Clarity Report dated 13 June 2025.

Complete Mixing Effects?
Again we have the inverted graph, with clarity decreasing on the vertical axes. This graph includes (in light blue) the years when full mixing occurred, a winter phenomenon. What can be gleaned from that and what is the significance, if any? One result that seems counter-intuitive is that annual average clarity values for most years in which full mixing occurred resulted in annual averages near to or less than the trend line of the annual averages. In other words, full mixing generally doesn’t improve average water quality—it often makes it worse than average (or average).

This effect could be attributable to mixing nutrients (mainly P) from the deeps into the upper zones where sunlight can fuel algae growth in spring through fall. There is often some modest improvement in clarity in the year(s) following complete mixing based on the graph, but not always; mixing doesn’t often make water quality markedly worse the following year given the 1332
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 1; Alan Miller, PE Page 22 of 38 statistical variability. Figure 2 shows there is a tendency for clarity to increase for a short period after the mixing during the winter season (when mixing often occurs). Notice that winter average clarity the year following a mixing event is accompanied by a loss in winter average clarity, with only two exceptions in the record except when deep mixing occurs in consecutive years. The graph of average winter clarity shows more dark-blue values (23 versus 18) are below the average curve and these generally follow mixing events.

There seems to be no discernible pattern to when complete mixing occurs in terms of years. It seems to occur fairly often over the years, perhaps driven by weather events as in 2023.

Whether complete mixing occurs or not doesn’t seem to make much of a difference in the annual average clarity measurements over time based on this graph, they are in the same range as non-mixed years, and only tends to drag the averages lower in years when full mixing occurs.

Data shows the mixing events are occurring earlier in the year than historically. No planning can be done around mixing, it is just something that happens with random regularity, and is often accompanied by annual average clarity reductions. However, there are a couple more pieces of information to connect here. I noted mixing events appear to occur randomly based on the statistical chart above and tend to adversely affect water quality. We are told mixing brings nutrients to the surface. Where do they come from? Are they just dissolved or suspended in the deep waters that are brought to the surface? That goes against natural tendencies for suspensions and solutions of materials to disperse to homogeneous concentrations absent some other force or influence (say, cold).

Nutrients from Deep Mixing
TERC research published in 2023 (Reference 3) provides some explanations for where some of these “nutrients” are coming from with deep mixing: they are being dissolved from bottom sediments when/after the mixing occurs and fluxed into the waters above. The research is rather technical so I will attempt a summary outline of the findings. As I understand it, during times when the bathtub is not mixed there is very little oxygen at the bottom, a condition called “anoxic,” and iron (Fe) and P are chemically “reduced” and bound to minerals in the sediment to a depth of 4.5 centimeters (cm) or more below the sediment-water interface. If there was no oxygen at bottom (zero), experiments suggest minerals in the sediment would be locked in at a depth of 1.5 centimeters (cm) or more below the sediment-water interface. With deep mixing more oxygen reaches the bottom creating conditions for chemical reactions that reach deeper to dissolve and release Fe and P locked in the sediments into the water column above.

The research concludes that Fe species from the bottom are not of much concern, especially relative to releases of P, which are estimated to increase P in the water following mixing.

Quoting the final part:
1333
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 1; Alan Miller, PE Page 23 of 38 If we assume that 10% of Fe in the top 1.5 cm of sediment is reductively dissolved and phosphorus was homogeneously mixed into the entire lake water body, phosphorus concentrations in the water column would increase by around 1.2 μg L−1(using a total lake volume12 of 152 km3) in line with previous findings by Beutel and Horne.12 While this amount would not change the trophic status of Lake Tahoe, Beutel and Horne12 suggested that it would result in a 40% increase in phytoplankton productivity.

Therefore, there is a need for continuous monitoring of oxygen saturation in lakebottom waters for early detection of internal nutrient loading in oligotrophic lakes.

Primary Productivity
A 1.2 μg L−1(micrograms per liter) increase lakewide is only around 1 part in a billion but look at what is predicted to result: a 40% increase in primary productivity based on the stated assumptions. The screenshot below is from TERC’s 2024 report. “The long-term dataset was recently reviewed and corrected data show that over the last 55 years, there was a 480% increase in the annual average primary productivity. . . In 2023, the 1334
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 1; Alan Miller, PE Page 24 of 38 annual average primary productivity attained a record high value of 240 mg of carbon per m2.” Some of the notable increases in primary productivity in recent years may be attributable in part to the chemical processes resulting from deep mixing and algae growth stimulation by P flux from bottom sediments. Whatever the causes are the trend is for more and more algae at increasing rates, a classic signature for “cultural eutrophication” of Lake Tahoe now well underway. This is more prime evidence of consistent degradation, algal biomass having increased 480% since 1955, from about 40 grams of carbon per square meter to 240, with most increases coming after 1980. That record accords with an average 8.7% increase annually over 55 years, and an eight-fold increase in biomass. The rate of increase appears approximately linear from 1970 to 2020, with rates apparently increasing exponentially since 2020.

Along with the concerns above the same research indicates that Lake temperature profiles data suggests complete mixing events may decrease in the future due to increases in thermal stratification that add resistance to complete mixing, i.e., by wind or other factors. If that occurs, it will probably bring the “annual averages” of clarity lower, much as I have described for 2023. There won’t be the periodic dilution of particle inputs from the clear deep waters rising. If that research proves true it may further accelerate rates of primary productivity (algae cells).

Averages; Effects and Limitations
Averages are a statistical measure, one of many. They tend to smooth the variable data, as do the GAM curve-fitting programs used by TERC to make that “average” line, with certain parameters set by the programmer-user. That makes a nice curve or line. But note the graph of annual average clarity is not linear—not a straight line—it curves. Discrete annual values rise then fall in a series of progressive steps that show clarity loss over time. The smooth curve sort of looks like it might be semi-linear piecewise, with one slope prior to 2000, where there is a “knee,” and another (lesser) slope after 2000. That could be an indication of a reduction in the rate of clarity loss but the slope is still negative or zero in recent years, meaning at best things are not getting worse as rapidly—despite overall health and clarity only decreasing, getting worse since 1969. Another graph could be produced from the medians of the values of the measurements for each year, which is not the average, but the middle value, with equal number of measurements higher and lower. That might tend to damp out some of the extremes and show a different picture. Why are the graphs of such measures not presented? Why not put medians in Table 1 of the report, for example? 1335
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 1; Alan Miller, PE Page 25 of 38

MICROPLASTICS
Given that controlling “loadings” under the TMDL will not address clarity loss based on the foregoing, the next urgent question in my mind is whether Lake Tahoe can escape being further contaminated with toxic, long-lived microplastics? That will only add injury to insult. However clouded Lake Tahoe is by natural sediment it has previously served all designated beneficial uses (drinking, aquatic life support, etc.). That could be ending. The following screenshots are from the 2023 Lake Tahoe Clarity Report.

POLYETHYLENE AND POLYPROPYLENE
Polyethylene (PE) and polypropylene (PP) together comprise 80% of the plastics identified in this study (large pie chart). That chart is presumably some “average” of those smaller charts below it, with the Lake Tahoe surface containing more of these types of PE and PP plastic “floaters” (83%) than the subsurface (72%). I have stated elsewhere in the public record that plastic particles vary in density and may float, stay suspended in the water column (i.e., if neutrally buoyant or having poor settling characteristics), or may sink and contaminate the Lake bottom sediments. Here we have evidence that particles are accumulating on the surface of Lake Tahoe and in the water column, with potentially significant implications for clarity.

Researchers will be taking secchi disc measurements through an increasing lens of plastic in the 1336
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 1; Alan Miller, PE Page 26 of 38 future. (Bottom sediments should be examined as well for toxicity, as a lesser priority.) Sources of PE and PP are not identified. Without that, what management adaptations are possible? Marinas and Piers are the Largest Sources of Plastics in the Shorezone My working hypothesis is that structures along the shorelines such as marinas, piers and docks built from plastics “composited” with wood are among the largest sources of PP and PE in and over the waters of Lake Tahoe, if not the largest sources. There is currently no data to contradict this hypothesis, and information to support the hypothesis from merchants of plastic composites. Also, TRPA could not identify which specific shoreline parcels had plastic shoreline structures in reply to a public records request I made: they basically replied “all parcels” with their lack of specificity. TRPA doesn’t really know what structures it has approved that are plastic in the shorezone, but they have records, lots and lots of records THEY could (and should) go through to abate the oldest and worst deteriorating (first). Of course TRPA has done little to address the legacy problem other than attempt to ignore it (and me) which is why I refer to it also as the Tahoe Regional Plastics Agency; they’ve really earned it. I think the only way to live that down is to act, now, and boldly, like with the two-stroke ban. It’s a different TRPA Board nowadays, with none that impress me at all. They are running a criminal organization as I have explained many times, so I don’t expect anything but the typical “slow walk” to figuring out half-way solutions.

Polyester Sources in the Shorezone
Beneath the lake surface there is a large proportion of polyester (22%). That is more than one fifth of the total plastic reported, so a relatively large quantity. As I have stated before, it is not easy to contaminate a body of water the size of Lake Tahoe with polyesters fibers. What are the largest sources, in the Lake? Clothing can be made from polyester, such as bathing suits, towels and outerwear. I doubt these provide substantial contributions, along with lint from terrestrial clothes dryers in the watershed. Many of the boats on Lake Tahoe, some quite large, have cloth awnings and covers, with carpeted interiors (another use of polyesters). These fiber materials would be discharged to the air over Lake Tahoe and directly in the water and may be among the largest sources of this polyester contaminant affecting Lake Tahoe.

Other Plastics in the Shorezone
Other plastics are associated with boating: Plastic fabrics (non-polyester) or solid plastics like “vinyl” boat interiors are examples (more PE and PP). Turbidity curtains and bottom barriers used on certain projects may be vinyl. “Fiberglass” boats may contain a variety of plastic resins.

Many boats are structured with these plastics, which are strong for their weight, and nonetheless represent a very large mass-quantity of plastic in direct contact with the water, or directly above the water where it is exposed to the elements of erosion: wind, water, ice and 1337
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 1; Alan Miller, PE Page 27 of 38 sunlight. Some docks and support structures are painted, with the paints wearing away and ultimately ending up in the water; some may contain nanoplastics. Sunlight degrades most plastics, especially older plastics. Shoreline structures and many sailboats are left on the water year-round. Some are decades old with deteriorating surfaces from erosion of dust-like particles of plastic. To stem this erosion a variety of surface treatments may be applied to boats from sanding to chemical treatments and paints, waxes and polishes that, in this age, may contain plastics. While dry-dock boat maintenance may be practiced for sanding (one would hope) that is likely frequently not actual practice, such as cleaning or waxing one’s boat in the harbor slip.

I have written that among the “other” unidentified or collectively-considered plastics is polyvinyl chloride (PVC), one of the most toxic of seven common types of plastics, and that this was known to be a component of plastic decking used in many of the marinas and piers and marinas and piers in past decades. Over time PVC use for such applications reportedly has lessened in favor of other plastics such as PE and PP, but is still commercially available. 1338
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 1; Alan Miller, PE Page 28 of 38 Quantities of Microplastics in Lake Tahoe are Likely Much Greater than Testing Shows The following screenshot from the 2024 Report discusses microplastic particles. Or does it? The title above the graph says that but the casual reader may not notice that the graph shows ALL particles greater than 335 µm, not plastic particles only, based on the text. That requires further research. In other words, this research did not “partition” the samples into natural substances or man-made substances (plastics); in this graph a particle is a particle, and it is 335 µm or larger.

Said another way, everything smaller 335 µm escaped the sieve, with openings at least 56 times larger than the 6 µm particle, with particles that size and below affecting clarity the most according to the researchers here. The then-Director, author of this report, told TRPA’s governing board in a July 2024 presentation that they haven’t measured plastics below that 335 µm size because they can’t. The Tahoe researchers literally don’t know what plastic is out there below the 335 µm particle size, though that plastic amount could be less than, the same, or much greater than what has been measured. I suspect the latter, because the bulk of the particles from in-lake sources as discussed here, and probably the grindings from tires and paint in runoff, and particles deposited from the air, are likely in the size range less than 335 µm, though some will be larger. There is thus NO CREDIBLE RESEARCH HANDLE on the microplastics 1339
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 1; Alan Miller, PE Page 29 of 38 problems at Lake Tahoe, which are extraordinary to contaminate so large a water body so greatly.

Microplastics and Clarity
Stating what should be obvious here, but isn’t reported as such: Maybe particles less than 6 µm affect clarity in a particular way, as stated in the report, by how they scatter light. There could be lots of plastics that size in Lake Tahoe; that can’t be discounted in the absence of any data.

But besides that, all the MUCH LARGER particles measured and observed must also have a large effect on clarity, larger than the smaller particles. Rather than scatter light they could shadow and block it completely. Certain human hairs may have diameters less than 20 µm, and thus we can see objects that size when strung in a hair-line. A particle of 335 µm is more than 16 times larger, and still the researchers reportedly can’t measure those—only particles larger than that, as reported, and they have not separated the plastic from the native sediments in their samples. My working hypothesis includes that plastic particles also affect clarity, including microplastics larger than 6 µm, and these may affect clarity equally or more than the fine sediments of native minerals and algae. They may combine with the smaller particles to decrease clarity even more, especially if the plastics are buoyant or the same density as water, as they will remain in the water column, or float on the surface of the “bathwater.” When a plastic surface such as a plastic pier or sailboat is exposed long-term to the elements the microplastics are emitted as dust, coarse at best but often very fine dust. Apart from that there is breakage, i.e., of boards and ballasts. Cutting wastes to install structures. Abrasion from foot and “freight” traffic (plastic coolers dragged, etc.). Styrofoam in floats or ballasts has been an issue, mainly as unsightly floating litter from broken floats. Styrofoam is 98% air but comes with a host of environmental issues. From Wikipedia, “Extruded polystyrene is usually made with hydrofluorocarbons . . . which have global warming potentials of approximately 1000– 1300 times that of carbon dioxide.” Styrofoam and virgin-plastic beads, called “nurdles,” can also escape these thin-walled-plastic float structures and litter beaches before breaking down to sizes invisible to the naked eye. All of these represent potential sources of microplastics in or on the Lake itself, other than in runoff or air deposits.

Composite Plastic Materials; Outdoor Decking
PP and PE, the latter often as high-density PE (HDPE) or low-density PE (LDPE), are the two most common plastics in Lake Tahoe based on research to date. (See charts above.) They may come from litter such as has been recovered by in-lake and beach collection efforts, pending further research. Bottom barriers for aquatic invasive species control may be comprised of PP and/or PE. But the information presented below indicates PP and PE are among the principle materials currently in marketed uses such as plastic and plastic-wood composite decking materials for 1340
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 1; Alan Miller, PE Page 30 of 38 marine uses. The information below provides an overview, with the caveat that trade formulations and materials are guarded “secrets” of the trade and are not generally disclosed to the public.

Hard-fact info is thus intentionally hard to come by for these toxin-producing products, often touted as the safe “environmental” alternative to wood. Wood has supported the environment since the early days of the earth; trees give life to all life. The indigenous call trees “the standing people.” Meanwhile plastic manufacturers have coated the world and all human blood with toxins with extraordinary longevity in less than 100 years, their “environmental” alternative.

The industrialists and their market reps and the USEPA and other enablers need to be hit over the head with a wooden 2 by 4 and “wake up.” To bring it home, none of this in-lake plastic particulate loading was accounted for by the Lake Clarity Model or the TMDL. Implications for Lake Tahoe are huge.

I will note a few important things from the screenshots below. One claim is that composite materials last longer than wood. That is probably true for some woods. Wood breaks down in the environment. So do plastics, it just takes more time—and they do not say what that the time period for plastics to break down is. It varies widely by plastic and exposure. Wood breaks down into natural elements and substances. Macro-plastic only breaks down into smaller versions of the same toxic, long-lived man-made microplastic and nanoplastic polymers. Plastics begin to weather and shed particles within a short time and shedding rates thereafter likely increase with time of exposure until the composites are deemed unserviceable and discarded to landfill or left to rot. Plastic recycling is largely a myth and such uses as putting recycled plastics into composite decking or other engineering uses (such as pavement formulations) may have long-term adverse environmental consequences as pavements wear away sub-visibly like the composite docks until the erosion becomes apparent.

Changes in Plastic Composites Will Not Solve the Microplastics Problem at Lake Tahoe The comparison below of “Today’s Composite Decking vs. Early-Generation Composite” tells us about the existing legacy at Lake Tahoe, because many of the piers and marinas are this “early generation” of plastics and are still in service. The new products are: “Now resistant to: wear and tear . . . mold.” It is touted as “better” than older products at resisting degradation by ultraviolet (UV) sunlight. Read another way, the early products (often PVC) were much less durable to wear and subject to UV and fungal attack, and that is mostly what is in and over Lake Tahoe. The new products only come with a longer warranty; I expect these will extend several decades only for the “premium” products, a very short time relative to the lifespan of microplastics in the environment which may be centuries or longer. The warranty does not include for damage to the environment. I presume some toxic additive, proprietary (meaning 1341
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 1; Alan Miller, PE Page 31 of 38 “not disclosed”), is now used to control mold or slow UV degradation, “a blend of chemical additives.”
The environmental implications of installing a “generation” (dating from the mid-1990s) of semi-durable plastics touted as “environmentally friendly” (bogus sales-hype) in and over waters and to otherwise rot in the environment is not for plastic sales pitches. It’s a growth industry. Use of composite decking is nonetheless contributing to microplastic contamination wherever these plastics have been used as an unrecognized and/or unregulated source, just as at Lake Tahoe. Plastics manufacturers are culpable but have not been held accountable for the effects of their products on the global environment, now toxic with microplastics for the foreseeable future of humanity, which may be cut short by illness if we don’t act against these poisons in the water supply, soil, food, wildlife, vegetation and air. Agencies have been negligently approving these products in aquatic and marine environments for years with never “a hard look” at environmental consequences and are slowly waking up the fact that waters globally are polluted with plastic from numerous sources. But LAKE TAHOE IS CONTAMINATED WITH MICROPLASTICS—the 3
rd worst of 38 large water bodies examined globally. How did that happen?
Marketed Composite Plastic Products Available Now - Screenshots Trex and TimberTech are cited as leading manufacturers, the latter of PVC products, which is apparently still in widespread use despite being among the most toxic types of microplastics. “Lower cost” composites basically come with less warranty-covered durability, thus “externalizing” the buyer’s cost with discards onto the environment and general public, hardly a model of “environmental” industry to emulate or reward. Because wood compromises the integrity of the composite decking these are typically now coated or “capped” with a layer of “virgin” or newly-manufactured PP—one of the two predominant materials contaminating Lake Tahoe based on the research above, the other being PE. Those report findings may largely be attributable to litter collected, being greater than 335 µm dimensionally, and may not account for microplastics from weathered composite decking (dust) and fiberglass boats, etc.

The following screenshots are from: https://www.decks.com/how-to/articles/best-compositedecking-materials-options 1342
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 1; Alan Miller, PE Page 32 of 38 1343
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 1; Alan Miller, PE Page 33 of 38 1344
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 1; Alan Miller, PE Page 34 of 38 1345
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 1; Alan Miller, PE Page 35 of 38 1346
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 1; Alan Miller, PE Page 36 of 38 From: https://www.perspectiveproducts.com/polypropylene-vs-composite/ CONCLUDING REMARKS – WITNESSING A TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS The TMDL was a cause for celebration for many when it was adopted. While I was hopeful, I was also skeptical that it would lead to recovery of Lake Tahoe’s historic clarity, especially over a 65-year timeframe. My contrary views put me on the “outs” with certain managers and peers at the time when they became known, because the TMDL was the perceived answer to restoring clarity, reducing loads over time. Fifteen years in, it appears the TMDL underestimated the needed load reductions and/or Lake Tahoe has not responded to the load reductions as predicted by the Clarity Model. That is bad news for all concerned because the implications are the TMDL regulations will need to be revised by the states under USEPA direction to address the shortcomings before water quality worsens further.

Recreational boating has caused outsized impacts on Lake Tahoe, impacts that are unaddressed by the TMDL. In addition to microplastics, aquatic invasive species came in on the recreational boats, with the Tahoe Keys the prime example of the harm that can come from such 1347
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 1; Alan Miller, PE Page 37 of 38 developments. It is unfortunate that the invasions occurred and that there were no clear regulatory structures to control that at the time, other than permits required to apply herbicides to the waters of Lake Tahoe. I believe more AIS invaders will eventually get past boat inspectors, if they have not already. That harm continues to unfold and will so long as the impacts of recreational boating on Lake Tahoe are allowed to continue unabated.

More of the same will bring more of the same and worse. Time is running out for Lake Tahoe unless the impacts of in-lake activities are also addressed by all agencies with jurisdiction in the matters, as they never have been, with TRPA and other agencies both causing additional impacts under its deficient policies and failing to mitigate existing impacts. Lake Tahoe is a resource held in common by multiple jurisdictions, each with a role to play. Under current policies the tragedy will continue to unfold. I am not suggesting the current trajectory can’t be altered, and it will not change unless TRPA and the other “partners” begin the difficult steps necessary to address the issues plaguing Lake Tahoe. That must include addressing the impacts of recreational boating, or Lake Tahoe will become toxic and will be sacrificed for all, future generations, for the benefit of the few.

Keep Tahoe Pure; Microplastics Endure
Use Wood, Metal and Stone in the Shorezone
TRPA can continue the failed programs discussed in my Petition or begin to address the unaddressed impacts and shortcomings of the TMDL restoration goals and permit programs for shoreline structures with your partners. If TRPA won’t approve permits for these plastic shorezone structures the other agency permits do not matter.

Alan Miller, Professional Engineer
S. Lake Tahoe CA
REFERENCES (all can be found at https://tahoe.ucdavis.edu/ except no. 3)

1. 2023 Lake Tahoe Clarity Report, Alexander L. Forrest and Shohei Watanabe, UC Davis Tahoe Environmental Research Center, Prepared for the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (7/12/24)
1348
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 1; Alan Miller, PE Page 38 of 38

2. 2024 Lake Tahoe Clarity Report, Stephanie E. Hampton, Alexander L. Forrest, Shohei Watanabe, and Lidia Tanaka, UC Davis Tahoe Environmental Research Center, Prepared for the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (6/13/25)

3. Iron Reduction in Profundal Sediments of Ultraoligotrophic Lake Tahoe under OxygenLimited Conditions, Meret Aeppli, Geoffrey Schladow, Juan S. Lezama Pacheco, and Scott Fendorf, Environmental Science & Technology 2023 57 (3), 1529-1537 DOI:

10.1021/acs.est.2c05714

4. Naranjo, R., Work, P., Heyvaert, A., Schladow, G., Cortes, A., Watanabe, S., Tanaka, L., and Elci, S., 2022, Seasonal and long-term clarity trend assessment of Lake Tahoe, California–Nevada: U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2022–5070, 86 p., https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20225070.
1349
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 2; Alan Miller, PE Page 1 of 32 An Independent Report on Lake Tahoe Water Quality
Based on a Review of Available Public Information
Part 2: Focusing on Review of the
Tahoe Environmental Research Center’s
2025 State of the Lake Report
and
Recommended Actions to Aid the Restoration of Lake Tahoe By
Alan Miller, Civil and Environmental Engineer
South Lake Tahoe California
August 26, 2025
(Note to the reader: The information in Part 2 of this Report was first provided in Public Interest Comments to the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Governing Board, meeting of August 27, 2025, Agenda item VII.B., State of the Lake Report 2025 with Director Stephanie Hampton, U.C.

