We can give them checklists and guidance to make our findings. They can even issue and enforce our TRPA permits! We’ll tell them what to do, and how, but they’ll feel in control.
We should be able to shed most of our work that way.” JM: “We could give them a little funding incentive, too, part of the permit fees that would go to us. We’ll tell them we’ll handle the appeals if