Davis Tahoe Environmental Research Center. The information in Part 1 of this Report was first provided in Public Interest Comments to the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Governing Board, meeting of July 23, 2025, Agenda item X.A. Remand of Appeal Stock/Johannessen Single-Parcel Pier Permit, and has been reformatted here without substantial revision other than removal of project-specific comments and findings.)
1350
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 2; Alan Miller, PE Page 2 of 32

TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS . . . 4
GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE 2025 STATE OF THE LAKE REPORT . . . 5 Prior Reporting, July 2025
With Specific Reference to the 2025 SOTLR . . . 6
Finding the Answers Needed and Cumulative Impacts . . . 7 Not a Solution . . . 8
About “Stability” . . . 9
Research Suggestions Not in the SOTLRs . . . 10
Suggestions for Additional Applied Research
Future Research . . . 11
Additional Comments on the Clarity and the Total Maximum Daily Load Regulation The BIG Question . . . 12
Consider Expanding Secchi Disk Sampling
Consider the Effects of Geoengineering on Clarity Measurements . . . 13 No Apparent Trends? . . . 14
Tahoe Environmental Research Center Welcomes a New Director . . . 15 TERC and the TMDL
Making Waves at Lake Tahoe . . . 16
IN RECENT NEWS REPORTS . . . AND NOT
Keeping It Real . . . 17
1351
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 2; Alan Miller, PE Page 3 of 32 Staff Changes and Promotions at Lahontan Water Board, New Executive Officer . . . 19 Pollutant Reduction Targets and Total Loads . . . 20
TMDL Clarity Targets Will Not Be Met, Never Have Been Met SPECIFIC COMMENTS BASED ON THE 2025 STATE OF THE LAKE REPORT. . . 21 Microplastics Not Considered with Fine Particles
Microplastics Contributions from In-Lake Plastic Sources Not Considered . . . 22 An Estimate of Plastic Surfaces in the Shorezone of Lake Tahoe Toxics and Cumulative Effects of Plastics in the Shorezone . . . 23 Plastic Weathering and Break-up Processes . . . 26
Cumulative Impact and Other Assessments Lacking . . . 27 Recreational Boating and Plastics
Apply Common Sense to Save Money, Time and Lake Tahoe . . . 28 This Idea is Taboo and Can’t Be Discussed!
The Exempt Industry
Final Thoughts on Microplastics . . . 29
NOW IS THE TIME FOR CHANGE . . . 30
Reference . . . 31
Addendum: Author’s Note Concerning Part 1 . . . 31
Keep Tahoe Pure; Microplastics Endure
Use Wood, Metal and Stone in the Shorezone
1352
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 2; Alan Miller, PE Page 4 of 32

INTRODUCTORY COMMENTS
This independent analysis of the State of the Lake Report (SOTLR) for 2025 cited herein, with data current through 2024, both precedes and follows the publication of the SOTLR in 2025. I searched the document to see if it had undergone peer review. If so, it is not mentioned in the SOTLR. Similar to the SOTLR the analysis herein is written for the non-scientific public and has not been peer-reviewed. Unlike Tahoe Environmental Research Center (TERC), I have no one to thank for its preparation beyond those who contributed to the public reports I cite. I am appreciative of the work by Tahoe Environmental Research Center (TERC) and Desert Research Institute (DRI) to provide the public reports and the work to develop the data behind them.

This report is my review of the work of my peers and others with far-stronger research backgrounds and institutional credentials. It is also their opportunity to consider and critique my writings and scientific hypotheses, opportunities which have so far been declined without the slightest peep by the great scientists and researchers in the Tahoe science community.

That’s okay. I am not supposed to have a seat at the table, as I have been the “opposition” to the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) (and others in their partnerships) on many policies and projects. I have been an alternative voice not by choice so much as necessity, the mother of invention. I am a civil and environmental engineer and a generalist with a practical bent by nature, well-known to the TRPA with a long regulatory background at Lake Tahoe.

From https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11797007/:
“The peer review process is a critical component of scientific research and publishing, designed to validate and improve manuscripts before their public release. . . .

The effectiveness of peer review rests on at least three foundational principles which include (i) disclosure of conflicts of interest: to maintain transparency, reviewers must disclose any potential conflicts of interest, including financial, professional, or personal biases that could affect their impartiality. Disclosing these conflicts protects the integrity of the peer review process and maintains trust among authors, editors, and readers; (ii) scientific expertise: reviewers must have sufficient knowledge in the manuscript’s subject area to provide a useful assessment of its content. This expertise ensures that reviewers can evaluate the scientific rigor, relevance, and quality of the research appropriately; and (iii) constructive feedback: feedback should not only highlight strengths and weaknesses, but also provide actionable recommendations for improvement. Constructive feedback allows authors to refine their work, and often strengthens the study’s contribution to its field (Table 1). 1353
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 2; Alan Miller, PE Page 5 of 32 I don’t participate in the “research” world of the academics and scholars. I don’t have any “research” credentials beyond my bachelor’s degree in environmental resources engineering, where I did assist professors with their water research. My comments are based on my 30- some years of background in the field and my registration as a CA professional engineer.

Credentials help understand qualifications to a degree. However, science is not concerned with credentials, but the quality of information. One right equation makes all others wrong, as in E = mc2, thinking conducted by one individual in that case. That’s real science. And, of course, lowly Dr. Einstein was opposed by his institutionalized peers, but his voice of truth overcame the throng, just as did Dr. Charles Goldman in his day. I therefore rest on the quality of my analyses.

GENERAL COMMENTS ON THE 2025 STATE OF THE LAKE REPORT
Before I present comments, TERC states that the SOTLRs are intended for non-scientists, so we may assume the SOTLRs are not peer-reviewed while presenting certain information that has, in some cases, undergone peer review. I quoted the above because it is in that spirit that I approach the critique here, based on what has been presented in the SOTLR to the public and decision-makers in regulatory authority over the Lake Tahoe basin, and to a certain extent, public news reports and responses to the SOTLR which are “concerning” to me.

Regarding the above quote on peer review: I have no potential conflicts of interest, as stated, no inherent biases. My insights are from training and experience. I believe I have enough expertise in the subject matter to provide a useful, independent, assessment of the contents of the reports and other information, and I seek to provide constructive feedback while not sugarcoating important deficiencies with subtleties. I am a volunteer in service to the mother of us all. Now is a time to review what has gone before and put forward and test new hypotheses.

Prior Reporting, July 2025
This water quality report augments and follows a prior report I submitted for the public record of TRPA in July 2025 (as noted on the title page) in connection with a private pier approval.

Because I’m not being paid for any of my engineering-activist work, to save time I have simply stripped out the portions applicable to the specific project (in the public record) before reformatting and republication here in Public Interest Comments, with other minor edits and changes. You’ll find it after Part 2, titled An Independent Report on Lake Tahoe Water Quality Based on a Review of Available Public Information; Part 1: A Conceptual Model for Lake Tahoe with a Focus On Microplastics and the Total Maximum Daily Load Regulation for Lake Tahoe.

Those who have not read it may wish to start there then come back to here. These comments 1354
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 2; Alan Miller, PE Page 6 of 32 are related but separate, and augment the prior report in certain respects based on the new information in the 2025 SOTLR, and I provide a short lead-in to Part 1 at the end of Part 2.

With Specific Reference to the 2025 SOTLR
In this section I provide a summary of comments on topics of interest to me, going through the report from top to bottom, a sort of “first cut.” Discussion of many these of topics and the quoted information appears again in later comments where they are woven as reminders into the context I have explained. Therefore I am not being mindlessly repetitive, but methodically examining new angles and potential dots to connect.

I agree completely with the statement of p 2.1 – “people transforming data into knowledge.” That is what I’m attempting here as well and I understand it takes partners to bring “knowledge to action.” I likewise wish to foster a more “holistic understanding,” as in my Bathtub Model in Part 1.

P 2.2 mentions a number of monitored parameters. Among them are many things no one can control: Air and water temperatures, rain as snow, precipitation, lake mixing, stratification, stream temperatures, mixing, plankton species, periphyton, chlorophyll, turbidity, dissolved oxygen, internal wave structures, materials movement, and others. There may be very good reasons I don’t understand for monitoring all of these things that can’t be managed, for instance, scholarship and pure research. I don’t mean to impugn any of that, especially to the extent it may be funded solely by U.C. Davis (or DRI). There are big management problems at Lake Tahoe with a need for greater science-research integration. If the science is understood, that isn’t clear to me and, by extension, the public based on the SOTLRs. So I appreciate the Director’s desire to bring more accessibility to the reports for non-scientists, while maintaining high quality, to “transform that knowledge to action.”
Part 1 included discussions of primary productivity and I note that p 2.3 indicates “primary productivity increased” with the data for the last several years withdrawn from the chart pending some reassessments underway. The comments in Part 1 need to be considered in that light, as they were prepared before this was known.

P 2.4 discusses,
. . . annual average clarity (62.3 feet in 2024) appears to have plateaued. Winter trends have stabilized or improved, but summer trends remain concerning. We have monitored particles since 2009, with attention to those most strongly affecting water clarity in the 1–6.73 micron size class, and we saw a sudden increase after 2015. This past year we 1355
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 2; Alan Miller, PE Page 7 of 32 recorded the highest number of particles since monitoring began, with over 6 million particles per liter in the 1–6 micron size class . . . The specific identity of these particles remains unknown . . . targeted research is needed into the nature of the clarity-reducing particles . . . collecting data on characteristics of the light that enters the water.” Subsequent parts of this report and Part 1 may help to inform, in detail, the incomplete picture here. The increase is of course directly attributable in large part to particles in terrestrial storm runoff, and I suggest also cumulative increasing inputs of microplastics from plastic structures on the shoreline—the weather in 2022-2023 was also hard on in-lake plastic structures. In addition I suggest the effects of geoengineering must be considered.

I echo what was written about the importance of educating the public: “Education about the Lake Tahoe environment remains a cornerstone of TERC’s engagement with the Tahoe community” (P2.5) I too “. . . celebrate stewardship successes that have protected the lake from the degradation while also recognizing the need to make additional progress in restoring the lake and building resilience to face current and future environmental challenges.” With regard to “. . . novel pollutants all pose challenges that threaten health of the lake,” I again suggest microplastics from in-lake structures may be chief among them until more is known to quantify this contribution, and that any such contribution is illicit and should not have been allowed.

The Wirewalker device (p 6.5) for continuous data collection to 150 m is pretty amazing to me, and it would be great if it could help correlate its data with other parameters like clarity and particle counts, etc. I comment further below from p 6.8, “One of the buoys holds a microplastic deposition bucket for our partners at Desert Research Institute, to help further their microplastic research.” I comment below regarding deposition of particulates from geochemical engineering, which DRI also conducts, and the need for testing. For example, has there been any change in concentrations of aluminum over the decades? If so, the likely and perhaps only source is atmospheric pollutants known to be associated with geoengineering.

Finding the Answers Needed and Cumulative Impacts
P 6.16, cites some TERC Goals: “Interdisciplinary teams must work together to collect and share data, ask the right questions, and find the answers needed to keep Lake Tahoe a healthy and clean source of fresh water that sustains life in the Basin, and help to future-proof the lake for inevitable changes.” Yes, but unless TERC is also monitoring what TRPA is approving and allowing they will be working at cross purposes and TRPA will continue using TERC to provide cover for their thousands of project approvals. That is because of false claims that nothing TRPA allows ever has any adverse impact: their regulations don’t really allow projects with significant 1356
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 2; Alan Miller, PE Page 8 of 32 adverse impacts absent findings of overriding considerations. Therefore every plan and project since the 2012 adoption of the Regional Plan has been approved under a “Finding of No Significant Effect” or FONSE, and before that as well. TRPA has come to stand before the public as the “Tahoe Regional Piecemealing Agency,” as well as the “Tahoe Regional Plastics Agency,” in my view, and has been recalcitrant as such. While TRPA is not TERC’s problem, it affects the research. TRPA doesn’t do project monitoring, so the research is all it has, and the research is showing ongoing cumulative effects in Lake Tahoe, no question.

The public is told to believe their findings when TRPA staff opines it has completely eliminated significant adverse project effects, and all that remains are “legacy” impacts. It’s not credible.

There are a lot of those legacies and some have been reversed, but others, like the Tahoe Keys, will remain. None of the “minor impacts” of its approvals are cumulatively considerable in TRPA’s view so there is no reason to do anything any differently than it has done in the last two decades and more. The FONSEs require little analysis and are “efficient.” The cumulative impacts are writ large in declining Lake Tahoe water quality. The more-recent evidence is that all those FONSE’s are not leading to restoration of Lake Tahoe clarity or ecology, and that TRPA needs a lot more help from scientific managers. Is that a reason for TRPA to pause or do anything different? They must or it will be “game over” at Lake Tahoe as the downslide continues and accelerates with negative feedbacks.

Not a Solution
If they are told of their shortcomings, TRPA and the other partners clam up, throw their backs up, circle the wagons, and yield only to legal actions . . . because they are the planning and regulatory experts and they’ve got their agency partners at TERC/DRI and elsewhere to defend their ignorance. They seldom if ever admit to any shortcoming. TRPA is not a scientific organization; it is a planning and political body acting under color of state law, appointed by the legislators of the states, and little more. The legislatures no more understand TRPA than anyone else; their job is to provide funding, not oversight . . . leading to the present situation.

There is lots of funding with little accountability for results.

On p 9.1 Sources of clarity-reducing and blueness-reducing pollutants are charted, but if I recall correctly the charts shown are from TMDL development prior to 2011, and have never been verified or updated. They may have been peer-reviewed at the time? The characterization was done to help identify the three main pollutants affecting lake health, and their sources at the time. Suggestions are to provide references and frame this in a “historic” context beyond the mention of the TMDL in the last sentence, which says it formed the strategy for Lake Tahoe restoration. Is the strategy working? It doesn’t seem to be, based on the SOTLRs over the years, 1357
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 2; Alan Miller, PE Page 9 of 32 but you can’t glean anything like that from them. Such information has to be ferreted out the dense data collections and all the different research efforts and silos, a challenge.

On p 9.5 Suspended sediment contribution by Upper Truckee River is discussed and this is more of a questioning than a critique: It says, “In 2024, the estimated suspended sediment load from the Upper Truckee River was 879 MT. The highest load ever recorded was 6,100 MT in 2006.

The average annual load is 1,909 MT. (One metric ton (MT) = 2,205 pounds.).” This begs for more explanation: How did we get from 6,100 MT in 2016 to 879 MT in 2024, a year with among the highest precipitation/runoff in many decades? Is it channel restorations, the UTR marsh restoration, or some other factor? There must be data to help inform this picture, which seems very positive. I would suggest examining more of the peaks to see whether there are management tools to reduce them further, as the floods are when materials move, with snowmelt most-often entering the ground before discharging as overland runoff or stream flows. For example, if rain on snow accounts for 2006 loads (I seem to recall) then perhaps slower snowmelt accounts for load reductions in 2024? What is the correlation with precipitation, stream flow and the sediment rating curve? (My guided undergraduate research clearly showed a non-linear rating curve for UTR based on flow and suspended sediment data to about 1990; what is it now?) What is the contribution of fine sediment from UTR? The discussion on p 9.8 of Lake fine particle concentration shows a “concerning” to me exponentially-increasing trend from around 1 particle per liter in 2012-2015 to 6 in 2024, with five years since 2016 above 4 particles per liter. Explanations are lacking as noted, and there have been some big fires and smoke events in that timeframe. I also offer observations on microplastics in what follows that may in part account for this unexplained increase. I have identified plastics from marinas and piers as an ongoing slow-release microplastics time-bomb, with a lot of big explosions coming in time, not long now.

P 9.12 Fine particle distribution “The entry of particles in the upper part of the lake (above 300 ft) associated with spring snowmelt is evident in late May through August.” That is conjectural and incomplete as this discussion omits consideration of microplastics, an in-lake particle source, as discussed in Part 1 and more in sections below.

About “Stability”
The discussion on p 11.1 Annual average Secchi depth indicates: “. . . due to natural variability, 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.” While rates of clarity loss have decreased based on the statistics, the finding in the latter sentence requires 1358
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 2; Alan Miller, PE Page 10 of 32 greater support in light of other factors and trends adverse to ecological restoration. “Stability” is used elsewhere to say both that temperature stability is a great concern (to overall “system” stability) and that the “system” has reached a stable state with regard to clarity. The system “appears to be” statistically stable unless its stability is upset by increasing temperature stability. This is confusing and contradictory and I question whether or how both together are correct? That is also where I believe the public thinks something is amiss with the “stability” announcements and that total facts don’t add up to this claim.

In 2024, Lake Tahoe’s annual average Secchi depth was 62.3 feet, a decline from 68.2 feet in 2023 (see comments on 2023 annual average clarity in Part 1). P 11.3 Summer Secchi depth states, “The summer average Secchi depth dropped to 53.4 feet (16.3 m), making it the fifth poorest summer average recorded, with 2019 being 53 feet, 2008 being 51 feet, 2010 and 2011 being 52 feet.” Part 1 showed 68.2 feet in 2023 was following upwelling. P 11.1 says 103 feet on 2/1/24 and p 11.2 says on 3/7/24 (?); a clear-water dissolved-nutrient upwelling combined with later/other inputs to drive summer clarity lower, much like 2023. I dare say few were expecting or prepared for 2022 into 2023. Nonetheless, these things do not bode well for the “goal that agencies and the Tahoe Basin community continue to work toward” because wet years will come and go, and we’ve seen nothing of what is potential with a significant “atmospheric river” continental runoff event, as occurred with random regularity in the CA/OR/WA geologic record of the last two millennia. 2022-2023 gave an indication of how to prepare for that and worse, and what will result lacking that preparation. Call it a safety factor to plan for the worst.

Research Suggestions Not in the SOTLRs
Some things I’d like to see more of from the regional research community include: municipal storm runoff characterization, development of treatments for runoff and effectiveness testing.

Also, examinations of ground water conditions, and contributions of N/P/FSP (esp. urban), to the totals—which may be changing. Because it is far better than direct discharge, stormwater infiltration is both one of the most cost-effective management measures and a perceived panacea for development impacts, past and present. Such waste disposal practices are not without potentially significant cumulative impacts as assumed in planning and regulatory circles. Now that agencies and individuals have been shoving as much pollution as possible into the ground and thence to groundwater for 50 years through the basin’s shallow, porous soils, examinations of potential changes to groundwater are needed: what is going on down there since the last examination (by USACOE/BLM?) in years prior to the TMDL adoption? What are travel times for pollutants in groundwater at Lake Tahoe and what are the contributions and long-term implications for the Lake from ongoing and increasing pollutant discharges to groundwater?
1359
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 2; Alan Miller, PE Page 11 of 32 Suggestions for Additional Applied Research
With regard to the SOTLR and constructive feedback one overarching comment is that the various research efforts, public reports and publications seem largely in the domain of “pure research” versus ”applied research” or “applied science” directed to solve Lake management problems, with notable exceptions such as aquatic invasive species monitoring and runoff monitoring. I find much of the report is concerned with collecting data to analyze and understand factors that may affect Lake water quality which are entirely beyond the ability of any manager over the region to do anything about. More management guidance is needed or more explanation of the implications of changes in monitored conditions would be helpful.

I suggest a greater emphasis on how pure research into factors that are not predictable or controllable in any real sense can be applied by basin managers, with numerous variables and unknowns like the weather. For instance, more precipitation is notably falling as rain than snow. For this single concept: What are the implications of that on erosion rates and runoff rates? What are the implications for stream morphology, particularly with regard to large-scale “restoration” interventions? What are the implications for storm water managers and project developers? What can be done to provide more robust and resilient treatments? How can we test these management implications and adjust policies? The agency staff and public would like to know your research perspectives, and need to understand them; not the minutia, the big picture as I attempt to sketch.

Future Research
Future research and monitoring (p 2.5) augments what has gone before with new and better methods. I was challenged to pull concrete recommendations from the SOTLR Report for “actionable recommendations for improvement” other than for AIS. This critique will provide many such management recommendations, and my main recommendation as a reviewer is to focus future efforts more on applied research needed to assist land managers with actionable recommendations. As discussed further below, the runoff to be examined in the study begun (p

6.21) should also be examined for microplastics, in urban runoff, and geoengineering chemicals deposited on the land and vegetation, as well.

Additional Comments on the Clarity and the Total Maximum Daily Load Regulation Part 1 comments extensively on the TMDL for Lake Tahoe. The SOTLR comments on the perhaps-slower pace of adverse changes to annual average water clarity, the ongoing declines in “summer average clarity” and increases in fine particles the researchers reportedly do not understand based on insufficient data. They note that current regulatory (and research) efforts 1360
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 2; Alan Miller, PE Page 12 of 32 are designed to restore lost annual average clarity to nearly 100 feet by the latter decades of the century, and that the ongoing regulatory efforts are directed at attaining long-term clarity targets the agencies are diligently working on. Those targets are pie-in-the-sky goals adopted for policy and legal purposes. They weren’t believable on adoption and are far less believable now.

The BIG Question
TERC originated in Dr. Goldman’s efforts to show decision-makers what was scientifically predictable if sewage and other wastes discharges to Lake Tahoe were not rapidly reduced; environmental disaster. These public science reports no longer perform that role. They tend to downplay the adverse changes to Lake Tahoe year after year. I would prefer to see talents redirected to answer management questions, big ones like Dr. Goldman once asked, “Is the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) regulation correct and, if so, why has clarity responded negatively for the past 14 years?”
Consider Expanding Secchi Disk Sampling
While “annual average clarity” is reportedly without a clear trend, a “plateau” is asserted based on the wide variability of Lake Tahoe and the statistical limitations of the long-term data set.

That data set is based on one location in the middle of Lake Tahoe and two locations on the west shore where secchi disk readings are taken methodically throughout the year. From p

11.1, “27 readings at Lake Tahoe’s long-term index station and 12 readings from the mid-lake index station taken throughout the year.” There is very little statistical power with so few measurement locations. All the secchi disk clarity statistics are from those three surface locations with no data to show those clarity readings are representative of the entirety of Lake Tahoe, while spatial clarity may vary considerably.

One suggestion therefore is to increase the number of secchi disk monitoring locations to compare against the long-term data set(s) to reduce the statistical error bars and provide a more robust statistical picture at reasonable cost. Secchi disk reading is reported to be highly reproducible and could be accomplished with volunteers from the boating community with researcher oversight, watching a plate disappear underwater and recording the observations.

Volunteers and scholars would enjoy that. Lake Tahoe is a very large water body to represent clarity in the upper 140 feet based on one to three monitoring locations. Why weren’t more long-term data collection efforts started to expand the secchi disk knowledge long ago, with so much riding on clarity? Perhaps it is because secchi disk measurements can’t inform of the 1361
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 2; Alan Miller, PE Page 13 of 32 reasons for particular readings, as secchi disk clarity is a combined surrogate parameter for the combined effects of all influences on clarity, without regard to cause.

Consider the Effects of Geoengineering on Clarity Measurements TERC collects dust on buoys in the Lake. The dust from the buoys, especially if past dust is available, should be examined for aluminum, barium, strontium, carbon and heavy metals, likely signature chemicals from geoengineering carried out within the region for the last several decades or longer. Since the latter part of the last century and increasingly in recent decades these particles have been intentionally sprayed into the atmosphere from aircraft to dim solar radiation reaching the planet surface, to control weather, and for other illicit and secret military purposes. (You needn’t accredit me. See the film UnConventional Grey https://rumble.com/v39uii8-un-conventional.html and many other info sources such as Dane Wigington’s website https://geoengineeringwatch.org/category/geoengineering/top-story/ and be among more than 50 million other website visitors.) The institutionalized academic researchers and governments they support and are supported by do not acknowledge the existence of the ongoing global geoengineering despite credible, widespread and growing evidence in the public sphere. Thus has “science” been corrupted and is not to be believed if geoengineering is omitted from discussions. The researchers in denial sully their own work— and worse.

My conclusion is that by their silence, which has been bought, institutionalized academic and science researchers are assisting in geoengineering efforts to contaminate and destroy the air we breathe, the food and water we ingest, all plant and animal life and, of course, to sicken and kill humans in a secret war on them before they get informed, out of control, angry. Those behind it, the trillionaires and governments of the world they control, use geoengineering as a means to manipulate the weather and climate, changes they are causing to manipulate the people into believing claims that the climate is changing in response to carbon dioxide from human activity for their own, secret reasons. (Following his recent assumption of office President Trump provided a notice to the perpetrators and flyboys of geoengineering that further activity will not be without severe consequences and it seems to be abating, but we shall see, literally.)
There can be no credible or informed scientific debate about anything having to do with socalled “climate changes caused by human CO2 emissions” until the past and ongoing geoengineering is acknowledged and the effects are quantified. The point is: Lake Tahoe is affected by the ongoing geoengineering with never a word from TERC—or its ”partners” at DRI 1362
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 2; Alan Miller, PE Page 14 of 32 undeniably involved in geoengineering. They are two-bit actors, “extras” on the set in a global tragedy being enacted, not connecting the facts for the decision-makers.

Don’t forget public, these research specialists are supposed to be the smartest people, the trained experts with science backgrounds, so the blindness is either real, or feigned for reasons unknown. Maybe they secretly believe the global climate manipulation experiment is needed to combat climate change? DRI wants to be a rainmaker. The others nonetheless tacitly support ongoing undisclosed government efforts to change the weather and/or climate while poisoning the planet, something I will never understand that seems to be tied to economics and “service to self.”
Such geoengineering, for instance by DRI (see Part 1), is well known by hydrologists and others, but they at DRI are not military contractors so far as I know. Decreases in incoming solar radiation have been documented by decreases in energy outputs from solar arrays, for example by Dane Wigington, and may also be an unexamined factor affecting clarity in a variety of ways, just as does weather affect UV light penetration, per the SOTLR. Therefore, a suggestion is to research the ongoing changes to solar influx, “the dimming,” the number of cloudy days in past decades vs. more recent times, etc., particularly those attributable to geoengineering, with jet “chemtrails” criss-crossing over Lake Tahoe as frequently observed in the past before the overcast sets in.

Changes in incoming solar radiation since 1969 are likely not accounted for in the TERC research. Decreases in sunlight intensity over time would likely reduce depths at which a secchi disk can be observed but this is done by dispersing aerosol particles in the upper and lower atmosphere to rain down on the land and waters. So combined effects are likely going to show up in Lake clarity data as decreases in clarity from particles, even if particle numbers were, say, reduced by runoff controls. The geoengineering may also affect the sun-energy inputs driving primary production and biological responses. Who knows how these unacknowledged, unaccounted for, geoengineering factors are affecting Lake Tahoe? I don’t, nor do the researchers at TERC/DRI who remain silent behind climate-change-driven agendas and funding.

No Apparent Trends?
Few are interested in simply tracking the ongoing declines in clarity, even if rates are slower. I assert declines have not been arrested based on rising fine particle counts, increasing primary productivity (PP), increasing nitrogen and phosphorus, and other data in the reports, statistical “noise” aside. The complete record shows ongoing declines, and a statistical plateau is not an improvement, just a lessening or ceasing of the rate of decline. With no clear trend upward and 1363
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 2; Alan Miller, PE Page 15 of 32 many factors tending toward forcing ongoing declines, clarity could resume declining from its “apparently” unchanging statistical plateau just as PP appears to be accelerating exponentially based on prior reports. (TERC is refiguring the PP baseline to accord with current measurement methods, so data from recent years is missing from the 2025 SOTLR. Any such changes to PP values are suspect and only justifiable with robust peer review in my opinion, due to the conflicts cited. See Part 1.)
Tahoe Environmental Research Center Welcomes a New Director Like many others, I respectfully welcome the new TERC Director, Stephanie Hampton, with her impressive background and credentials. I think Lake Tahoe is fortunate to gain her. However, I didn’t see any “Super-Hero” superpowers listed, though maybe she has them? I hope so. I think it is going to take more than superpowers to reverse the ongoing degradation of Lake Tahoe and not reasonable to expect. That is especially true if the role she assumes is to put the seal of approval on all that has gone before; if so, her presence will make no real difference in the fate of Lake Tahoe. On the other hand, perhaps god has sent her to assist to abate this mess? TERC and the TMDL
Director Hampton obviously has broad experience with institutional research. However, I’ve been at the Wild West Rodeo at Lake Tahoe for over three decades, and witness to the Total Maximum Daily Load modeling and regulatory actions by the two states and others, largely under the direction of former TERC Director Schladow. His recent departure, following most of the others then involved, comes at a time when the TMDL appears to be deficient in all significant respects. There have been no actual improvements in Lake clarity since the TMDL was adopted in 2011, following nearly a decade in development. The TMDL adoption was driven not only by USEPA regulations but in response to public ire over obvious continued degradation. Despite Lahontan Water Board assurances, the TMDL adoption was opposed by local government leaders in CA at the time as sediment reductions required were perceived as unrealistic and potentially too costly and difficult to achieve.

That has proven not to be the case. The TMDL pollutant reduction targets have reportedly been met with great consistency in general. Wouldn’t water quality be worse without the TMDL? That is my working assumption, and also that the TMDL has not resolved the clarity dilemma. It has brought us to now. So unless some very basic assumptions are questioned and resolved, the TMDL is not the answer. Perhaps the reduction targets should have been more stringent and tied to short-term clarity improvements?
1364
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 2; Alan Miller, PE Page 16 of 32 TERC’s role since the TMDL was developed seems to be to forget about any details of that past effort, laud the “partner” agencies and their staff for their role in “restoring Lake Tahoe” and give the public a microscopic view of the ongoing degradation playing out macroscopically for those like me who have lived and worked here for decades. That includes never calling the assumptions of the TMDL into question, at least not in public, or doing any research into potential shortcomings and blind spots. Perhaps that will change with Dr. Schladow’s departure? Research of factors that can’t be controlled (even if understood) will not cure what ails Lake Tahoe in any event; while it may aid in understanding limnology it is nest-feathering at public expense with regard to Lake Tahoe. Let’s hope for more than that going forward while understanding that TERC and its research partners are in large part financially-dependent on the largesse of the agencies funding the TMDL implementation, and thus inherently in appearance of conflict of interest. It is the Lake of the States, the TMDL research funders.

Making Waves at Lake Tahoe
Top researchers don’t often get where they are by going against the powers that be, being controversial, nor do their minions. While all are interested in improving Lake Tahoe water quality, the regulatory agencies and legislative funders have a tremendous vested interest in maintaining the illusion that the problems will be resolved given enough money, staff and time . . . perhaps for them to retire, like Dr. Schladow and the others who helped develop the TMDL regulations, before the illusions break down completely.

Likewise, the research institutions have a vested interest in maintaining their government funding, and risk losing it by research into issues that would put their funders in a bad light.

That’s why I’m here, to point out and pursue the issues they haven’t addressed, that they may be addressed in the future. If the agents continue to sideline me, I’ll do what I can. Answering the TMDL question would be good research work worth doing. With that, I wish Director Hampton all the best and state that only time and her actions will tell what her contributions will be at Lake Tahoe.

IN RECENT NEWS REPORTS . . . AND NOT
The annual release of the SOTLR comes in advance of the annual meeting of the politicians and agency heads that is either The Grandstand on the Sand (at Sand Harbor) or The Rally at Valhalla; this year it was the latter. This is an excerpt from TRPA’s report of it at https://www.trpa.gov/tahoe-summit-progress-and-legacy/:

While progress is coming from many directions, the lake’s health and clarity remain the cornerstone of TRPA’s work. Recent reports show that thousands of public and private 1365
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 2; Alan Miller, PE Page 17 of 32 water quality projects are now preventing more than 700,000 pounds of fine sediment from reaching the lake each year. Encouraging progress, but clarity has yet to improve during the summer months. This underscores the importance of continued action. From restoring streams and wetlands to improving transportation and expanding affordable housing to reduce commutes, today’s work is laying the foundation for long-term improvements in lake clarity.

Like I wrote, an implied reference to meeting TMDL removal targets that won’t achieve restoration goals and no clarity improvements, period. Half-truths are lies for agencypreservation, “weasel-words” as transparent as Lake Tahoe in early winter. The Lake Tahoe Daily Tribune (August 15, 2025) also carried a report of the Rally at Valhalla and I find nothing worth quoting from that article for purposes here, just mutual back-patting about transportation improvements, development projects and “restoration” that has yet to arrive.

Keeping It Real
Peggy Bourland writes a monthly editorial column in the Tahoe Mountain News called “Keeping It Real” and frequently comments on regional government and agency follies. She is widely read and seems to perceive what others without, say, my technical background, perceive with the SOTLR and agency “spin.” Despite heavy propagandizing by TRPA (at all times) she knows the history and trend and isn’t buying it, like the tens of thousands of readers she writes for. See https://tahoemountainnews.net/ with the salient points reproduced below:
1366
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 2; Alan Miller, PE Page 18 of 32 The Tahoe Daily Tribune’s August 15, 2025 issue also had a report headlined, “Joint State Effort Shields Lake Tahoe from a Record Amount of Polluted Runoff.” The article was actually a press release from the CA State Water Resources Control Board. Here is an excerpt:

Results from the bi-state report found that each of the program’s urban implementing partners, the California Department of Transportation, Nevada Department of Transportation, El Dorado County, Placer County, Douglas County, Washoe County and the City of South Lake Tahoe, exceeded their pollutant reduction targets. Results are estimated using the Pollutant Load Reduction Model, therefore actual load reductions may differ. . . .
1367
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 2; Alan Miller, PE Page 19 of 32 On the research front, program partners are accelerating efforts to understand the full range of complex interactions and processes that harm lake clarity, such as wildfires, warming air and water temperatures, extreme weather and invasive species. While there is uncertainty surrounding in-lake processes, scientists and agencies agree that the TMDL Program and associated pollutant reductions are fundamental to protecting the lake.

The press release also states “an estimated 727,000 pounds of fine sediment, more than 5,800 pounds of nitrogen and nearly 2,100 pounds of phosphorus were prevented from reaching the lake in 2024, all annual record highs since the program began tracking these statistics in 2016.” That’s all well and good, they made their targets in 2024, and the fractions of the maximal “total load” are unstated. The recent appointee to Lahontan Water Board Executive Officer, Ben Letton, is quoted: “. . . Building resilience into our pollutant control efforts is essential.” My reading of the above based on my experience is that, due to the heavy runoff in 2023, the runoff control systems were most likely silted up and overwhelmed long before the major runoff period ended. They are reporting only what was caught in 2024, not what was bypassed, which was major in 2023. I also question whether that was all “fine sediment” as stated, as defined by TERC and the TMDL, and how that was determined, details of the tracking models I have no time for in advance of the TRPA meeting this was prepared for.

Staff Changes and Promotions at Lahontan Water Board, New Executive Officer If you didn’t notice above, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board—Lahontan Region has a new Executive Officer appointee, elevated from his position as second in command. My former colleague from Victorville, Mike Plaziak (MP) has been replaced, I know not why, but not before issuing a General Order titled: “Board Order No. R6-2025-0008, Granting Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification and Exemption to Waste Discharge Prohibitions for Regional General Permit 4 for Lake Tahoe Minimal Impact Activities and Structures, Placer and El Dorado Counties.” This lame document sets the stage for more exempt approvals of plastic shorezone structures at Lake Tahoe, all new piers and pier replacements, with no findings to support that they will not shed prohibited microplastics and other toxic wastes. Good riddance to “MP” Mike and his misleadership of the Lahontan Water Board and staff concerning microplastics control at Lake Tahoe since my retirement.

Also gone, earlier this year, is a long-time associate Senior Scientist at the Lahontan Water Board, former supervisor of the Non-Point Source Unit with Lake Tahoe TMDL oversight responsibilities and one person who read at least some of my petitions and writings to the Lahontan Water Board and TRPA. One more institutional memory lost, I know not why. The 1368
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 2; Alan Miller, PE Page 20 of 32 replacement supervisor is Senior Environmental Scientist Laurie Scribe, whom I hired decades ago. The departures are significant and I wish Laurie well in the years ahead with the deficient TMDL she inherits, and likewise for Mr. Letton, who I barely know but who knows of me.

Pollutant Reduction Targets and Total Loads
The State Water Board press report concludes,
These measures, such as street sweeping and stormwater infiltration, are important steps toward achieving water clarity of at least 78 feet visibility by the end of 2031. In time, the goal is for people to once again be able to see to depths of 100 feet.

Despite the record amount of pollution reduction recorded last year, the lake’s annual average clarity in 2024 was only 62 feet deep, shallower than clarity levels in 2023 and 2022 of 72 and 68 feet deep, respectively. However, long-term trends in clarity are regarded as a more representative metric of lake health than year-to-year variation.

Recent data show that the lake’s long-term clarity is not trending worse or improving.

Only 62 feet annual average clarity in 2024, from the new SOTLR, the new data point I was awaiting from my earlier report (Part 1) that provided extensive analysis of early 2023 impacts; I refer the reader there. Since this was another statistical low following the winter upwelling that brought clear nutrient-rich winter waters from below, similarly to 2023, this may be a pattern.

We can see the reliance on TERC interpretations from the SOTLR in the last sentences. That is the best thing that can be said, no worsening, if that it is correct based on the limited statistics.

TMDL Clarity Targets Will Not Be Met, Never Have Been Met There is no realistic chance as stated of hitting 78 feet as an annual average in six years by following the current TMDL programs in my view, clarity values last seen circa the latter 1980s.

That is just a targeted clarity objective of the TMDL that won’t be met, a paper TMDL. Streams move sediment all the time, but much more in response to extreme runoff and erosion events such as in 2024. A lot of soil movement occurred in 2024. Most likely much of that soil material is still working its way down to Lake Tahoe, conveyed on the stream flows, which could take a number of years or longer absent more large-scale runoff events which, of course, would move more eroded soil and sediment. The SOTLR and Water Boards don’t seem to consider that and the state can seldom admit an error, makes the governors look bad. On the other hand, the latter don’t understand or care as we do.

While clarity was supposed to increase following implementation of the TMDL in 2011, it has only declined overall in the last 14 years. That is more than unfortunate. It goes against the 1369
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 2; Alan Miller, PE Page 21 of 32 regulation, the premise of the TMDL sold to all. The implication is that the Lahontan and State Water Boards will wait and see what the clarity conditions are in 2031 and then determine a course of action when the clarity is further diminished, and shout “Rah-rah!” for the current program in the meantime. Given the timelines to correct anything TMDL, the implication is the states need to begin work on revising the TMDL to be more protective now, not in six years.

SPECIFIC COMMENTS BASED ON THE 2025 STATE OF THE LAKE REPORT The 2025 SOTLR presents data from July 2024 for certain monitored parameters. The hypothesis that increased concentrations of fine particles in the springtime may be correlated to storm runoff from the surrounding landscape needs further support based on sampling of the incoming streams that has begun. While there probably is a strong correlation, testing would need to show whether any correlation with the in-lake increase cited corresponds also to the types and amounts of particles found in runoff. Source assessments would then be needed if the types and amounts of particles do in fact account for the increase in particles.

Microplastics Not Considered with Fine Particles
Much of the prior report (Part 1) is concerned with in-lake sources of microplastics and the data TERC reported on them. Urban landscapes and roads are where microplastics from tire wear and other significant terrestrial sources of microplastics, including those deposited by air, may be found; in forests, not so much beyond air deposits. Urban runoff control systems may help collect microplastics. That is widely assumed and should be verified. Testing of storm runoff and stream waters should be conducted for microplastics to determine the contributions and species of plastic chemicals most prevalent to assist in source identifications.

While past SOTLRs and other reports have included information on microplastics, the 2025 SOTLR includes only two references to that word on page 6.8 about collection of atmospheric microplastic dust deposits on buoys in Lake Tahoe, and another mention on page 12.1 concerning their education of visitors. That dust data is needed to help fill in data gaps, and dust inputs are nonetheless largely uncontrollable unless produced regionally and are thereby manageable.

Despite the prior reporting on microplastics by TERC discussed in Part 1, the 2025 SOTLR (including the Executive Summary) omits the existence of microplastics with regard to its discussions of “Lake fine particle concentration,” stating on page 9.8 and again on 9.9, “Fine particles in the size range of approximately 1–6 microns in the upper 50 m are principally responsible for the attenuation of visible light and the consequent loss of lake clarity. These particles can be inorganic (clay and silt) or organic (phytoplankton) . . .” (emphasis added), 1370
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 2; Alan Miller, PE Page 22 of 32 leaving out “microplastics” and repeats this again on page 9.12 with the chart for Fine Particle Distribution.

The researchers know, or should, that no testing for microplastics has been done below a level of 250 micrometers. Above that level, Lake Tahoe is among the most contaminated large water bodies in the world. There is no reasonable basis to expect that microplastics do not exist below 250 micrometers in size, right down to 6 or less, based on no testing (as reported last year by interim TERC Director Forrest). While the text is likely a carryover from prior reports, given that that plastics could also be included in and thereby affect fine particle samples the researchers collect, the omissions of microplastics in these sections is “concerning” to me. In a sense, a particle is a particle, and I am nonetheless concerned with sources of particulates not included in the models and measurements, particularly in-lake sources. The effects of microplastics on clarity readings are unknown and are apparently included with the natural substances. I don’t know that differentiation is needed, but microplastics are likely a part of the total particle counts, and could perhaps help to understand unexplained cumulative increases in the “fine particles” in recent years.

Microplastics Contributions from In-Lake Plastic Sources Not Considered Another potential source of microplastics to consider and so far not discussed in any detail within public reports I am aware of is within the Lake Tahoe shoreline boundary, the marinas and piers along the Lake Tahoe shoreline comprised of polymer materials and, perhaps to a lesser extent, the plastic polymer recreational boats that the former support. Collectively I estimate these shoreline structures must amount to millions of pounds but, more specifically, each discrete piece of plastic has one or more surface areas exposed to the Lake Tahoe elements. Apart from styrofoam- or nurdle-filled ballasts for floating piers that break apart (a significant concern), the plastic surfaces exposed to sun, heat, foot traffic, cold, wind, water and ice abrasion are the areas from which microplastics are shed.

An Estimate of Plastic Surfaces in the Shorezone of Lake Tahoe The total surface areas of these materials can scarcely be accurately estimated, total quantities being enormous and structures variable. For example, each “two by four” composite board has four sides, excluding the ends. Though lumber dimensions are less than names imply, let the composite board be 2 inches thick by 4 inches wide and 96 inches long (or 8 feet) for estimation purposes. The surface area then equates to 1152 square inches or 8 square feet. A moderatesized pier 80 feet long by 4 feet wide would then have 12 boards across and 10 lengths, or 120 in total number. The surface area of the pier potentially subject to surface deterioration from 1371
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 2; Alan Miller, PE Page 23 of 32 our one-pier estimate is thus 960 square feet, with some surfaces being more subject to wear and higher particle emission rates than others, but all surfaces potentially shedding year in and year out.

The 2018 Shoreline Plan of TRPA indicates at that time there were 662 piers (24 public, 638 private) and 14 marinas on Lake Tahoe, 12 in California and two in Nevada. Buoys for additional boats number over 4000. Floating platforms may also contain plastics. More piers have been approved since 2018. The Shoreline Plan has no development standards for materials in the shorezone of Lake Tahoe and no discussion of potential adverse impacts of plastics in its Environmental Impact Statement or anywhere else. Not all piers are plastic but most marinas are primarily plastic, and those that are wood will likely be replaced in time with plastic under existing deficient policies.

Therefore I will examine a potential “worst-case” scenario, an order-of-magnitude estimation for the surfaces rather than a “conservative” estimate of what the least discharges might be to estimate the potentials for decay. That is appropriate for Lake Tahoe, where the consequences of maximum releases should be considered. Since discharges of industrial microplastics from the recreational boating industry are prohibited, all discharges must be considered significant and posing a significant public nuisance condition with regard to Lake Tahoe water quality (adding toxins) and aesthetics. Even so, I’m not going to include microplastics from boats, buoys and the boats they support, which are also sources of microplastics, as are the plastic ballasts filled with styrofoam or plastic nurdles omitted from the estimate.

I’ll assume 1280 square feet of surface substantially contributing microplastics from each pier and that each marina has 20 times that amount of surface on average for its collective piers and accessways (though all are different). The estimate of eroding plastic surface area is then on the order of 14*20*960 + 662*960 = 942*960 = 904,320 square feet of total plastic surface area, or about 20.8 acres. One acre is a bit less than a regulation football field, and we don’t know anything about the rates or mass of materials that may be emitted year in and out, with visual evidence that it can be quite substantial. Whether the actual amount of surface is one or 100 acres, the discharges bulk or dust, is beside the point: none of this plastic belongs in Lake Tahoe. It was introduced by reversible error.

Toxics and Cumulative Effects of Plastics in the Shorezone Considering the many hundreds of piers and marinas containing multiple piers around the Lake, the thousands of boats, one can begin to get a sense of the magnitude of the potential in-lake sources of plastic. Every amount added to the Lake has potential significant immediate and 1372
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 2; Alan Miller, PE Page 24 of 32 cumulative impacts to water quality, biology and ecology, established beneficial uses of the waters and aesthetic qualities such as clarity. I remind that microplastics contain long-lived man-made toxins by their very chemical nature, and may contain additional toxic additives such as lead and other heavy metals. That is particularly so for the plastics of a decade or more ago, what the composite-plastics industry marketing calls “early generation” materials, with many such applications still in use around, over and in the Lake. See Part 1 for more details.

The plastic monomers have a variety of densities compared to water, defined as 1 g/cm3at standard temperatures and air pressure, as shown in the following listing for virgin materials without additives. Those materials less dense than 1 g/cm3 would tend to have poor settling characteristics and include plastics used in plastic composite decking used in piers, old and new. (See part 1.) While many plastics, not all, have densities greater than water and would therefore tend to sink, note that may not be true for composites of polymers with wood. Since wood floats and would be bound to the plastics prior to wood decay, the bound combination may be subject to buoyant forces that would tend to maintain composite particles in suspension, where they may accumulate and cloud the water. 1373
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 2; Alan Miller, PE Page 25 of 32 1374
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 2; Alan Miller, PE Page 26 of 32 Plastic Weathering and Break-up Processes
It has been said that macroplastics “break up” into smaller pieces to become microplastics but do not “break down” in chemical composition. The composite plastic weathering and erosion processes ensue each summer with increased ultraviolet sun exposure (hard on plastics), shrinking and contracting with daily temperature changes, and with the season of use, breakage, people and dogs walking and scuffing the pier surfaces (e.g., with sandy feet), dragging skis, kayaks, paddle boards, water toys, sails, coolers, monitoring equipment and other belongings, many plastic. When the boaters retire for the season, storms set in and further dislodge and rinse the fine particles from abrasion and sun-exposure into the waters. The season of wind, snow and ice (and sun) then comes to further abrade and degrade the exposed 1375
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 2; Alan Miller, PE Page 27 of 32 plastic surfaces through multiple snowstorms and freeze-thaw cycles. Finally, the warm storms of spring come to scour and rinse the surfaces abraded by wind and ice. This seasonal discharge of microplastics largely coincides with the period of greatest storm runoff and increases fine particles in the Lake, together with materials from spring runoff. When the last rainstorms of spring end the annual cycle begins anew, with occasional rinses from summer thundershowers.

That is why I wrote earlier that terrestrial particles have not been partitioned from in-lake particulate sources, calling assumed correlations with particles in runoff into question.

Cumulative Impact and Other Assessments Lacking
These shoreline structures, in-lake sources of fine microplastics and very-fine nanoplastics, may plausibly be at least as significant as the terrestrial and airborne sources of fine particulates.

Perhaps it is a combination of airborne, terrestrial and in-lake sources that accounts for the reported spring increase in particles? That is common sense and only further research and investigations could determine that. The order of magnitude estimate above shows that in-lake sources can’t simply be discounted and dismissed out of hand without further examination and study, with relatively little known at testing-levels for microplastics below 250 micrometers.

While the surface erosion products may be barely visible there is widespread evidence of significant visible mass wasting of many of the composite structures in the Lake Tahoe shorezone. With essentially very little plastic escaping the lake and tremendous amounts of water lost to evaporation each year, contamination by microplastics from these sources will only grow over time unless the existing sources are abated by removal, especially of the older and deteriorated materials still in use, and new sources are eliminated.

Recreational Boating and Plastics
Beyond the plastic piers, likewise, boats that are exposed to the weather may be a significant contributor of microplastics, from both visible and invisible deterioration. The problems are exacerbated by accumulation over time, with erosion rates of the plastic surfaces generally increasing with time and age. “Fiberglass” is a composite of polymer plastics and glass often used for boat exteriors. As fiberglass ages in the Tahoe environment it can develop surface cracks and other signs of visible deterioration, with surface emissions of particulate dust that can be discerned by wiping with a soft cloth of unlike color. Plastics shed as particulates from boat interiors (carpets, polyester, vinyl, etc) can also be discharged through bilge pumps and on the wind. Boats in deteriorated conditions must be observed and overlooked in aquatic invasive species inspections, since TRPA has inspected every boat at least once? 1376
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 2; Alan Miller, PE Page 28 of 32 Apply Common Sense to Save Money, Time and Lake Tahoe
All this could take a lot of study and expense to figure out just exactly what the specific contribution may be to the microplastics problem from the in-lake plastics and shorezone structures, and the boats, but that is ALL unnecessary and a waste of public money that could be used for abatement or other research. That is because naked-eye visual inspections are sufficient in many cases to discern surface erosion of the macroplastics and thus verify the microplastics are being discharged as wastes (as legally defined) in violation of unenforced prohibitions in federal and state law, in TRPA’s Regional Plan. The erosion occurs as sub-visible discharges of plastic dust but the cumulative erosion is readily discernible with time. Focus on that with fine particulate monitoring if necessary, for instance to show effects of control efforts if developed (with none currently in the regulations).

This Idea is Taboo and Can’t Be Discussed!
The obvious answer to the microplastics discharges from plastic shoreline structures is one no one wants to hear: Remove the plastics from Lake Tahoe. They never should have been allowed in the first place! This composite-decking came into use in the 1980s and is now common. While many sources of microplastics may not be controllable, i.e., from the landscape or sky,
THESE IN-LAKE SOURCES ARE CONTROLLABLE. THEY ARE DISCHARGING PROHIBITED TOXIC WASTES. WHILE THEY ARE MANY THEY ARE FINITE IN NUMBER.

Therefore, the only questions worth researching concerning microplastics in my mind are:

1. When will any one or all of the agencies listed below and their research “partners” do anything about the toxic microplastics in Lake Tahoe to address the errors of the past?

2. When will they stop approving of more and more plastics in the Lake Tahoe shorezone?

3. If they will not stop their approvals, what is the justification given the magnitude of the problems, the lack of appropriate implementation of existing regulations, the current unknowns concerning toxic microplastics, and the facts that Lake Tahoe is a drinking water source for Reno and others and a designated Outstanding National Resource Water for which no long-term degradation is supposedly legally allowable? The Exempt Industry
Activities leading to degradation by controllable but uncontrolled microplastic waste discharges in the shorezone from the recreational boating industry are not exempt from regulation.

However, it has been given a tacit “free pass” by all agencies nonetheless in support of historic 1377
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 2; Alan Miller, PE Page 29 of 32 recreation uses and recreation goals. Now the water is contaminated. And policies can’t even be examined? Nonetheless, recreation goals can be met using wooden and metal piers and boats, like the John LeConte. The ongoing contamination of Lake Tahoe with microplastics is completely unnecessary and further approvals of plastic uses in the shorezone are inexcusable.

I note the Lake Tahoe Marina Association is a co-funder of the SOTLR, again raising the potential “appearance,” at least, of a financial conflict of interest (on the part of researchers) to investigate the marinas for microplastics, which indeed has not been done to my knowledge. I presume the Marina Assn is acting entirely in good faith in doing so, to provide management information for AIS and otherwise “do their part” with limited or no awareness of the impacts of plastic shoreline structures on Lake Tahoe. Surely there is hesitation to accuse marina owners of impacts from approved structures—negligent dereliction of duty by the regulators in light of the evidence in the public records.

Final Thoughts on Microplastics
It is a multiple-agency conspiracy to ignore the problems: TRPA sits on the Shoreline Review Committee, as I once did, and has been repeatedly informed over several years (by me) of their responsibility for this unfolding microplastics water quality disaster, as has the Lahontan Water Board, the State Water Resources Control Board, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and others approving of these plastic structures to this day, without any thought given to microplastics. I would add the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to the list. It is up to each agency to stop waiting and do all that is within its jurisdiction and authority to:

KEEP TAHOE PURE, MICROPLASTICS ENDURE;
USE WOOD, METAL AND STONE IN THE SHOREZONE.
1378
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 2; Alan Miller, PE Page 30 of 32

NOW IS THE TIME FOR CHANGE
The world as we know it is changing. For the Tahoe region, with the staff changes at Lahontan Water Board and TERC, and TRPA in recent years, there is an opportunity to reconsider the past approaches. It has to happen or the clarity battle is a stalemate at best and bound to be lost in time. They are, in essence, the new crew and we’ll see what they do. Director Hampton seeks to “have the opportunity to see our work through fresh eyes.” May it be so, and god speed.

That is my petition and charge to TRPA, specifically. If TRPA stops approving these plastic shoreline structures, there will be no more new shoreline structures approved by any other agency. There are reasonable alternatives. Be a planner, TRPA. No chemical testing is needed for TRPA and Lahontan Water Board to begin to follow the law and fulfill your public trust under the Compact to keep Lake Tahoe pure with regard to shoreline structures. TRPA and others must stop polluting Lake Tahoe with toxic microplastics for the long term by care-less piecemeal approvals and unjustified prohibition exemptions for plastic shoreline structures solely for Lake Tahoe joy-rides. Wood, metal and stone are alternatives.

Likewise the Water Boards must not wait to address the TMDL shortcomings—with the aid of the research community, honestly invested—no ignoring known sources of pollutants. To further delay these matters is criminal in my opinion and no good will come from it. 1379
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 2; Alan Miller, PE Page 31 of 32 I’m not a know-it-all and I don’t have all the answers, far from it. I am seeking to ask the right questions and present my honest views without intent to deceive. I assert the reasoning is defensible behind my hypotheses. I have limited means of testing for confirmation. I have no animosity towards the new TERC Director and assume the best of intentions. Others have earned a certain amount. I have welcomed scientific and policy debate but no one seems to want that so I snipe from the sidelines to promote change.

I am writing the story for the public of how the demise of Lake Tahoe occurred at agency and legislative hands, unless and until that scenario changes. I welcome free debate where all are encouraged to speak or write their views under the First Amendment openly without fear of reprisal and retribution. Critique me if I am misinformed and we will engage. All hands are needed, doing their utmost to fulfill the law and thereby aid in the true restoration of Lake Tahoe. Let’s do this work, each doing their best, together or apart.

Alan Miller, Professional Engineer
S. Lake Tahoe CA
Reference: TAHOE: STATE OF THE LAKE REPORT 2025, University of California, Tahoe Environmental Research Center, July 2025, https://tahoe.ucdavis.edu/stateofthelake.

Addendum: Author’s Note Concerning Part 1
Part 1 has a Table of Contents like Part 2 as a guide. In part 1 is information on water quality standards and regulatory frameworks for the Tahoe basin including from my background and experience with the Total Maximum Daily Load Regulation for the Lake Tahoe clarity objective.

There is presentation of a conceptual model for Lake Tahoe water quality followed by detailed discussions of factors not considered by the TMDL that are adversely affecting water quality.

Chief among these are microplastics from approved shoreline structures, so I briefly discuss TRPA’s shoreline plan, with policy recommendations, then dive into analyses and information related to the 2024 State of the Lake Report and two other reports, providing my own interpretations. Information on plastics in the shorezone concludes the report. 1380
August 26, 2025 Independent Water Quality Report, Part 2; Alan Miller, PE Page 32 of 32 Rationale for Repetition: While Part 2 substantially augments Part 1, there are some redundancies and overlaps with Part 1 in Part 2 that are somewhat unavoidable, and it is nonetheless useful to circle back on topics and thereby gain new perspectives and insights. That is a part of my analytical process. I’m not seeking a license to ramble just to be wordy, tedious or bash with my reminders. I therefore suggest reading Part 1 first, as it provides additional analyses and context relevant to Part 2.
1381
From: JWL
To: John Hitchcock
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] Subject: Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment IS/MND - FOWS Comments Date: Saturday, May 30, 2026 3:03:31 PM
Attachments: FOWS_TKM_Comment Letter (20260530).pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mr. Hitchcock,
On behalf of Friends of the West Shore, please find attached our comment letter on the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project (2435 Venice Drive East). These comments are submitted within the public review period closing at 5:00 p.m. on June 1, 2026.

In short, the comments explain why the record supports a fair argument that the Project may have significant environmental effects and ask that the City prepare a full Environmental Impact Report, and that TRPA prepare an Environmental Impact Statement, rather than proceeding on an MND. The letter is detailed in the attachment.

We would appreciate written confirmation of receipt and ask that Friends of the West Shore be added to the interested-parties list to receive all future notices regarding the Project.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,
James Lyon
Board Member, Friends of the West Shore
Cc:

Julie Regan, TRPA Executive Director
Stuart Roll, California Tahoe Conservancy
FOWS Board Members
1382

May 30, 2026
John Hitchcock, Planning Manager
Development Services Department
City of South Lake Tahoe
1052 Tata Lane, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
[email protected]
Re: Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project (2435 Venice Drive East) — Comment on the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration (April 2026); Demand for Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report and a TRPA Environmental Impact Statement
Dear Mr. Hitchcock:

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 1383
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.

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.) 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 1384
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 sheet-pile 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.

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; 1385
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.

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 project-specific impact analysis CEQA requires; it improperly defers both the analysis and the formulation of enforceable mitigation to a later, nonpublic stage.

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, litigated lagoon weedcontrol 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.)

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 weed-control 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.)

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 1386
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.)
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 thresholdby-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.

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.

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.

VII. Recommendations and Requested Action.

FOWS respectfully requests that the City of South Lake Tahoe:

1. Decline to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 1387

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;
(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.

Respectfully submitted,
James Lyon
Board Member, Friends of the West Shore
[email protected]
cc: Julie Regan, Executive Director, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Stuart Roll, California Tahoe Conservancy
1388
From: Tobi Tyler
To: John Hitchcock
Cc: Julie Regan; Roll, Stuart@Tahoe; Graham St. Michel TRPA Subject: Tahoe Keys Marina IS/MND Comments
Date: Monday, June 1, 2026 4:02:15 PM
Attachments: SC comments on TKM MND 6.1.26.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hello Mr. Hitchcock,
Please see the comments attached from three organizations, the Sierra Club, Clean Air Tahoe, and North Tahoe Preservation Alliance, regarding the City of South Lake Tahoe's Draft IS/MND for the Tahoe Keys Marina Project.

Please respond that you have received this comment letter within the required time for acceptance.

Thank you.

Tobi Tyler
Vice Chair, Sierra Club's Tahoe Area Group
1389
1 June 1, 2026
John Hitchcock, Planning Manager
City of South Lake Tahoe
1052 Tata Lane
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Via email to: [email protected]
Re: Tahoe Keys Marina Project Draft IS/MND – Request for Preparation of a Full Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Impact Statement Dear Mr. Hitchcock:

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.

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 TRPA1and 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 1 LT Info | Reduce Average Aquatic Invasive Plant Abundance in the Tahoe Keys 1390
2 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.

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, 1391
3 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.

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.

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-thansignificant impacts. The absence of site-specific hydrogeologic data and groundwater 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). ● 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).
● 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 1392
4 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.) ● 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.
● 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.)
● In-Water and Shoreline Impacts: Replacement of 1,600 linear feet of bulkhead and boat ramp involves significant disturbance in State and federal waters. The IS/MND improperly defers analysis of turbidity, sediment resuspension, contaminant mobilization, and cumulative effects to future permits (Section 404/401, Streambed Alteration, etc.), violating CEQA’s requirement for lead agency analysis based on the current record. The City may not rely on future permitting by other agencies as a substitute for its own CEQA obligations. Environmental impacts must be analyzed before project approval, and mitigation measures must be specific and enforceable rather than deferred to future agency review. (Endangered Habitats League, Inc. v. County of Orange (2005) 131 Cal.App.4th 777, 793-795.)
● 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 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 1393
5 impacts. (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 720-721.)
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.)
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.

Sincerely,
Tobi Tyler
Vice Chair, Sierra Club Tahoe Area Group
Doug Flaherty
President, Tahoe Sierra Clean Air Coalition (DBA TahoeCleanAir.org) Ann Nichols
North Tahoe Preservation Alliance
Cc: Julie Regan, TRPA; Graham St. Michael, TRPA; Stuart Roll, California Tahoe Conservancy 1394
From: Lisa Hodges
To: John Hitchcock
Subject: Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Date: Tuesday, May 26, 2026 11:22:30 AM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Hi John,
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.

Best,
Lisa Hodges
1395
From: Doug Flaherty
To: John Hitchcock
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; Public Comment; Julie Regan; John Hester; Graham St. Michel; [email protected]; [email protected]; Anna Kashuba; Gretchen Schooleman Subject: Public Comment – Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project (CEQA SCH #2026040227) Date: Monday, June 1, 2026 4:46:18 PM
Attachments: image.png
Tahoe Sierra Clean Air Coalition Substantive Public Comments on Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project Draft Initial Study.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Tahoe Sierra Clean Air Coalition Substantive Comments – Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project (CEQA SCH #2026040227)
Dear Mr. Hitchcock,
Attached please find the Tahoe Sierra Clean Air Coalition’s substantive public comments on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project (CEQA SCH #2026040227).

We request that the City withdraw the Draft IS/MND and prepare a full joint CEQA EIR and TRPA EIS.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Doug Flaherty, President (BIO NARRATIVE)
Tahoe Sierra Clean Air Coalition (DBA TahoeCleanAir.org) A Nevada 501(c)(3) Non-Profit Corporation
Registered to do Business in California
Incline Village, NV
TahoeCleanAir.org Organizational Purpose
Tahoe Sierra Clean Air Coalition (DBA TahoeCleanAir.Org) is a Nevada 501 (c) (3) nonprofit corporation registered to do business in the State of California. Our organizational purpose extends beyond protecting clean air, and includes, among other purposes, protecting and preserving natural resources, including but not limited to clean air, clean water, including lake and stream clarity, soils, plants and vegetation, wildlife and wildlife habitat including wildlife corridors, fish and fish habitat, birds and bird migration, insects, forest and wilderness from adverse environmental impacts and the threat and potential of adverse environmental impacts, including cumulative adverse impacts, within the Nevada and California Sierra Range, and its foothill communities, with corporation/organization geographical purpose priority being that of the Lake Tahoe Basin. Our purpose further extends to all things 1396
incidental to supporting environmental impact assessments and studies, including the gathering of data necessary to analyze the cumulative adverse environmental, health and safety impacts from public and private projects inside and outside the Lake Tahoe Basin, and addressing and supporting safe and effective evacuation during wildfire. Our purpose further extends to supporting transparency in government to ensure that our purpose and all things incidental to our specific and primary purposes are achieved. 1397
1 of 12
June 1, 2026
Tahoe Sierra Clean Air Coalition - Substantive Public Comments on Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (April 2026) (CEQ A SCH #2026040227) – Request for Withdrawal of Draft IS/MND and Preparation of Full Joint CEQA EIR and TRPA EIS
Submitted to: John Hitchcock, Planning Manager City of South Lake Tahoe 1052 Tata Lane, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 [email protected] Cc: Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Tahoe Conservancy
Disclaimer: These substantive comments are submitted on behalf of the Tahoe Sierra Clean Air Coalition and are based on publicly available information and analysis. They do not constitute legal advice.

Dera Mr. Hitchcock,
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. 1398
2 of 12
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-thansignificant 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-thansignificant 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.

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 1399
3 of 12
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.

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 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.

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.

IV. Transportation, VMT, Scenic Resources, and Cumulative Impacts The project triples the developed footprint. The IS/MND’s 218 additional daily VMT estimate ignores peak-season 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. 1400
4 of 12
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 wildfirerelated 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 1401
5 of 12
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. 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 1402
6 of 12
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.

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.
1403
7 of 12
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.
1404
8 of 12
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.

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 humancaused 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-thansignificant 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. 1405
9 of 12
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.

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.

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 crossjurisdictional 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. 1406
10 of 12
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.

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.

Analysis of the Bi-State Compact, Article II Article II of the Tahoe Regional Planning BiState 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.

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 crossjurisdictional 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 1407
11 of 12
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.

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. 1408
12 of 12
These comments constitute substantial evidence for the administrative record and any future proceedings or litigation. I request written notification of all next steps.

Sincerely,
Doug Flaherty, President
Tahoe Sierra Clean Air Coalition (DBA
TahoeCleanAir.org)
A Nevada 501(c)(3) Non-Profit Corporation
Registered to do business in California
TahoeCleanAir.org Organizational Purpose:

Tahoe Sierra Clean Air Coalition (DBA TahoeCleanAir.Org) is a Nevada 501 (c) (3) non-profit corporation registered to do business in the State of California. Our organizational purpose extends beyond protecting clean air, and includes, among other purposes, protecting and preserving natural resources, including but not limited to clean air, clean water, including lake and stream clarity, soils, plants and vegetation, wildlife and wildlife habitat including wildlife corridors, fish and fish habitat, birds and bird migration, insects, forest and wilderness from adverse environmental impacts and the threat and potential of adverse environmental impacts, including cumulative adverse impacts, within the Nevada and California Sierra Range, and its foothill communities, with corporation/organization geographical purpose priority being that of the Lake Tahoe Basin. Our purpose further extends to all things incidental to supporting environmental impact assessments and studies, including the gathering of data necessary to analyze the cumulative adverse environmental, health and safety impacts from public and private projects inside and outside the Lake Tahoe Basin, and addressing and supporting safe and effective evacuation during wildfire. Our purpose further extends to supporting transparency in government to ensure that our purpose and all things incidental to our specific and primary purposes are achieved. 1409
From: Tom Rosenberg
To: John Hitchcock
Cc: Cass McKellar
Subject: Comments: "Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project"
Date: Monday, June 1, 2026 5:02:13 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mr. Hitchcock:

Please find below comments submitted in compliance with the extend comment period deadline of 7/1/2026, 5 PM, on the Public Review Draft, dated April 2026, of the "Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project".

I believe that the finding in Section 3.2, Lead Agency Determination, is premature in that it does not note or require mitigations for the potential environmental impacts noted below.

The subject finding is: "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. Aesthetics. Venice Drive East and the Cove East trails scenic views 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. Although the directly adjacent existing open space, the Upper Truckee Marsh, 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), these areas in reality include many locations meeting the general definition above of scenic vistas, and are heavily used and valued as such by residents and visitors alike.

Venice Drive East the CTC Cove East Trail are enjoyed by walkers, exercisers, bicyclists, pet owners, beach goers, and sightseers for their scenic views and open feel. (In practice Venice Drive East is as much a non-vehicle route as a traffic road.) Minimizing the losses of some of these incredible views of the surrounding mountains in various directions from various points in this recreational area, and the loss of the feeling of openness, caused by the proposed new buildings, do not seem to presently be addressed or mitigated in the present plans or subject report.

A >40’ tall building of >52,000 sf within a few feet of Venice Drive East, in a presently undeveloped area, directly opposite the Upper Truckee Marsh conservancy land, is likely to overwhelm and greatly diminish the aesthetic value and feeling of this area.

This is a new permanent, year-round, 400+ boat capacity building in a minimally 1410
developed setting, in a surrounding adjacent recreation area. It’s impact and possible mitigations should be considered before a negative impact is declared.

The proposed buildings on Parcel 1 appear taller than the former structures and may block some views to the south of various peaks from the Cove East Trail. This aesthetic impact does not seem to presently be addressed or mitigated in the present plans or IS/NMD.

II. Parking on Venice Drive East
Cove East Trail users must park on Venice Drive. All parking in the TKM plan is stated to be paid or valet. Consequently it is reasonable to expect that some users of the new TKM amenities will park on Venice Drive East near the Cove East Trail Head.

This potential transportation bottleneck and loss of recreational public access for car visitors does not seem to presently be addressed or mitigated in the present plans or subject report. In addition, walkers and bicycle visitors likely will be forced, or will choose, to walk in the traffic lane to reach the trail head, unless sidewalks or the like are added as mitigations.

The TKM redevelopment plan includes public restrooms and an open promenade area, both apparently free. However, there is no unpaid parking mentioned for either amenity. If these areas are meant to be open to all, perhaps there should be limited time free parking on site near them to avoid further impacts to Venice Drive East parking availability for Cove East users.
1411
From: [email protected]
To: John Hitchcock
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment IS/MND - FOWS Supplemental Comments Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2026 1:18:38 PM
Attachments: TahoeKeysMarina_FOWS.SupplementLetter.June26.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mr. Hitchcock,
On behalf of Friends of the West Shore, attached is our supplemental comment letter on the above topic. For the record, please add this letter to our previous comment letter dated 5/30/26.

Please forward to other interested parties and also confirm receipt of this supplemental letter.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,
Judith Tornese
President, Friends of the West Shore
cc:

Julie Regan, TRPA Executive Director
Stuart Roll, California Tahoe Conservancy
Ben Letton, Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board Tobi Tyler, Vice Chair, Sierra Club's Tahoe Area Group
Alan Miller, P.E.

FOWS Board Members
1412

June 1, 2026
John Hitchcock, Planning Manager, and Members of the Planning Commission City of South Lake Tahoe — 1052 Tata Lane, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 [email protected]
Re: Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project (2435 Venice Drive East) — The Consolidated Record Supports Preparation of an EIR and a TRPA EIS
Dear Mr. Hitchcock and Members of the Commission:

This letter supplements the comments of Friends of the West Shore (“FOWS”) and respectfully urges the City to prepare a full Environmental Impact Report and to coordinate an independent TRPA Environmental Impact Statement. Three independent comment letters reach the same conclusion from different directions: the Sierra Club Tahoe Area Group documents the impact case (stormwater feasibility, antidegradation, scenic, transportation, and special-status species); FOWS supplies the governing legal standard and a recent, directly analogous Tahoe Keys ruling; and Alan Miller, P.E.—a former Chief of the Lahontan Water Board’s North Basin Regulatory Unit who helped write the Basin Plan and the Lake Tahoe TMDL and supervised the marina permit that governs this site—supplies the technical and regulatory facts. Together they are mutually corroborating substantial evidence that, under the fair-argument standard, supports preparation of an EIR rather than adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.

Three points in particular warrant the Commission’s close attention:

1. Mr. Miller reports the Project is already substantially built. His May 2026 site observations indicate that the bulkheads, dock floats, gangways, and paving are already in place—completed under exemptions ahead of this review. Reviewing only the “landside” remnant raises a substantial question of improper piecemealing and an understated environmental baseline.

2. The IS/MND misidentifies the governing permits. It cites the wrong construction stormwater permit and omits the Marina General Permit (Order R6T-2016-038) entirely; Mr. Miller reports no indication that the current owner holds coverage. The City cannot rely on “compliance with permits” as mitigation for permits the document never correctly identifies.

3. The bulkhead may fill waters of the state without mitigation. Mr. Miller estimates that approximately 1,600 linear feet of new bulkhead fills on the order of 800 square feet of waters of the state, with no Basin Plan 1.5:1 mitigation proposed—which he identifies as an apparent violation of a Basin Plan prohibition.

Because the fair-argument standard is a question of law, an MND adopted on this record would be subject to challenge. The prudent and lawful course is to decline the MND, prepare a full EIR, and coordinate with TRPA for a full EIS.

FOWS concurs with and incorporates the comments of the Sierra Club Tahoe Area Group and Mr. Miller, and respectfully requests written confirmation of receipt and addition to the interested-parties list.

Respectfully submitted,
1413
Judith Tornese, President, Friends of the West Shore
cc: Tahoe Regional Planning Agency; Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board; California Tahoe Conservancy; Sierra Club Tahoe Area Group; Alan Miller, P.E. 1414

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS RECEIVED AFTER

CLOSURE OF PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD AND

RESPONSES
1415
From: [email protected]
To: John Hitchcock
Cc: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]
Subject: Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment IS/MND - FOWS Supplemental Comments Date: Wednesday, June 3, 2026 1:18:38 PM
Attachments: TahoeKeysMarina_FOWS.SupplementLetter.June26.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mr. Hitchcock,
On behalf of Friends of the West Shore, attached is our supplemental comment letter on the above topic. For the record, please add this letter to our previous comment letter dated 5/30/26.

Please forward to other interested parties and also confirm receipt of this supplemental letter.

Thank you for your consideration.

Respectfully,
Judith Tornese
President, Friends of the West Shore
cc:

Julie Regan, TRPA Executive Director
Stuart Roll, California Tahoe Conservancy
Ben Letton, Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board Tobi Tyler, Vice Chair, Sierra Club's Tahoe Area Group
Alan Miller, P.E.

FOWS Board Members
1416

June 1, 2026
John Hitchcock, Planning Manager, and Members of the Planning Commission City of South Lake Tahoe — 1052 Tata Lane, South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150 [email protected]
Re: Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project (2435 Venice Drive East) — The Consolidated Record Supports Preparation of an EIR and a TRPA EIS
Dear Mr. Hitchcock and Members of the Commission:

This letter supplements the comments of Friends of the West Shore (“FOWS”) and respectfully urges the City to prepare a full Environmental Impact Report and to coordinate an independent TRPA Environmental Impact Statement. Three independent comment letters reach the same conclusion from different directions: the Sierra Club Tahoe Area Group documents the impact case (stormwater feasibility, antidegradation, scenic, transportation, and special-status species); FOWS supplies the governing legal standard and a recent, directly analogous Tahoe Keys ruling; and Alan Miller, P.E.—a former Chief of the Lahontan Water Board’s North Basin Regulatory Unit who helped write the Basin Plan and the Lake Tahoe TMDL and supervised the marina permit that governs this site—supplies the technical and regulatory facts. Together they are mutually corroborating substantial evidence that, under the fair-argument standard, supports preparation of an EIR rather than adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.

Three points in particular warrant the Commission’s close attention:

1. Mr. Miller reports the Project is already substantially built. His May 2026 site observations indicate that the bulkheads, dock floats, gangways, and paving are already in place—completed under exemptions ahead of this review. Reviewing only the “landside” remnant raises a substantial question of improper piecemealing and an understated environmental baseline.

2. The IS/MND misidentifies the governing permits. It cites the wrong construction stormwater permit and omits the Marina General Permit (Order R6T-2016-038) entirely; Mr. Miller reports no indication that the current owner holds coverage. The City cannot rely on “compliance with permits” as mitigation for permits the document never correctly identifies.

3. The bulkhead may fill waters of the state without mitigation. Mr. Miller estimates that approximately 1,600 linear feet of new bulkhead fills on the order of 800 square feet of waters of the state, with no Basin Plan 1.5:1 mitigation proposed—which he identifies as an apparent violation of a Basin Plan prohibition.

Because the fair-argument standard is a question of law, an MND adopted on this record would be subject to challenge. The prudent and lawful course is to decline the MND, prepare a full EIR, and coordinate with TRPA for a full EIS.

FOWS concurs with and incorporates the comments of the Sierra Club Tahoe Area Group and Mr. Miller, and respectfully requests written confirmation of receipt and addition to the interested-parties list.

Respectfully submitted,
1417
Judith Tornese, President, Friends of the West Shore
cc: Tahoe Regional Planning Agency; Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board; California Tahoe Conservancy; Sierra Club Tahoe Area Group; Alan Miller, P.E. 1418
From: Tom Rosenberg
To: John Hitchcock
Cc: Cass McKellar
Subject: Comments: "Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project"
Date: Monday, June 1, 2026 5:02:13 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.

Dear Mr. Hitchcock:

Please find below comments submitted in compliance with the extend comment period deadline of 7/1/2026, 5 PM, on the Public Review Draft, dated April 2026, of the "Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) for the Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project".

I believe that the finding in Section 3.2, Lead Agency Determination, is premature in that it does not note or require mitigations for the potential environmental impacts noted below.

The subject finding is: "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. Aesthetics. Venice Drive East and the Cove East trails scenic views 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. Although the directly adjacent existing open space, the Upper Truckee Marsh, 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), these areas in reality include many locations meeting the general definition above of scenic vistas, and are heavily used and valued as such by residents and visitors alike.

Venice Drive East the CTC Cove East Trail are enjoyed by walkers, exercisers, bicyclists, pet owners, beach goers, and sightseers for their scenic views and open feel. (In practice Venice Drive East is as much a non-vehicle route as a traffic road.) Minimizing the losses of some of these incredible views of the surrounding mountains in various directions from various points in this recreational area, and the loss of the feeling of openness, caused by the proposed new buildings, do not seem to presently be addressed or mitigated in the present plans or subject report.

A >40’ tall building of >52,000 sf within a few feet of Venice Drive East, in a presently undeveloped area, directly opposite the Upper Truckee Marsh conservancy land, is likely to overwhelm and greatly diminish the aesthetic value and feeling of this area.

This is a new permanent, year-round, 400+ boat capacity building in a minimally 1419
developed setting, in a surrounding adjacent recreation area. It’s impact and possible mitigations should be considered before a negative impact is declared.

The proposed buildings on Parcel 1 appear taller than the former structures and may block some views to the south of various peaks from the Cove East Trail. This aesthetic impact does not seem to presently be addressed or mitigated in the present plans or IS/NMD.

II. Parking on Venice Drive East
Cove East Trail users must park on Venice Drive. All parking in the TKM plan is stated to be paid or valet. Consequently it is reasonable to expect that some users of the new TKM amenities will park on Venice Drive East near the Cove East Trail Head.

This potential transportation bottleneck and loss of recreational public access for car visitors does not seem to presently be addressed or mitigated in the present plans or subject report. In addition, walkers and bicycle visitors likely will be forced, or will choose, to walk in the traffic lane to reach the trail head, unless sidewalks or the like are added as mitigations.

The TKM redevelopment plan includes public restrooms and an open promenade area, both apparently free. However, there is no unpaid parking mentioned for either amenity. If these areas are meant to be open to all, perhaps there should be limited time free parking on site near them to avoid further impacts to Venice Drive East parking availability for Cove East users.
1420
Additional Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND after Closure of the Public Comment Period Responses
Introduction
The following provides a summary of comments received after the public review period closed at 5:00 p.m. on June 1 related to the Draft IS/MND. The information presented in the comments identified below do not constitute new information and are similar to comments received during public review of the Draft IS/MND.

Letter
Number Agency/Organization Commenter Date
Individual
I1 N/A Tom Rosenburg June 1, 2026
Organization
O1 Friends of the West Shore Judith Tornese June 3, 2026 Comment Letter I1: Tom Rosenburg – June 2, 2026 @ 5:02 p.m.

Comment I1-1:

The commenter expressed concerns about impacts on the Aesthetics from adjacent open spaces, Truckee Marsh, and Cove East, and on surrounding mountain views in various directions and at various points.

Commenter further stated that lead agency determination is premature in that it does not note or require mitigation for potential environmental impacts.

Response I1-1:

The comments are similar to other comments expressed regarding aesthetics. Please refer to Response to Comment I4-26 of the Final IS/MND.

Comment I1-2:

The commenter expressed concerns about the impact of paid parking at the Marina property on public parking along Venice Drive and on recreation access to Cove East.

Response I1-2:

The comment speculates that the Project would result in direct and indirect impacts along Venice Drive East.

The Project (as demonstrated 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. Moreover, it is well established that the inconvenience of purportedly inadequate parking is a social impact, not an environmental impact. San Franciscans Upholding the Downtown Plan v. City & County of San Francisco (2002) 102 CA4th 656, 697.
1421
Comment Letter O1: Friends of the West Shore – June 3, 2026 Comment O1-1:

The Friends of the West Shore submitted an additional letter dated June 1, 2026, delivered on June 3, 2026 after the circulation period had closed. The supplemental letter urges the City to prepare an EIR and TRPA EIS and points to comments submitted by the Sierra Club Tahoe Area Group, the original comments letter submitted by the Friends of the West Shore, and Mr. Alan Miller, P.E., in supporting its conclusion and recommendation. The comment letter also states that 1) the Project is already substantially built; 2) the IS/MND failed to consider the Marina General Permit; and 3) potential mitigation needs related to compliance with the Basin Plan.

Response O1-1:

The supplemental letter does not provide any new information beyond what was already submitted during the public circulation period. Please refer to previous comments and responses to Letter O1 (Friends of the West Shore), Letter O2 (Sierra Club Tahoe Area Group), and Letter O4 (Mr. Alan Miller, P.E.). Regarding the three specific points raised, refer to Responses to Comment I4-5, I4-7, and I4-11, respectively. 1422

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM AL MILLER DATED
JUNE 9, 2026 AND RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
1423
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina Project Alan Miller, PE 6-9-26 For City Planning Commission Agenda and meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 1 of 10 Public Interest Comments on agenda item 3. Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project Design Review and Special Use Permit, Planning Commission Meeting of June 11, 2026 From: Alan Miller, Professional Engineer
By way of email to [email protected], [email protected] and others

THE TKM REDEV PROJECT REQUIRES AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT City Planning Commissioners and Interested Persons,
I write as a City resident to follow-up my prior comments in the record of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) for the above-cited Project. My comments asked the City to consider developing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) as required due to a number of potentially significant effects that City has NOT addressed as it must to avoid or prevent those and other adverse effects from the Project. I hereby incorporate by reference the comments on the ISMND provided by the Sierra Club, North Tahoe Preservation Alliance, Friends of the West Shore and Tahoe Clean Air similarly requesting preparation of an EIR for the Project, as if the comments are my own for the public record.

The following additional comments are for the record of the agenda item before the City Planning Commission. Please don’t consider my prior comments or anything herein as offering any legal advice. With my comments on the ISMND I was seeking to get some informative materials into the public record for the Project in case anyone is interested. I’m a professional civil and environmental engineer with a broad regulatory background, not an attorney.

Nonetheless, in my expert opinion the ISMND suffers due to a number of potentially fatal technical and legal flaws that are not satisfactorily addressed, if at all, in the Staff Report and other documentation for the agenda item.

I further see City’s deficient analysis and ignorance of the issues presented as an invitation to appeal should the Planning Commissioners approve the Project. This is exactly as I predicted in earlier comments, City being very predictable, especially under the lame legal advice of City Attorney Heather Stroud. She that has been so costly to the City, with millions owed in legal fees for losing in the Measure T litigation for the Measure T she crafted unconstitutionally for the City. No matter, City laps up her crap advice and I expect will here as well. Thankfully, she is leaving—good riddance—but not before putting her corrupt input into this mess of an agenda item that will leave the City defenseless and liable for court costs in her wake based on the facts and weak analyses should litigation follow. I therefore reiterate the multiple requests to prepare an EIR, including my own based on my prior comments. 1424
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina Project Alan Miller, PE 6-9-26 For City Planning Commission Agenda and meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 2 of 10 Further Comments on the Staff Report
The Staff Report indicates the City jurisdiction stops at the water’s edge implying there is no connection to the marina operations it will enable and expand with the Project, nor any need to analyze the effects of the “waterside” activities associated with the Project. Therefore there will be no analysis of dredging impacts on the Project site necessary to support the Project nor of the effects of the existing and expanded boating activity in total, the prior and ongoing discharges of toxic waste (micro- and macroplastics) from the decrepit piers replaced, and boats, affecting the Project site and surroundings, and the potentially significant effects of exposing persons and the environment to potentially significant dangers to public safety and harms to an unsuspecting public left uninformed by the City. I refer the reader to my prior comment letter for why this is improper and illegal project segmentation and against CEQA requirements to analze effects from “the whole of the Project.” If City has no jurisdiction as it claims over the Project activities and waste discharges it will enable, then it has no jurisdiction to approve of the proposed Project. As I wrote before, CEQA is a law being implemented in practice by incompetent and broken agencies who just want to “get things done,” and laws be damned if they impede that. An appeal should follow any approval and City deserves to be sued if the Project is approved by the City Council—and should be—or the City will not change it illegal practices and we’ll all pay for it end the end, as with Ms. Stroud’s legal bumbling on the Measure T the City Council approved. If there is a lesson here, that is it. Lawsuits hurt, and City has failed to learned not to trust its attorney, who serves at the pleasure of City Council and should have been fired for cause years ago.

City seeks to avoid its CEQA duties and farm its CEQA work out to other agencies to deal with as they may, or not all in their like negligence with regard to public safety. As all can see, no Responsible Agency made any comment other than the Lahontan Water Board, their lame “form-letter” response due only to my urging it appears. I contend that is not due to a lack of impacts, just a lazy-agency approach to Project planning and participation in the CEQA process treated as optional by Responsible Agencies, despite the numerous recitations of “shall” in the applicable CEQA requirements. Lahontan Water Board staff erroneously cited the State Construction Activity Storm Water General Permit as applicable when it is superseded by the Tahoe Construction Activity Storm Water General Permit, as I corrected in my prior comments on the ISMND; in other words the ISMND was not even reviewed because there is no time or interest to protect Lake Tahoe from our current “civil servants” at Lahontan Water Board. 1425
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina Project Alan Miller, PE 6-9-26 For City Planning Commission Agenda and meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 3 of 10 Unmet Mitigation Requirements for Impacts to Waters of the State and Nation I cited in my prior comment letter applicable unmet mitigation requirements from the Water Quality Control Plan for the Lahontan Region (Basin Plan) I helped write, for fills and waste discharges in a prohibition area. I cite below the prohibitions and unfulfilled mitigation requirements associated with the already completed installation of sheet pile wall in the marina disclosed in the ISMND. From Basin Plan Chapter 5.2 WASTE DISCHARGE PROHIBITIONS:

Discharge Prohibitions for the Lake Tahoe Hydrologic Unit (HU)

1. The discharge attributable to human activities of any waste or deleterious material to surface waters of the Lake Tahoe HU is prohibited.

An exemption to this prohibition may be granted whenever the Regional Board finds all of the following:
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.

2. 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 Regional Board may grant exemptions to Prohibitions 2 and 3 above, for projects relocating existing structures below the highwater rim of Lake Tahoe, within the 100-year floodplain, or within an SEZ, where the area of the structure is relocated on the same parcel or within a defined project area and where the following finding can be made (a “project area” may include multiple adjacent or non-adjacent parcels):

The relocation must result in net or equal water quality benefit. Net or equal benefit is defined as an improvement in or maintenance of function of the associated area below the highwater rim of Lake Tahoe, 100-year floodplain or SEZ. Net or equal benefit may include, but is not limited to, one or more of the following:
a. Relocation of structure to an area further away from the stream channel or wetlands; b. Protection of restored 100-year floodplain or SEZ or an equivalent area (at a 1:1 ratio for floodplain or 1.5:1 for SEZ) of offsite 100-year floodplain or SEZ through deed restriction or 1426
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina Project Alan Miller, PE 6-9-26 For City Planning Commission Agenda and meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 4 of 10 conveyance to a mitigation bank or land conservancy or similar. For projects involving disturbance of wetlands, offsite mitigation may involve larger mitigation ratios; c. For projects involving the relocation of more than 1000 square feet of impervious coverage within a 100-year floodplain or SEZ, a finding, based on a report prepared by a qualified professional, that the relocation will improve the functioning of the floodplain or SEZ and will not negatively affect the quality of existing habitats. d. For pier relocation projects in spawning habitat, a finding that equivalent or greater area of spawning habitat is restored or created.

The Regional Board may also grant exemptions to Prohibitions 2 and 3, above, under the following circumstances: . . .
(2) For public outdoor recreation facilities or private piers if all of the following findings can be made:
(a) The project by its nature must be sited below the high water rim of Lake Tahoe, within the 100-year floodplain, or within the SEZ;
(b) There is no feasible alternative that would reduce the extent of encroachment below the highwater rim of Lake Tahoe, within the 100-year floodplain, or within the SEZ; (c) Impacts are fully mitigated;
(d) SEZs are restored in an amount 1.5 times the area of SEZ disturbed or developed for the project; and (e) Wetlands are restored in an amount at least 1.5 times the area of wetland disturbed or developed. Certain wetland areas may require restoration of greater than 1.5 times the area disturbed or developed.

As noted in prior comments, over 1600 lineal feet of sheet piling six inches wide has already been installed with no mitigation whatsoever to offset the effects of filling, apparently leaving the Water Board to mitigate the effects after the fact, or not at all—in which case it is just a “take-away” from Lake Tahoe. Additional disturbances and waste discharges may have also occurred in connection with this major engineering element of the Project the applicant jumped the gun on. Claims of insignificant impacts are bogus.

I restate the violation of a waste discharge prohibition is a significant unmitigated effect, made worse by the fact that no findings are made as to how any of the applicable mitigation requirements can or will be met. At a minimum those would include requirements for 1:1 mitigation ratios for floodplain, and 1.5: 1 for wetlands (per above) such as may have been impacted by the fill. See also the discussion in my prior comments. Whether the wetlands are 1427
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina Project Alan Miller, PE 6-9-26 For City Planning Commission Agenda and meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 5 of 10 subject to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction is irrelevant. However, it may also have unmet mitigation requirements.

No Jurisdiction?
I think that is a significant deficiency in the analysis as discussed in the prior comments I provided the City has ignored, to claim “no jurisdiction” over Lake Tahoe, and therefore the effects of the Project and City’s approval of it on the areas outside its jurisdiction are irrelevant to analysis. I think that is both legally and morally incorrect. It “externalizes” the effects of the Project and the pollutants from it onto the public resource which is Lake Tahoe, the general public and the area users. Such action puts the burdens of the corporate behemoth behind this Project, Suntek, on the public and the environment. I know City could care less by its documentation. It’s an old story and a common practice by our municipal corporations such as the City on behalf of the private corporations. And it’s wrong to do so, with the California Environmental Quality Act and courts as the backstop. I have encouraged others to engage in litigation as I have, not because I just want to sue everyone, but because the agencies are otherwise incentivized to continue corrupt practices, as here.

Land Use Fails Under General Plan Designation – No Industrial Uses The Staff Report, top of page 3, indicates: “General Plan Designation” is “Neighborhood center.” I looked up the definition of “Neighborhood Center” in the City’s General Plan and found this description, together with other use designations. See screenshot below from Chapter 2 on Land Use:
1428
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina Project Alan Miller, PE 6-9-26 For City Planning Commission Agenda and meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 6 of 10 One can see the “neighborhood center” designation provides for “commercial and tourist uses supported by high density residential.” There is no high-density residential development proposed with the Project that would be compatible with the designation. As I pointed out in earlier comments, the City fails to understand that the Project site is an industrial site with commercial and tourist uses. Therefore I question the Project’s conformance with the General Plan designation, which does not allow for industrial uses such as are proposed, and/or reasonably foreseeable industrial activities like dredging, for but one example.

It is questionable why this designation was ever applied to the existing Tahoe Keys Marina by City, but there it is. Perhaps it was due to some oversight or assumptions based on existing conditions, or perhaps the City just failed to understand the true nature of the operations at the site. I think the latter is the case based on the agenda materials. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has designated marinas nationwide as industrial facilities subject to industrial storm water permitting requirements of the federal Clean Water Act. Likewise, the Lahontan Water Board has designated the TKM as an industrial site subject to its Board Order No. R6T-2016-0038, the Marina General Permit, that applies the federal and state requirements 1429
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina Project Alan Miller, PE 6-9-26 For City Planning Commission Agenda and meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 7 of 10 to “owners/operators conducting industrial activities and construction activities disturbing less than one acre of total land area at marinas in the Lake Tahoe Hydrologic Unit. . . .” That describes the TKM.

None of the General Plan designations based on my review of the Land Use Chapter 2 cover industrial sites except “Special Districts.” Since the Project site is not designated as a Special District it does not qualify for “unique land uses that require flexibility or special considerations.

This includes public facilities, industrial uses. . .” Therefore, the City should not be giving “special considerations” and excursions from City Code as for the parking plan and driveways that do not meet requirements.

Specifically, citing the draft Resolution, Finding No. 7: “[City] 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.” The latter part makes no sense at all: what are the “privileges enjoyed by other properties in the vicinity and under an identical plan area”? City does not say because there aren’t any. The Project use designation does not conform to the General Plan and the Project development deserves no such “special considerations” under the provisions of the General Plan.

Further, Finding No. 7 has the distinct “ring” of what are called Findings of Overriding Considerations under CEQA. However, the City does not have the authority to extend such “privileges” for this Project unless an EIR is prepared; such findings are not allowed for lesser analyses such as the ISMND. According to Public Resources Code (CEQA) Section 21081, …no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out unless both of the following occur:
(a) The public agency makes one or more of the possible findings with respect to each significant effect:

1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project to mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.

2. Those changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and have been, or can and should be, adopted by that other agency.

3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identifies in the environmental impact report. 1430
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina Project Alan Miller, PE 6-9-26 For City Planning Commission Agenda and meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 8 of 10 (b) With respect to significant effects which were subject to a finding under paragraph (3) of subdivision (a), the public agency finds that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the significant effects on the environment. (emphasis added)
THE QUOTED TEXT ABOVE DOES NOT APPLY TO THIS PROJECT UNDER AN ISMND. The City has denied the existence of any significant effect and promotes certification of the ISMND, but City can’t “have its cake and eat it, too.” Page 7 of the Staff Report indicates, “The project proposes a total of 251 parking spaces, which is a shortfall of 40.” Therefore, I contend inadequate parking pursuant to City Code is a significant environmental effect that has not been mitigated as required.

Then, using provisions applicable only to significant effects identified in an EIR (see Section 21081) City proposes: “
As a result, the City Permit will be conditioned to require TKM to implement an employee parking program to encourage increased non-auto access, provide carpoolmatching resources, and implement a limited employee parking allowance for Charter businesses. The employee parking program shall be submitted to the Planning Department for review and approval.

City staff recommends that the Planning Commission accept the parking analysis as technically adequate and approve the special use permit for the parking demand ratio reduction.

No basis in law is cited for the recommendation because there isn’t any. Staff just thinks it can use its illegal judgment instead of adopted City Code. The Project is just so important to approve, despite the faulty and inadequate analysis, despite the lack of an EIR, that the staff treats the City Code as fungible and mutable to suit City and/or developer desires. It is not.

Therefore, the fact that the parking does not conform to City Plan is illegal to approve, it is a significant effect, and it can not be mitigated as proposed above.

Again, the parking deficiencies cited in the Staff Report are illegal and the basis to excuse the excursion as a special “privilege” with the mitigation proposed does not withstand scrutiny. If the City had done a proper analysis of the significant effect under an EIR it could propose the above as mitigation in the context of Overriding Considerations, but not under the deficient ISMND, which provides no excuse to break the law. Thus, an EIR is required.

Land Uses
The Staff Report then goes on to analyze land uses under regulations of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, not the City General Plan and City Code of Ordinances! What kind of crazy nonsense is this instead of an analysis of conformance with General Plan and City Code? TRPA 1431
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina Project Alan Miller, PE 6-9-26 For City Planning Commission Agenda and meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 9 of 10 will do its own review as stated in the Staff Report; we don’t need City input on that. What we should have, and lack, is a proper analysis under applicable regulations and the City’s own General Plan.

Land Uses: The proposed use is defined in Chapter 21 of the TRPA Code of Ordinance as a marina, which is an establishment providing water-oriented services, such as: yachting and rowing clubs; boat rentals; storage and launching facilities; sport fishing activities, excursion boat and sightseeing facilities; and other related marina activities, including but not limited to fuel sales and boat and engine repair. Outdoor storage is included as part of the use. Marinas are an allowed use within Plan Area Statement 102 – Tahoe Keys.

That’s all the information provided in the Staff Report in this matter, TRPA Land Uses. This is a product of Mr. Hitchcock’s subservience to the TRPA. He is TRPA’s “water boy” who sits on the Advisory Planning Commission. He is therefore conflicted (serving two masters, City and TRPA) in an unconstitutional APC set-up,and voted in early May to revise the TRPA height Code specifically to accommodate this Project. Like the other conflicted agency “partners” on APC, they worship an idol called money and will do anything required in service of it, collecting fat salaries to violate the planning laws and commit atrocities on Lake Tahoe and the supporting environment while they laugh their way to the bank or sit in their so-called “positions of honor” as political appointees.

Potentially Significant Effects from Snow Storage Remain I previously commented on Snow Storage (see p 10) saying a management plan was needed with all the other industrial and commercial activities. The management plan was needed to prevent significant effects on surface waters, ground waters, storm drainage and storm water treatment systems, public access and parking. The proper vehicle to analyze these effects is an EIR to demonstrate to the public and decisionmakers that the potentially significant effects can be, and are, mitigated. Instead what we get is: “However, a snow storage plan was not included in the plan submittal, and the City permit has been conditioned to require the applicant to submit a snow storage plan with the building permit application.” Jeers to the City staff for failing to require a snow storage plan up front with the application, just one failing among many. Under the circumstances here, with the numerous unidentified or unacknowledged potentially significant effects, deficiencies, failings, contradictions, omissions and other defects in the ISMND and Staff Report, I express “NO CONFIDENCE” in the ability of Mr. Hitchcock, in his little back room office and out of public sight, or other City staff, to ensure the missing snow storage plan includes the mitigation measures needed to ensure significant effects do not occur. Again, an EIR is required due to unmitigated potentially significant effects, 1432
Public Interest Comments, Tahoe Keys Marina Project Alan Miller, PE 6-9-26 For City Planning Commission Agenda and meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 10 of 10 as per comments, and the post-ISMND condition to provide a snow storage plan doesn’t make the cut legally.

Until Later
Thank you for considering these comments. I will likely appear to testify on June 11. Don’t approve this lame Project as is, with its numerous deficiencies and significant and potentially significant effects. It could be improved with study and mitigation measures currently lacking.

Don’t go out on a limb legally for this national, out-of-area developer of marinas. Don’t end up in a lawsuit that will cost only the taxpayers for your misfeasance! Or be sued and delay the Project you want so much indefinitely. I reserve the right and opportunity to provide additional comments, as I may.
1433
Additional Comments Received on the Draft IS/MND after Closure of the Public Comment Period Responses
Additional comments were received on June 9, 2026, prior to the Planning Commission meeting on June 11, 2026 related to the Project but after the public review period for the Draft IS/MND had closed. In general, the information presented in the comments identified below do not constitute new information and are similar to comments received during public review of the Draft IS/MND. Although not required under CEQA to prepare responses to these comments, the following provides a general response in the interest of public disclosure.

The letter received on June 9, 2026 was submitted by Alan Miller, who had previously provided comments that were responded to as part of the Final IS/MND (see Comment Letters I2 and I4).

Comment Letter I1: Alan Miller – June 9, 2026
Comment I1-1:

The commenter incorporates by reference prior comments made on the IS/MND and reiterates concern that an EIR should be prepared.

Response I1-1:

As noted in responses to Comment Letters O1, O2, O3, I2, and I4, the IS/MND was prepared in accordance with CEQA requirements, and further preparation of an EIR is not considered to be required. Contrary to the commenters opinion, the Final IS/MND adequately addresses comments received.

Comment I1-2:

The comment expresses concern that the potential impacts of dredging are not addressed in the IS/MND and that this may constitute segmentation of the Project under CEQA. The comment also reiterates concern raised in the Draft IS/MND regarding the Marina General Permit and, more generally, National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements.

Response I1-2:

As noted in Response to Comment L1-4 of the Final IS/MND, dredging of the lagoon is not a component of the Project. The Project would involve construction of a new bulkhead in front of the existing bulkhead but would not involve routine dredging of the lagoon, which is an ongoing and periodic activity that has already been authorized and permitted. As it pertains to the Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) that apply to the Project, the comment notes a perceived discrepancy between the cited regulations in the commenter’s prior submittals and that of the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Both regulations pertain to compliance with NPDES and are requirements of certain types of development in the area. Should the Project be approved, the Project applicant will work with the RWQCB to ensure compliance with the appropriate regulation. Refer to pages 70, 84, and 93 of the Draft IS/MND (as amended through responses to comments), which refer to the requirement of the Project to adhere to NPDES requirements.

Comment I1-3:

The comment expresses concern regarding “applicable unmet mitigation requirements” from the Basin Plan and refers to personal observation of 1,600 linear feet of sheet piling work that has been installed. The comment goes on to state that the observed work is unpermitted and unmitigated. 1434
Response I1-3:

As noted in Response to Comment I4-5, none of the components of the Project have been implemented to date.

It is unclear as to where the sheet piling referred to in this comment is located or that it has been replaced.

However, and with respect to the Project, no work (including bulkhead replacement) would occur without prior receipt of permits from appropriate responsible agencies, including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Lahontan RWQCB.

Comment I1-4:

The comment expresses opinion regarding the statement in the agenda for the upcoming June 11, 2026 Planning Commission meeting about City jurisdiction.

Response I1-4:

The commenter’s opinion is noted, however, the City’s statement is related specifically to the approvals to be considered by the Planning Commission and notes the need for other jurisdictions, including TRPA to exercise their respective discretion. To clarify, the City's jurisdiction doesn't end at the bulkhead as evidenced by the fact that parcels within the City’s jurisdiction extend into the lagoon, but its jurisdiction within those areas is limited by the regulatory structure that pertains to water-based facilities such as the lagoon. The actions to be considered by the Planning Commission on June 11 include 1) review/approval of a design review permit for the Project; 2) review/approval of a special use permit for the Project; 3) granting of a variance for the public restroom to encroach into City Code setback distances; and 4) consideration of the IS/MND and MMRP for adoption. It should also be noted that the IS/MND addresses both the land-based facilities and the bulkhead replacement, appropriate and in accordance with CEQA requirements pertaining to the analysis of the whole of the project (refer to Public Resources Code §21065).

Comment I1-5:

The comment expresses opinion that the Project is an industrial use and not covered by any of the City of South Lake Tahoe’s current General Plan land use designations, with the exception of “Special Districts.” Response I1-5:

The commenter’s opinion is noted, however, the Project involves the redevelopment of an existing facility with similar but expanded facilities, including marina-support facilities, employee housing, and boat storage.

Pursuant to the City General Plan, the Tahoe Keys Marina and an approximately 1,600-unit common interest development managed by the Tahoe Keys Property Owners Association (TKPOA) are located in an area designated as Neighborhood Commercial (NC), which provides for commercial and tourist uses supported by high-density residential and horizontal and mixed-used developments. The Project includes eating and drinking places, office space and a variety of accessory uses to the primary marina use. While the Project does not include a high number of residential uses, it is surrounded by the 1,600-unit TKPOA residential development. As such, the land use designation for the Project area is considered appropriate for both the existing facilities and the proposed Project.

The City has also adopted TRPA’s Plan Area Statements which provide detailed plans and policies for specific areas of the City (City Code Sections 6.55.010 and 6.55.030) and TRPA’s land use definitions (City Code Section

6.55.100). The Tahoe Keys Marina is located in Special Area #1 of Plan Area Statement 102 – Tahoe Keys in which marinas are an allowed “recreation” use and not an industrial use as the commenter suggest. Developed 1435
recreation is defined as outdoor activities that are enhanced by the use of man-made facilities including, but not limited to, campgrounds, marinas and ski areas. (TRPA Code Section 90.2.) An industrial land use is typically associated with the manufacturing, processing, or assembly of materials. The Project would not involve any of these activities.

Comment I1-6:

The comment expresses concern regarding the 7th statement of resolutions provided on page 2 of 3 of Draft Resolution 2026-xx and states that the City does not have the authority to extend such privileges unless an EIR is prepared.

Response I1-6:

The commenter’s opinion regarding a perceived similarity between the 7th statement and findings related to an EIR is noted. However, the commenter is conflating the statement with specific findings required when preparing an EIR. The statement within the draft resolution does not refer to a significant environmental impact or CEQA but rather to City Code Section 6.10.350. Further and with respect to treatment of parking within the context of CEQA, parking (in and of itself) was removed from Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines following the passage of Senate Bill (SB) 743 in 2013. There is no indication of a significant environmental impact as a result of the City’s consideration of the Project’s proposed parking facilities with respect to City Code Section 6.10.350.

Further and as noted in Appendix D of the IS/MND, it was determined that adequate parking would be available to serve the proposed uses with implementation of the Project.

Comment I1-7:

The comment expresses concern that an evaluation of the Project’s consistency with the City General Plan and Code of Ordinances is not outwardly presented as part of the agenda item.

Response I1-7:

The commenter’s opinion is noted. As noted above in Response I1-5, the Project involves the redevelopment of the site with similar, albeit somewhat expanded uses (e.g., the number of proposed residential units would remain the same as existing conditions). General Plan Goal LU-4 provides: To encourage the revitalization, reuse, and expansion of existing and vacant sites in South Lake Tahoe. The Project would further this goal of revitalizing and reusing this existing and partially vacant site in South Lake Tahoe. 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). As such, the Project would be consistent with Goal LU-4 to revitalize and reuse this infill site.

The Project would be consistent with other General Plan policies that encourage infill development and revitalization, such as the following:
1436
Policy LU-4.1: Development Concentration
The City shall concentrate and mix residential and commercial development to establish unique pedestrian‐ friendly areas within the city that create a strong sense of place.

Evaluation of consistency with LU-4.1: By revitalizing the Tahoe Keys Marina, the Project would concentrate and mix residential and commercial development to establish unique pedestrian-friendly areas within the city that create a strong sense of place. The Project would include new commercial uses in close proximity to residential uses within the Tahoe Keys, and also would provide three dwelling units for employees. The Project also creates new pedestrian oriented open space areas that will create a strong sense of place.

Policy LU‐4.2: Infill and Reinvestment Promotion
The City shall promote infill and reinvestment to increase density within walking distance of transit stops.

Evaluation of consistency with LU-4.2: The Project incorporates infill and reinvestment within the city. The Project would not impede or alter existing or planned transit services.

Policy LU‐4.3: Vacant and Underutilized Site Development The City shall encourage appropriate development/redevelopment of parcels that are either vacant or underutilized, surrounded by existing urban development, and non‐environmentally‐sensitive.

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

Evaluation of consistency with LU-4.3 and LU-4.4: The Project site has existing infrastructure, coverage, and development rights; the Project would enhance and upgrade this underutilized site that already is fully developed. As stated on page 18 of the IS/MND the Project would reduce the overall coverage area compared to existing conditions.

Policy LU‐4.5: Revitalization Coordination
The City shall coordinate revitalization efforts with local businesses and other parties as required by State law.

Evaluation of consistency with LU-4.5: The Tahoe Keys Marina has maintained a long time presence within the City and the Applicant has coordinated with the City to revitalize the Project site. Further, acquisition of entitlements for the Project (including those listed in Response I1-4 above) constitute part of and demonstrate coordination between local businesses and the City. As shown on page 22 of the IS/MND, there is a long list of responsible and trustee agencies with jurisdiction over the Project.

The IS/MND also further addresses the General Plan, including at pages 27, 30, 57, 61, 62, 63, 75, 78, 97, 98, 99, 100, 104, 109, 111, 119, 121, and 134. To this end, the Project is considered to be consistent with the City’s General Plan. With respect to City Code requirements, the draft resolution (as pointed out in Comment I1-6) denotes any differences or additional considerations of the Project with respect to City Code. The Project was reviewed by City staff (and will continue to be reviewed by City and other staff for its compliance with various regulations, including Fire Code requirements) and deemed to be consistent with applicable City plans and regulations.
1437
Comment I1-8:

The comment reiterates concern that additional information regarding snow storage is necessary, including provision of a management plan, and its lack thereof necessitates preparation of an EIR.

Response I1-8:

The commenter’s opinion is noted. As noted in Response to Comment L1-8 of the Final IS/MND, snow storage areas are included as part of the Project and their sizing was determined based on the projected volume of snow for the Project area. The comment does not indicate or provide evidence as to how later submittal of a plan, as required as a condition of approval for the Project, would result in a significant impact of the Project. As noted in prior responses, subsequent approvals related to site conditions, through compliance with various regulations like NPDES (including the Marina General Permit), the Clean Water Act (including Sections 404 and 401), City Code, and TRPA Code requirements, would require the preparation, review, and approval of complementary plans and permits. As the proposed design of the Project may be subject to further refinement through regulatory compliance, preparation and submittal of a snow storage plan is considered premature but will be prepared, reviewed, and approved by the City prior to Project implementation. No evidence is provided in this comment to support the commenter’s statement that an EIR is required.

Comment I1-6:

The comment notes that the commenter will likely be present and provide additional comment on June 11, 2026 at the Planning Commission meeting.

Response I1-6:

The comment is noted. No further response is required.
1438

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM AL MILLER DATED
JUNE 10, 2026
1439
Public Interest Comments, Ethics and the Tahoe Keys Marina Project Alan Miller, PE 6-10-26 For City Planning Commission Agenda item 3 and meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 1 of 16 Public Interest Comments on agenda item 3. Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project Design Review and Special Use Permit, Planning Commission Meeting of June 11, 2026 From: Alan Miller, Professional Engineer
By way of email to [email protected], [email protected] and others:

PUBLIC NOTICE
FOR RAMPANT ETHICS TRANSGRESSIONS IN THE CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE:

NOTICE OF POTENTIAL CRIMINAL AND CIVIL LIABILITY AND OTHER LEGAL SANCTIONS

NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS IS NOTICE TO AGENTS

NOTICE TO AGENTS IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS

CEASE AND DESIST VIOLATIONS OF APPLICABLE STATE AND CITY LAWS AND REGULATIONS FORTHWITH:

For failure to prepare an Environmental Impact Report for the Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project in compliance with provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, the current General Plan for the City, the City Code of Ordinances, statute laws, regulations and applicable policies concerning ethics expected of public officials in California, with reliance on staff-reviewed checklists and fraudulent findings of no significant effect concerning Project approval, and for violations of applicable ethics policies and principles by City of South Lake Tahoe officers and agents.

You are HEREBY NOTIFIED before the Watchers that as an appointee, official or agent of the City of South Lake Tahoe you may be subject to potential civil or criminal liability for violations of your Oaths of Office and for breaking contracts with the people, as stated above, and/or other subject to other penalties and sanctions under state and federal laws, in your official capacity and/or in your capacity as an individual.

With incorporation by reference of my two prior comment letters in the public record of this matter before the Planning Commission of the City of South Lake Tahoe, El Dorado County, California dated 5/30/26 and 6/9/26, I provide the following information and comments for your consideration and for the benefit of the general public you are charged to serve in accordance with common law, the U.S. Constitution, the California Constitution, and applicable 1440
Public Interest Comments, Ethics and the Tahoe Keys Marina Project Alan Miller, PE 6-10-26 For City Planning Commission Agenda item 3 and meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 2 of 16 statutes and regulations of the state of California. As previously stated, I am not providing any legal advice. I am not an attorney. I keep my hands in my own pockets and sleep well.

I am a registered professional civil engineer in the state of California, with no current affiliations to others practicing in the areas of civil and environmental engineering other than the American Society of Civil Engineers, in which I am a member in good standing. A principal charge for civil engineers is, “To protect and safeguard the health, safety, welfare, and property of the public, every person who is licensed by the Board as a professional engineer, including licensees employed in any manner by a governmental entity or in private practice, shall comply with this Code of Professional Conduct. . . .” (Section 475, 2026 Professional Engineers &Public Land Surveyor Board Rules (16 CCR §§400-476.)).

I have exercised my Constitutional rights to free speech while endeavoring to represent my engineering judgments in accordance with the above against persons allied in government in the Lake Tahoe region with no regard for ethical professional conduct, in particular here the officials of the City of South Lake Tahoe and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, against the harms to health, safety, welfare, and property of the public. My experiences are that the agency officials (non-engineers) have no regard for whom they may harm or what environmental damage they may cause while routinely violating ethics and standards of moral conduct, laws, standards and principles. I will attempt to briefly summarize and present affidavit evidence below for my allegations of illegal conduct and ethical failures by public officials I have encountered, and attach other relevant information.

While my judgments involve discernment I endeavor not to feel personal animosity towards people for the things they do, no matter how despicable the actions may be to me. My approach stems from my training and application of employee development and disciplinary actions for employees not meeting employment standards. In truth, in my career I never was involved in a formal adverse action against a state employee in my charge other than meetings, written reprimands and written agreements for meeting work standards. The aim is always to return the person to integrity and assist them with their difficulties to meet standards. It is not illegal to discriminate against persons based on behavior while maintaining objective fairness. I call things as I see them in my discernment.

Ethics Violations of City Officials; An Appeal Hearing Denied It has been approximately one year and a little more since I appealed a decision of the City Planning Commission concerning a multi-family housing project in the City. The appeal I filed is hereby attached (without exhibits, except for the Ethics Policy discussed below). It documents my experience in the matter leading up to the City Clerk’s denial of my right under City Code to 1441
Public Interest Comments, Ethics and the Tahoe Keys Marina Project Alan Miller, PE 6-10-26 For City Planning Commission Agenda item 3 and meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 3 of 16 appeal a decision of the Planning Commission and obtain a fair and unbiased hearing on the matter before the City Council. All of the current officers of the City Council, Planning Commission, City Clerk and City staff were implicated with the exception of Heather Horgan, who was appointed (not elected) to City Council by the others after Mayor Wallace resigned.

Mr. Jinkens was supportive of an opportunity to conduct my appeal hearing but as a governmental body, no action to uphold the City Code was taken.

My civil rights were violated when the City Clerk did not present my written comments, filed by email transmittal in accordance with City instructions, to the Planning Commission ahead of the decision, as required by law. My civil rights were then denied when the City Clerk, under the influence of the City Attorney, decided that illegal provisions in a current, existing Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City and TRPA were more important than faithful implementation of the City Code provisions concerning appeals by right. Violations of civil rights can, in particular, lead to adverse legal consequences for violators.

As a result, I was illegally denied the right to an appeal and a hearing before the City Council in the matter. To be clear, the City Council did NOT deny my appeal following a properly noticed public hearing. It dispensed with all bona fide law and essentially told me to go pound sand with an appeal hearing at the TRPA. My refusal of that as improper under law is documented in my appeal filing. (My assertion is I could engage the City in litigation concerning my claims.) I contend that Planning Commission decision and subsequent denial of appeal rights by the City Clerk, with the full knowledge of the City Council, was against the U.S. and California Constitutions and remains potentially subject to litigation under applicable statutes of limitations.

If you read my appeal filing you will understand that the City Attorney had to dig the City’s Ethics Policy out of “cold storage” after my public records request to the City Clerk. If one reviews that Ethics Policy with regard to the circumstances of the appeal it will be clear that City officials were not aware of the Policy, did no routine training or review concerning it (for many years), nor did they follow the vast majority its provisions when the Ethics Policy was brought to their attention, most particularly to provide a public hearing in regards to complaints of ethics violations (included in my appeal filing). I claim that is because City is a routine violator of ethics standards and a willing slave to TRPA under the illegal provisions of the MOU. The City officials long-ago dispensed with ethics in “partnership” and subservience to the TRPA in such matters—illegally to the detriment of the citizens the City is charged to serve, with my case in point.
1442
Public Interest Comments, Ethics and the Tahoe Keys Marina Project Alan Miller, PE 6-10-26 For City Planning Commission Agenda item 3 and meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 4 of 16 Appearances of Impropriety with the City Council
The City has a well-earned reputation for criminal lapses of judgment among its officers. As reported in regional newspapers and social media, prior to my appeal current-Mayor Bass was arrested for possession of a controlled substance, ketamine, while sleeping in a vehicle along the roadside on U.S Highway 50 between the City and Placerville. His crimes were punished with a hand slap under prosecution by our lackluster County District Attorney, Verne Pierson.

Following that Mayor Tamara Wallace confessed to the crime of embezzlement of hundreds of thousands of dollars over a period of years from a church coffer, of all things. I don’t know if one can be more unethical than that? Mayor Wallace did not resign following her confession until the public call for her resignation was heeded, an embarrassment to our community and an example of a person serving as a seemingly “upstanding” public official while engaged in a life of felonious activities. You public officials are all just a few steps down from that in my opinion with your repeated transgressions of the laws and harms.

It turns out it was not the Mayor’s first offense for embezzlement, having been excused in a deal from the County District Attorney under a settlement with the victim of her crime years earlier, with requirements to repay the money she stole. The money has not been repaid by Ms. Wallace, nor have the terms of the settlement been enforced by the District Attorney.

Upon Mayor Wallace’s resignation, Mr. Bass assumed the Mayor position. He was subsequently arrested for his behavior by the Douglas County Sheriff at a nightclub, Aleworx, in Stateline NV.

The charge was harassment of security personnel employed at Aleworx as I understand it. To further show Mayor Bass was using poor judgment, he phoned in a complaint about an employee at Aleworx and the officers arrested him after conducting an investigation, the case still unresolved. Social media showed the Mayor slurring his words and showing other signs of inebriation. That aside, I assert the Mayor makes a very poor representation of our City government under the circumstances. Such is the Mayor, a well-known salesman of marijuana in the community through his several businesses. He should just do that.

Of course, Mayor Bass proclaims his innocence in the criminal charges and will fight the charges in Douglas County he brought on himself due to his lack of good judgment. While each person deserves his day in court under presumptions of innocence, my appeal request was denied in violation of my civil rights while Mayor Bass was complaining of civil rights violations by the Douglas County Sheriff. I am unsympathetic. Without more than a few sentences from the City reiterating what I told them, the matter was summarily dismissed by all participating in the denial of my appeal hearing. His blatant disregard for City Code is egregious given his Council experience and position as Mayor, his dual-service appointment to TRPA. Then again, just in the 1443
Public Interest Comments, Ethics and the Tahoe Keys Marina Project Alan Miller, PE 6-10-26 For City Planning Commission Agenda item 3 and meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 5 of 16 last week or so, Mayor Bass was issued a temporary restraining order to stay away from a person he is alleged to have harassed (Ken “Ski Bum” Kurtzweiler) and I understand the Mayor will contest the TRO in court on June 17, 2026. Appearances of impropriety and poor judgment, anger issues.

Mayor Bass sits as a City appointee to the TRPA Governing Board (serving two masters, City and TRPA), which I contend is a conflict of interest with loyalties devoted to TRPA. It is in this ethical mileau that the City is mired, with two criminal investigations pending and one conviction so far, for the Mayor’s drug possession. City’s proposal to move past this more-than-mereappearance of corruption is more corruption, the corrupt approval of TKM Redev which will be exposed for what it is.

Following the appeal hearing denial episode recounted briefly above I filed a complaint with the El Dorado County Civil Grand Jury charged to investigate allegations of government corruption, requesting an investigation of the City behind my denial to an appeal hearing and the illegal MOU with TRPA. The Grand Jury website indicates it treat complaints confidentially until it responds in some manner to all complaints received and the report on my complaint may issue in July 2026 if not before, as the new Grand Jury comes in. I think it will be interesting in any event to see what the Grand Jury comes back with. It operates under influence of District Attorney Verne Pierson and a judge advisor so I will just have to wait and see. I can’t predict the outcome and I have no confidence in DA Pierson to root out injustice in our community as a lackluster prosecutor of Wallace (previously) and advisor to the Grand Jury. My complaint is public record and soon will be public knowledge and there is always a new Grand Jury to complain to if needed.

Ethics Violations of the City Attorney
It is the City Attorney who has upheld the legal validity of the MOU and advises the City on legal matters. Like all attorneys in CA, she belongs to an exclusive club of Rome called the California Bar Association and serves its interests under oath to it. The CA Bar Assn. has had numerous episodes of corruption in its history. Every time the legislature tries to fix it the lawyers seem to come up with some new way around. It is the only profession that sounds like “liar”—in your face. It is not accidental. Nothing is. It is she who is in a position to advise on ethics and it is she who has failed in all significant respects with regard to my appeal denial. She is the principal misadvisor to the City on CEQA and planning issues, as with the subject Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project being promoted for approval under fraudulent findings. She has officially resigned from the City and will be gone come July 1, 2026. My hope is that she will never darken a City doorway thereafter. Get a better replacement! 1444
Public Interest Comments, Ethics and the Tahoe Keys Marina Project Alan Miller, PE 6-10-26 For City Planning Commission Agenda item 3 and meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 6 of 16 Ethical Frameworks in California
This what the City’s Resolution 2024-16 says about the Planning Commission: “After the appointments have been made, the City Clerk will administer an oath of office to each newly appointed commissioner at their first commission meeting and will provide each commissioner with a copy of the City Commission Handbook which will include this resolution, the City's Code of Ethics and FPPC Financial Disclosure Statements (see Section 4). . . .” None of those documents express that the Planning Commission members may disregard the oaths, the laws and regulations, matters of ethics and propriety, and should blindly follow or vote to approve the staff recommendation however repugnant. Yet I contend that is exactly what is being proposed with consideration of the Project and that is what will occur based on my prior experiences. Then the City will defend its illegal assertions and decisions to the bitter end at taxpayer expense, through whatever public ridicule follows, with never admission of a failure of any kind.

The way I see things the entire existence of TRPA has been a failure, all their regulatory and planning programs, all their unnecessary intrusions in our lives. I consider TRPA to be very dangerous to all and the environment for their blindness and political orientations, their toxic microplastics in Lake Tahoe, their current lack of evacuation planning and SMART-metering acquiescence, their toxic towers, et cetera. TRPA is not an environmental protection organization, it’s not in the name, and the Compact charter has been voided by subordinate regulations in large part, also not followed. I have a long Petition to TRPA about that from last March and April 2025. The City has been tutored to follow in its footsteps and has learned the lessons of how to fail, particularly at environmental review, and double down on denials of its failings, as with the Project. It almost seems the worse a thing is the more the agency will back it, because it can.

I have been barking at TRPA to control microplastics from the piers since September 2022. Why is it then that TRPA and all its so-called “partners” can’t go take a few samples of water and soils from the Tahoe Keys and test it for microplastics? It’s all a ruse. TRPA operates under faulty logic: Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. We don’t want to know. In my days with the Water Board we would have been out there sampling in days or weeks, not years with nothing to show. Jeers to the current Lahontan Water Board. I could contract for a round of samples tomorrow, but it is ethically improper to put the burdens on the public (on me) to prove the obvious, especially given the agency culpability. You don’t realize I’m feeding rope to 1445
Public Interest Comments, Ethics and the Tahoe Keys Marina Project Alan Miller, PE 6-10-26 For City Planning Commission Agenda item 3 and meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 7 of 16 hang you with? Eventually TRPA will hang for it (deservedly) and the TKM Redev approval as proposed will open the trap door if it doesn’t wake up because the people are waking up.

A Pattern of Ethical Abuses is Evident
A little walk down memory lane is appropriate here to show that the City, much as TRPA, operates with many features in common with a criminal syndicate; no matter who serves the system remains.

In 2019 the City Planning Commission approved a cellular macrotower installation in a residential or mixed use neighborhood (not industrial) at the intersection of Ski Run Blvd and Needle Peak in the City (aka “the Ski Run Tower). The 112-foot high macrotower was sited adjacent the family residence of Eisenstecken, near her neighbor David Benedict, and other residential homes and condominiums, and a sensitive and prized scenic aspen grove wetland.

At that time the City had no specific siting policy for industrial cellular macrotowers and little sensitivity to the community opposed to its actions in pursuit of City agendas on behalf of the telecommunications industry and TRPA.

The appeal by Eisenstecken was held, with Council member Devin Middlebrook, then and now a TRPA employee, leading the contentious public hearing to a 3-2 vote by City Council to deny.

After more than a year, the Project then proceeded to a public hearing before a contract TRPA Hearing Officer (HO) on a TRPA Permit approval. The HO was Marsha Burch, an attorney and a known advocate for cell towers, brought in at the 11th hour to review thousands of pages of public comments. Her baseless and corrupt decision was one of the worst I’ve ever witnessed and the HO was subsequently hired as a permanent staff member at TRPA. The decision was appealed to the Governing Board and, after a delay of months, the Governing Board upheld the HO’s decision with Mr. Bass the only dissenting vote among 14 in lock-step support of staff and a fraudulent environmental document.

Eisenstecken and Environmental Health Defense (a non-profit org) sued the City and TRPA in federal Court. Though the City was later dismissed from the case on technicalities, and David Benedict joined the suit, the case against TRPA is still being litigated with a potential settlement in the works after five long years of limited court movement. (I am not a party to the lawsuit.) In the course of litigation it became clear that these agency actors didn’t care who they harmed, and indeed litigant David Benedict is now deceased due to illness exacerbated by exposure to microwave radiation from the Ski Run Tower and another cell tower approved by the City even closer to his home, based on his doctor’s testimony. 1446
Public Interest Comments, Ethics and the Tahoe Keys Marina Project Alan Miller, PE 6-10-26 For City Planning Commission Agenda item 3 and meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 8 of 16 Moving forward from this brief history, I came in conflict with the City on the appeal denial as related above, an analogous situation to the Ski Run Tower administrative process, but with City acting as if it possessed the authority to adopt and enforce a TRPA Permit under the illegal MOU. I contend the Project has no valid TRPA Permit to this day, as City has no authority to assume the powers and duties of TRPA (under the MOU) with regard to Permit approvals.

Statutes of limitations are still running with regard to litigating the bogus so-called “TRPA Permit” issued by the City if that project ever turns a spade of soil.

The common elements with the Ski Run Tower, the appeal denial by City, and now the TKM Redev Project (just these few examples) is they all began with deficient environmental reviews and fraudulent approvals with numerous ethics violations associated with each. Now I’ll make an educated guess about what I think is really going on here and about to unfold in the TKM Redev approval matter.

The Planning Director circulated a poorly done ISMND for public comment, based on a lot of moving parts and activities on the Project site and incomplete information. I used to hate documents so poorly completed by lead agencies when I was employed and I saw many of them. That is because it would take so long to ferret out the garbage and set things straight for the record that it presented a difficult task and one most staff were not specifically trained in or experts in concerning CEQA. I think maybe that may explain in part why agencies (and the public) don’t often comment, as noted in my prior comments. It certainly provides a disincentive to engage in any case for all CEQA Responsible Agencies; they’d rather just deal with things independently, right or wrong. That accords with my agency employment experiences in many cases.

As with the Ski Run Tower, the denial of my appeal, and now the TKM Redev, it makes no difference how legally deficient and fraudulent the Project documentation is. The City is going to uphold the Project approval no matter what, because no agency can ever admit an error or shortcoming that would undermine staff, including the legal counsels. Details and laws are of no interest. I expect a unanimous decision by the Planning Commission, including Mr. Feiger from the League to Pave Lake Tahoe. It will punt to the City Council for an appeal. The City Council will approve the staff recommendation on the Planning Commission decision, with the possible exception of Mr. Jinkens. Litigation will follow with a stay to prevent irreversible harm and the City will lose years down the line. Everyone will lose if that’s what you decide.

I expect the City and TRPA staff may have made some statements to the Project developer to the effect that the Project would be massaged through the administrative processes with a finding of no significant impact NOT requiring an Environmental Impact Report/Statement. 1447
Public Interest Comments, Ethics and the Tahoe Keys Marina Project Alan Miller, PE 6-10-26 For City Planning Commission Agenda item 3 and meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 9 of 16 Approval schedules were aligned on that basis, with no public outreach by City beyond bare legal requirements, no input particularly desired from the public. All public input has been ignored with the proposed agenda item anyway. The schedule will be pursued under any circumstances, thus we have the faulty ISMND propping up the proposed action. I expect the TRPA will bypass APC review of the Project and approve the height amendments for the Project and the City’s environmental analysis, perhaps modified in some way, with its own Finding of No Significant Effect (FONSE), subject to litigation. That may occur at the Governing Board meeting on June 26 or in July 2026.

This is like an Eisenstecken redo. The difference here is that the City and TRPA don’t have the telecom industry deep-pocket and court influence to fight their legal battles, with City likely opposed in state court, TRPA in federal court. The assault is not on a person but Lake Tahoe.

The costs of this one could again fall on the City taxpayers, which is why I am recommending rejecting this ISMND and Project approval before things go any further. Or the item could be pulled from the June 11, 2026 agenda. I’m not expecting that based on my experience. I expect doubling down on misfeasance.

Information Concerning Ethics in Government and Potential Liabilities I have discussed lapses in City ethics. I also came to discover that TRPA likewise has an Ethics Policy it doesn’t follow, having suspended activities and training on it for years until I pointed the lapse out (just as City). It has not been reinstated to my knowledge. All the while TRPA’s then-attorney Marshall was routinely misdirecting the Governing Board and others on public meeting law and, with attorney-Executive Director Marchetta, certifying all manner of deficient and fraudulent FONSIs, which continues to this day under Director Regan. They get shit done! This ethics discussion isn’t primarily about co-conspirator TRPA, and I’ll provide information below about what is expected ethically as I feel relevant to the City, and information on potential criminal and civil liabilities that government officials in California risk in the process, more generally. You may think the possibility is remote that these failures to follow the most basic legal requirements in your approvals and transgressions of ethical principles will catch up to you with liability, and you just never know. There are plenty of other ways to get at the issues and I feel like I’m just getting started with the City.

Again, I’m not giving any legal advice. I believe people know right from wrong. Even if they may not know much else, it’s something we’re all born with, like an instinct. People go a long way to ignore that and it’s always a choice. There is always a choice in everything. I suggest to choose wisely. I’ve provided a few screenshots to consider as you make your choices and decisions going forward, nothing you couldn’t find with a bit of searching online. Quoting the Institute for 1448
Public Interest Comments, Ethics and the Tahoe Keys Marina Project Alan Miller, PE 6-10-26 For City Planning Commission Agenda item 3 and meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 10 of 16 Local Government website, “In California, state and federal laws create a complex set of requirements laws that guide elected officials and agency staff in their service to their communities. As extensive and complex as these laws are, it is important to remember ethics laws only constitute minimum standards for officials’ conduct. The law is a floor for public official conduct, not a ceiling: just because a particular course of action is legal does not mean it is ethical.” However, if a particular course of action is illegal, it is also unethical. 1449
Public Interest Comments, Ethics and the Tahoe Keys Marina Project Alan Miller, PE 6-10-26 For City Planning Commission Agenda item 3 and meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 11 of 16 1450
Public Interest Comments, Ethics and the Tahoe Keys Marina Project Alan Miller, PE 6-10-26 For City Planning Commission Agenda item 3 and meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 12 of 16 1451
Public Interest Comments, Ethics and the Tahoe Keys Marina Project Alan Miller, PE 6-10-26 For City Planning Commission Agenda item 3 and meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 13 of 16 1452
Public Interest Comments, Ethics and the Tahoe Keys Marina Project Alan Miller, PE 6-10-26 For City Planning Commission Agenda item 3 and meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 14 of 16 1453
Public Interest Comments, Ethics and the Tahoe Keys Marina Project Alan Miller, PE 6-10-26 For City Planning Commission Agenda item 3 and meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 15 of 16 Your Role In the Lake Tahoe Watershed from my Viewpoint Dillingham fired the mortal shot into a vital organ of Lake Tahoe, while Lake Tahoe was already suffering a death of a thousand cuts along the roadways and from growths filling in all the meadows, feeding wastes into its bloodstreams, and growths along the shoreline. That shot took out one of two kidneys needed to filter out wastes with the Tahoe Keys destroying half of the Upper Truckee Marsh and shunting the Upper Truckee River pollutants to bypass the remaining kidney. The lost kidney was replaced with a festering cancerous growth. Aquatic invasive species spread from there to infect the shore and other limbs.

Dr. Charles Goldman spoke out, TRPA was formed and some First Aid was applied, bandages.

The sewage discharge was a systemic infection brought under control, but only the sewage discharge. The roads and sores and growths continued and expanded for decades as chronic ailments, bleeding sediment and nutrients into the heart of Lake Tahoe, suffocating the lungs.

Agency actions had the effect of perhaps reducing a tiny increment of the total load—but way “below the line” and almost irrelevant to “restoration.” Why is that? No one understood from the start that Lake Tahoe was too large to affect in a positive way, due to its tremendous storage volume, 39 trillion gallons. No legislator, no scientist, even had any idea then of how much water was in Lake Tahoe. They didn’t know it could only be affected negatively by every additional annual pollutant load because within that total Lake volume there is a portion of annual load that can’t be absorbed and that new load portion is added to the existing total cumulative load in suspension in the water column. Annual loads also stimulate algal growth that adds biomass to the water column, like adding more fertilizer.

Clarity declines accordingly. I’ve written all this before.

There was an infusion of cash to do more doctoring after the Presidential Summit, “world-class” scientific doctoring (we’re told) that brought a misdiagnosis more than a decade later with the Total Maximum Daily Load prescription that didn’t improve the patient’s conditions. The side effect was hallucinations affecting the doctors and funding supporters, more than a decade of misperception that healing was underway while all signs showed the opposite. I call it Government Institutional Blindness Syndrome, GIBS. It took 55 years to make Lake Tahoe clarity diminish by 40 feet or more “on average” by 2026, with every annual load increasing the total load in Lake Tahoe, but it took TRPA to contaminate it with toxic microplastics from the plastic piers and recreational boats. With time and weakened immunity from all the assaults, the unstoppable annual loads, the “cumulative” effects now have the patient on the way out.

I find myself in the role of “patient advocate.” It seems only a 39 trillion gallon transfusion of clean water or equivalent dialysis could restore it to health. There is scant possibility of that in 1454
Public Interest Comments, Ethics and the Tahoe Keys Marina Project Alan Miller, PE 6-10-26 For City Planning Commission Agenda item 3 and meeting of June 11, 2026 Page 16 of 16 human life spans and certainly not with BMPs. But there is no emergency and the doctors think they have a rescue plan. The patient is lingering, still looking radiant on the surface in some ways, but the prognosis is 30 to 40 years at best before the end of clarity and ecologic death comes. The doctors say “where there is life there is hope” but it’s false hope and I’ve been through this before. There will still be some good days, time to say good-bye and make peace with what is, to learn from the experience. The doctors have done all they can and are now functionally hospice workers applying palliatives while charging up the hospital bills, inflicting additional wounds, ignoring festering sores and dispensing poison pills.

The patient was mortally wounded to begin with and given no possibility for eternal life due to the cold, hard physics of retention time, 600 years for pollutants. That’s what no one understood from the start: reversal was not possible with the damage done in the 1950s and 1960s. Nothing to date has reversed the clarity decline. It’s all hospice work. If there is a recent slowing, I attribute it to Upper Truckee River Marsh restoration, now threatened by expanded development of the Tahoe Keys Marina at your hands, no remission. Given that you can’t and won’t restore Lake Tahoe, all you can do is make sure your actions don’t degrade the local quality of life and the local environments of the region. Long after Lake Tahoe is famous only as a tragedy and Emerald Bay is a mudpit, toxic with microplastics, the region will still have its magnificent forests, streams, wetlands and wildlife—if local governments don’t screw it up for everyone in service to ignorance and ill-fated approvals like you seem to be heading to with the approval of the TKM Project under the deficient ISMND, which is both unethical and immoral.

How widely this information gets circulated is dependent on your actions. I’ve got time on my side. I can always publish it later in the TRPA public record and republish as needed until ethics return, if they ever do, or until you step into your role as public servants under public trust doctrines versus politician or political appointee in service to the corporation. It’s a choice not to lie. There is always a choice.

I’ll see you in the public record,
Alan Miller, Professional Engineer
Attachments: Statement of Appeal
City Ethics Policy
1455
Appeal of Alan Miller, PE 5/1/2025 Page 1 of 20

BEFORE THE SOUTH LAKE TAHOE CITY COUNCIL
In re: CONSIDERATION OF A )

SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND )

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL )

QUALITY ACT CATEGORICAL )

EXEMPTION FOR TRPA )

MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING )
PROJECT APPLICATION – )
3900 & 3908 LAKE TAHOE )

BOULEVARD AFFORDABLE )

HOUSING PROJECT, )
APNS 029-170-001 & 029-170-002, )
FILE #24-173 )
_________________________________ )

NOTICE OF APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION
This appeal stems wholly as an outcome of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency’s abandonment of the public trust by decades of failing to honor the spirit and letter of the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact. TRPA is a rogue agency, out of control, mismanaging Lake Tahoe and the Tahoe region under illegal regulations. I am simply a messenger concerning the situation involving the City.

Notice of Appeal
This is a most formal Appeal from the April 17, 2025 Planning Commission decision on Item #2:

Consideration of a Special Use Permit and California Environmental Quality Act Categorical Exemption for a TRPA Multi-Family Dwelling Project Application - 3900 & 3908 Lake Tahoe Boulevard Affordable Housing Project, APNs 029-170-001 & 029-170-002, File #24-173.

Appeal Conforms to City Code
This “Notice of Appeal” contains the contents pursuant to SLTCC § 2.35.030, and hence is in an acceptable format. The action is appealable per SLTCC § 2.35.070 (Table 2.35.070—“Use Permit and Variances”), and per the terms of the “DESIGN REVIEW AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT, File #24-173.” The Planning Commission decision occurred on April 17, 2025; pursuant to SLTCC § 2.35.020.A, the Appeal having been submitted within 15 days—the legal deadline being Friday, May 2, 2025—is accordingly timely. Notwithstanding, California Government Code §§ 37100 & 65904 require the South Lake Tahoe City Council to hear this appeal.
1456
Appeal of Alan Miller, PE 5/1/2025 Page 2 of 20
Jurisdiction for Appeal
Pursuant to TRPA Rules of Procedure, the TRPA Governing Board does not have jurisdiction to hear a direct appeal of any City Planning Commission decision—nor were all of the participants in the Planning Commission hearing given requisite notice of appeal rights as would have been required by the actual TRPA hearing's officer (Rules of Procedure § 14.6).

Notwithstanding, the TRPA Governing Board is not an appeal board created and answerable to the City Council as required by California Government Code §§ 65900 & 65903. Unlike the City Council, the unelected TRPA Governing Board is not accountable to City residents (Elections Code § 201). City residents may only vote for two of the Board Members—a City Council person and an El Dorado County Supervisor—and most of the Board is entirely unelected.

No TRPA Governing Board member is elected to their position. Rather, some elected members are appointed to serve TRPA from the jurisdictions they were elected in. This situation raises grave constitutional doubts of direct ability to appeal City planning decisions to the TRPA; this issue has historically been avoided by having two separate siloed processes work in parallel.

TRPA is not an authority over the City of South Lake Tahoe’s City Code and body of ordinances not codified by TRPA, and likewise the City is not an authority over the TRPA Code of Ordinances. This latter lack of authority and expertise is demonstrated by a misconception held by some City officials that the TRPA Governing Board has jurisdiction to hear appeals not expressly conferred as a matter of right in the TRPA Rules of Procedure. There simply is no legal possibility here for that; the Constitution’s due process and equal protection clauses prohibit such.

The right to appeal to the City Council cannot be nullified by a Memorandum of Understanding (“MOU”) or other resolution. MOUs at best are approved by the City Council as resolutions, not as ordinances. There is scant documentation for approval of the MOU with TRPA, basically a staff recommendation at a public hearing. Where was the City’s legal counsel? The City Code contains the acronym “M.O.U.” only one time, without even defining what that abbreviation means, let alone that it means taking on TRPA’s entire core permitting activity in the City for TRPA under the MOU provisions the City signed up for.

In any case, there is a vast difference between an ordinance and a resolution and/or MOU.

Ordinances are "legislative rules" which carry the force of law, and resolutions are generally "interpretive rules" which govern internal affairs or extol non-binding policies or goals. As such, resolutions do not have the same high degree of due process protections as required for ordinances because they are not supposed to externally affect public liberty and/or property rights. Resolutions do not have to be published in the legal notice section of the local newspaper or read multiple times at City Council meetings, or be passed only during regular meetings, or have a general 30-day delay in taking-effect as compared to ordinances (Government Code §§ 36931 - 36937). The degree of process that is constitutionally “due” is commensurate with the 1457
Appeal of Alan Miller, PE 5/1/2025 Page 3 of 20
severity of liberty or property interest at stake (e.g., Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334 (1976); People v. Ramirez, 25 Cal.3d 260, 268-69 (1979)). Due process is particularly compelling for land use decisions (see, Horn v. County of Ventura, 24 Cal.3d 605, 616 (1979); Scott v. City of Indian Wells, 6 Cal.3d 541, 549 (1972); Drum v. Fresno County Dept. of Public Works, 144 Cal.App.3d 777, 783 (1983)).

This is one reason resolutions are constitutionally prohibited from being used to promulgate procedural rights of the general public. Likewise, a city may not pass an ordinance which adoptsby-reference whatever dynamic contents are in certain city resolutions such as MOUs to circumvent constitutional due process and statutory requirements for making and modifying ordinances—basically an ordinance dressed-up and passed as resolution, or MOU in this case (Government Code § 37100).

The opportunity to write and come as an appellant before the City Council in the public forum to testify about the illegal conduct of its subordinate appointees and staff is therefore codified, with no legal basis for denial. Were city officers to violate the city ordinance promulgating appellant’s right to appeal to the City Council, they will have committed a misdemeanor (Government Code § 36900).

Grounds for Appeal
Pursuant to SLTCC § 2.35.030, the “Grounds for Appeal” include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) The agenda for the public meeting at which the approval took place was not properly noticed;
(2) The MOU facilitating the approval of this development is unlawful and was adopted without findings to satisfy environmental review requirements pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (Cal. Public Resources Code 21000, et seq); (3) The initial environmental checklist review of the project is deficient and glosses over significant effects on the environment;
(4) The project violates multiple City requirements and polices which were unaddressed and ignored by the City staff report of April 17, 2025 for the project; (5) The project approval violates state law and exceeds City authority under law; and (6) Emailed public comments on the project to the Planning Commission, timely provided, were administered as “junk” email, and were not provided to the Planning Commission, posted to the City’s website, or considered by the Planning Commission, with portions improperly excluded from the public record for the action.
1458
Appeal of Alan Miller, PE 5/1/2025 Page 4 of 20
Procedural Considerations
Per City Council Protocol § V(1)(b)(iv), Public Comment is three minutes per speaker. Per City Council Protocol § V(1)(c), the Mayor shall conduct the appeal in such a manner as to afford due process to the appellant, generally with 10 minutes to present testimony and five minutes to rebut testimony. Per City Council Protocol § V(1)(d), 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. However, City Council Protocol § IV(9) providing that “rules may be waived by two-thirds (2/3) vote of the Council members” forgoing to § IV does not and—as a higher matter of law—cannot apply to the latter § V protocol pertaining to appeals—which are a quasi-judicial hearing. See e.g., Woody's Group, Inc. v. City of Newport Beach, 233 Cal.App.4th 1012 (2015) (noting that a city council “cannot change the rules in the middle of the game”); cf. Petrovich Development Company, LLC v. City of Sacramento, 48 Cal.App.5th 963 (2020)(holding that hearing and deciding an appeal of a conditional use permit is one of the times that a city council acts in a quasi-adjudicatory capacity—similar to judges).

The City Council must also apply the Maxims of Jurisprudence (CA. Civ. Code §§ 3509 – 3548), and should be provided them to study in advance.

The City must quasi-judicially hear the appeal de novo, following SLTCC § 6.75.080, and decide the facts for itself based on the record. I believe the errors are plain. The City must recuse City Council members with divided loyalties, or they should recuse themselves. Mr. Bass currently serves as an appointed TRPA Governing Board member while concurrently serving as an elected City Council member; other City Council members may serve as an “alternate” for the TRPA appointee from the City in case of absence. California’s conflict of interest statutes are based on the belief that a public official cannot serve two masters simultaneously and that the duties of public office demand the absolute loyalty and undivided, uncompromised allegiance of the individual to the office held. The MOU as written, which the City is now so heavily invested in, appears to set that service and loyalty at odds here, tipping the deference scale heavily in the direction of TRPA and its fraudulent MOU, while the City Council members are elected only to serve the people. See People v. Honig, 48 Cal.App.4th 289 (1996); Thomson v. Call, 38 Cal.3d 633 (1985). See also Stockton Plumbing & Supply Co. v. Wheeler, 68 Cal.App. 592 (1924); President and Trustees of City of San Diego v. San Diego and Los Angeles R. Co., 44 Cal. 106 (1872). Notwithstanding, the appearances of a conflict of interest violate the common law “appearance of fairness doctrine,” and are enough to mandate recusal. Petrovich Development Company, LLC v. City of Sacramento, 48 Cal.App.5th 963 (2020) (holding “the law does not require the disappointed conditional use permit applicant to prove actual bias; rather, there must not be an unacceptable probability of actual bias on the part of a municipal decision maker”). 1459
Appeal of Alan Miller, PE 5/1/2025 Page 5 of 20

STATEMENT OF APPEAL
Table of Contents
Page
6 . . . The Project Approval
6 . . . TRPA’s Role
7 . . . MOU Background and Issues
7 . . . Analysis of the City-TRPA MOU
9 . . . This Appeal is a Petition to Redress Systemic Grievances under the MOU 11 . . . Law and Due Process Rights Matter
12 . . . City Must Cease Breaking the Law
13 . . . Illegal Delegations of Illegal Delegations of Governing Board Authority 14 . . . Very Deficient City Public Records Administration 15 . . . Public Notice Requirements Not Met
17 . . . Project Not in Compliance with Development Standards; Deficient Findings 19 . . . Conclusion: Uphold the Appeal
Exhibits:

1. July 2015 City-TRPA Memorandum of Understanding

2. March 2015 Notice of Liability to TRPA/Petition to Redress Grievances

3. April 17, 2025 Staff Report to Planning Commission

4. June 17, 2014 City Staff Report on MOU

5. July 15, 2015 City Staff Report for MOU adoption

6. July 15, 2015 City Council Meeting Minutes

7. April 2025 email from City Clerk re Public Records Administration

8. April 17, 2025 Carthan email to City, Public Interest Comments

9. April 21, 2025 Carthan email to TRPA, Public Interest Comments

10. April 22, 2025 Tahoe Clean Air comment letter to TRPA re Wildfire Evacuation Planning
1460
Appeal of Alan Miller, PE 5/1/2025 Page 6 of 20
I am Alan Miller, civil and environmental engineer, a long-time resident of the City of South Lake Tahoe, appealing the April 17, 2025 decision of the Planning Commission to approve the above-cited Project and the City’s issuance of a construction permit for the Project cited as a legal instrument of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, a “TRPA Permit” on TRPA letterhead and in the format specified by TRPA. This approval action was taken under the purported authority granted by the TRPA and possessed by City pursuant to a 2015 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) jointly executed by Joanne Marchetta for TRPA and City Manager Nancy Kerry for the City. (Exhibit 1)
The Project Approval
The approval followed a presentation by the applicant and no discussion of lengthy written comments and attachments I sent to City by email. One person other than the applicant, a former City Council member, testified in support of the project. Concerns were voiced by Commissioner Williams about public safety, like people/bikes being run over with car ingress and egress from onsite project parking across a busy sidewalk and street and the safety matters were, by their approval action, “not significant” though left unresolved. I didn’t appear to testify, figuring my written comments would suffice, and reviewed video of the meeting. Only later did I discover my written comments had been treated as junk in the City’s email system and not provided to the Planning Commission. The gist of my comments was that the City-TRPA MOU is legally invalid, the MOU does NOT uphold the federal Tahoe Regional Planning Act, the City has no legal authority to act in TRPA’s stead, and therefore City approval under the MOU of findings required of TRPA under the TRPA’s Code of Ordinances, and approval and implementation of the cited “TRPA Permit,” should be denied, essentially without prejudice. To do otherwise and approve the Project would be acting without authority under color of law, a very serious matter involving fraud and misfeasance, in view of applicable law. Again, approval was unanimous.

TRPA’s Role
The Applicant is compelled to apply to TRPA for a TRPA Permit for activity that is not exempt from TRPA environmental review and permitting requirements pursuant to Compact requirements. That is a fact despite all contrary website guidance, regulations, and/or MOU interpretations in the public sphere. These requirements are detailed in the Petition I filed with TRPA dated March 25, 2025, and which is hereby incorporated in its entirety as Exhibit 2. This is the primary public record I provided in this matter which was discarded by public records mismanagement I will detail later.

The TRPA Governing Board is charged to approve environmental reviews and permits for projects that are not designated exempt in its regulations (Compact Art. VI(b)). Among other things, I suggested the Planning Commission should not issue a fraudulent approval and “TRPA Permit” and to defer and refer the matter to TRPA. As noted in the Planning Commission’s staff report for the project (Exhibit 3), the Project is exempt from CEQA. CEQA is the only 1461
Appeal of Alan Miller, PE 5/1/2025 Page 7 of 20
environmental law the City has authority to implement as required for a City Building Permit or other development right under authorities in the City Code of Ordinances, not the TRPA Code of Ordinances.

MOU Background and Issues
Despite the above, I expect the City will cite the MOU and its provisions that such an appeal is proper before the TRPA, not the City Council, blindly following TRPA guidance. If you have read my comments above and Petition you will already know that I disagree vehemently on firm legal grounds. As I wrote in my Petition and comments to the Planning Commission, I honor the TRPA Compact adopted by Congress but not the faulty and illegal regulations adopted by TRPA. As discussed in my Petition, many parts of those regulations are without effect, NULL and VOID in my expert opinion, and not binding on anyone; TRPA appeals are illegal.

I don’t dispute that the TRPA can enter into MOUs with other agencies: What I dispute here is that it can essentially delegate its Governing Board’s regulatory planning, environmental review and permitting role to the City or any other agency, and turn the City into a low-paid servant of the TRPA at taxpayer expense. I do not honor those MOU provisions. Besides that, the MOU and TRPA’s regulatory requirements are not enacted in City Code (other than by reference, mainly design standards) so, while the City can apply relevant design standards of TRPA, the City has no legal authority for approving and implementing “TRPA permits” pursuant to law.

It’s all a very clever ruse as far as the unsuspecting public like me are concerned, and whether the fraud has gone unnoticed or unchallenged until now is irrelevant to applicable law.

Analysis of the City-TRPA MOU
The MOU (Exhibit 1) identifies the parties and cites Article VI(m) of the TRPA Planning Compact (Public Law 96-551) and § 2.5 and § 13.7 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances as its basis in law and regulation, respectively. The cited Article presently states: “(m) The agency [TRPA] is hereby empowered to initiate, negotiate and participate in contracts and agreements among the local governmental authorities of the region, or any other intergovernmental contracts or agreements authorized by State or Federal law.”
The key part above is “agreements authorized by State or Federal law.” This MOU is authorized on the TRPA side, the Compact being federal law. But note that it doesn’t say TRPA can delegate actions that require voting by the Governing Board. This MOU is not authorized in State law, is not binding on the City for that reason, which is why I wrote the City is acting without authority under the MOU in my junked comments. Article 8 of the California Constitution provides that “(a) The Legislature may provide that counties perform municipal functions at the request of cities within them.” There is no counterpart in California law allowing that municipalities can perform federal municipal functions (as TRPA is charged to implement) at the request of the federal jurisdictions containing the municipality. Such actions are without legal basis, and that is exactly what the MOU purports to do. 1462
Appeal of Alan Miller, PE 5/1/2025 Page 8 of 20
As much as TRPA would like to think it can delegate its deficient environmental review programs to the City, it can’t do that for the reasons discussed at length in my Petition, the primary subject of which is laying bare the many TRPA violations of the Compact. The chief trespass is that TRPA can’t delegate matters to its staff, or any other person or agency, where a voting procedure is required by the Governing Board for legal approval. Putting land use planning and permit approvals in the hands of City officers is one more step removed from the required voting procedures, one more step removed from public accountability with respect to officers of the TPRA, none of whom are elected to their positions; they are appointed to serve TRPA from the various jurisdictions and include persons elected to positions in their jurisdictions such as Mr. Bass, as well as others elected to nothing. The facts are that the Governing Board has thwarted the Congressional project-approval voting requirements and there is no plausible reading of Compact Article VI(m) that extends the agency powers to violate Compact Article I(c): “The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency shall interpret and administer its plans, ordinances, rules and regulations in accordance with the provision of this compact.” TRPA has violated the restriction to the detriment of the people and the environment, and has implicated the City in the violations through the fraudulent MOU.

The Code of Ordinances § 2.5 states: “Activities delegated to a Local Government pursuant to a memorandum of understanding (MOU) shall be reviewed and approved by a local government in accordance with the TRPA Regional Plan and this Code shall therefore be exempt from separate TRPA review and approval.” This makes no sense as written, implying “this Code shall therefore be exempt from separate TRPA review and approval.” I understand the intent, that TRPA will not be involved in the project review and approval processes, so TRPA asserts in its Code that the City “shall” do the project “review and approval” work only its Governing Board is authorized to approve under the Compact. This is a partially fee-funded optional federal program requiring local governments to pay the costs of implementing TRPA’s regulatory land use and permitting program if they agree.

But the City didn’t bother to inform the people in adopting the MOU, which is not in City Code.

In this case review and approval costs are partially—not fully—offset by permit/development application fees, so the taxpayers must be absorbing the excess costs. It’s not hard to understand why TRPA enacted illegal regulations to clone itself and push its permitting costs and associated issues (compliance monitoring, enforcement, etc.) onto the City through the MOU. The goal may be to reduce work required under the Compact TRPA deems duplicative of local government, but each has its own requirements to implement, or they must be harmonized in accordance with State and Federal law, unlike the current MOU.

Code of Ordinances § 13.7 specifies TRPA procedures for adopting MOUs, § 13.7.1. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) Required
1463
Appeal of Alan Miller, PE 5/1/2025 Page 9 of 20
After TRPA finds that an Area Plan is in conformance with the Regional Plan, TRPA and the lead agency shall enter into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that clearly specifies the extent to which the activities within the Area Plan are delegated or exempt from TRPA review and approval, and describes all procedures and responsibilities to ensure effective implementation of the Area Plan. . .

Again, we have TRPA use of “shall” in its regulations to direct the City to assume TRPA’s forgotten mandates to the extent “the activities within the Area Plan are delegated or exempt from TRPA review and approval,” with the implied or explicit TRPA mandate that local government “shall” have procedures in place to do the work mandated of TRPA and its governing Board alone, pursuant to the Compact, if they want the development incentives and allowances for Area Plans under faulty TRPA regulations.

There are no provisions for Area Plans in the Compact. Examining the Area Plan provisions TRPA put into its regulations is relevant to this Project approval only to the extent that City staff was tasked under the MOU to carry out project approvals in portions of the City with an approved Area Plan. Code § 13.4.1. indicates Area Plans are optional, with the default being that the jurisdiction must follow the Code of Ordinances, generally, in the absence of a TRPAapproved Area Plan. The greater portions of Code Chapter 13 describe requirements that are to be contained in approved Area Plans and related matters. Suffice to write here the City satisfied TRPA’s optional requirements and developed an Area Plan encompassing the Project area which led to the MOU at the heart of this appeal.

Part 1 of the MOU indicates either party can terminate the MOU with 60 days notice, and that the MOU is in effect until terminated. The MOU’s substantive procedural portions are in attachments: B. relating to TRPA delegations in parts of the City with approved TRPA Area Plans, and C. TRPA delegations City-wide. My Petition to TRPA did not discuss provisions for Area Plans in the TRPA Code of Ordinances or evaluate them with regard to Compact requirements, mainly to limit the length, and similarly had little analyses of the MOUs TRPA has established. However, the Petition analyses are related directly to the MOU in that the deficient environmental review procedures are therein identified, and fraudulent exemptions from same, precisely the regulations and procedures that TRPA has mandated the City to follow and thereby usurp the Compact and constitutionally-protected citizen rights.

On that basis, the grievances discussed with the City-TRPA MOU can only be resolved if and when TRPA first corrects its faulty regulations in violation of the Compact. The City is encouraged to terminate or revise the MOU in the meantime to eliminate Project environmental document preparation and permit approvals under TRPA’s Code of Ordinances pursuant to the MOU. The City must not exceed its legal authority and must abide within state law requirements.

Therefore, I respectfully request that the City approval and “TRPA Permit” must be revoked.

The MOU was Adopted by City with No CEQA Finding
1464
Appeal of Alan Miller, PE 5/1/2025 Page 10 of 20
So the question arises: How did the MOU come to be back in 2015? As mentioned, after the TRPA amended its regulations to include Area Plans, the City got busy and had a number of them approved by TRPA, and was then saddled with the MOU requirements. The agencies worked to consolidate a handful of prior joint MOUs into the current MOU. On December 17, 2014 the TRPA staff promoted a Finding of No Significant Effect (FONZE) under its illegal environmental review rules and the Governing Board voted to approve the MOU, which the City had not signed. Note that TRPA at least recognized the potential for significant effects on the environment in that the MOU authorizes substantial delegated permitting activity by others that could significantly affect the environment, and thus MOU adoption is not designated as exempt from TRPA review and approval regulations.

The City Council received staff reports at the June 17 and July 15, 2014, City Council meetings (Exhibits 4 and 5) in which the TRPA-City MOU was discussed. There was notable concern with costs and staffing to absorb additional TRPA workload (e.g., issuing TRPA permits pursuant to the complex TRPA Code, reporting to TRPA on MOU implementation, and overseeing the TRPA permits). The Council, still noting concerns with absorbing TRPA workload, nonetheless approved the MOU at their July 15 meeting after a short hearing (see attached July 15, 2014 Minutes, Exhibit 6).

Even though TRPA conducted an environmental review for the MOU, which City staff was surely aware of, the City did not conduct an environmental review as required under CEQA. The MOU is a “project” as defined by CEQA and was not recognized as such by the City. Such review was legally required, minimally with a finding of Categorical Exemption, but potentially some other form of certification such as a Negative Declaration and public disclosure. Public funds were being committed under the MOU. Major City regulatory programs were being initiated under the MOU. Where was consideration of law? Where was the City attorney? How many other CEQA “projects” are illegally processed and get no CEQA certification in the City? This is more evidence that the MOU is legally deficient and additional grounds to uphold the appeal.

This Appeal is a Petition to Redress Systemic Grievances under the MOU This is not an appeal of the ordinary sort, to protest the merits of the project and discretionary approvals based on substantial evidence, etc. I will include some such analysis here, but I generally have not found that to be productive or convincing to decision-makers in light of the way public agencies at Tahoe operate in fact. They have their own agendas and break or work the laws to achieve their ends, whereas I am concerned with fidelity to law and due process. This project has planning deficiencies, even under the deficient regulations.

I am not against affordable housing in the City and it is the applicant’s misfortune to be caught in a legal dispute it is only a party to by following agency dictates. However, in light of my recent Petition filed with TRPA, I do not believe the December 2023 policy amendments to the Tahoe 1465
Appeal of Alan Miller, PE 5/1/2025 Page 11 of 20
Regional Plan that promote increasing urbanization in “town centers,” adopted by TRPA in the absence of a required environmental impact statement and sprung on the public during the Christmas holiday season with seven days to comment and testify is the answer to Tahoe’s housing woes. Others are welcome to disagree.

Here is my view of the MOU. The TRPA has its 2012 Regional Plan, as amended literally hundreds of times in the last decade, which overlies the City’s General Plan. The TRPA came to the City after passing its Area Plan amendments, not with an environmental impact report, but under their egregious planning regulations that usurp the Compact. The City naturally wants to harmonize its design standards and requirements with TRPA’s, as referenced in the Code, to facilitate project reviews and City permitting requirements. Here follows an imaginary conversation between Joanne Marchetta (JM) and John Marshall (JM), the two attorneys running the TRPA at the time, discussing the approach to the City regarding the MOU.

JM: “Now that the Area Plan amendments are passed we’ve got to lean on these local governments to develop Area Plans and get those delegation MOUs in place. If this goes as we hope there is going to be a lot new development in our region’s urbanized centers, multifamily, commercial, mixed-uses plus tourism and transportation. We can’t keep up with the permitting now, we don’t have the staff!” JM: “Yeah, we’ve already got the locals pulling a lot of our permitting weight under existing MOUs, so we’re going to have to sell this thing, the extra work involved. We’re going to have to tell them project approvals in their jurisdiction will slow to a crawl under our permitting requirements and staff limitations without their help. It’s pretty complex, after all. We’ll say they can keep the permit wheels turning if we can enlist their aid. They want that.” JM: “All we have to do is convince them to go for the development incentives that could come after they do the Area Planning and MOU adoption work. The increased density, coverage and height allowances, etc., are our selling points. They are planners, so that convincing will be easy.” JM: “Then we can softpedal the MOUs, tell them, hey, since they wanted the incentives they have to do the permitting work. We just have to overlook it. They have six months. That’s our regulations.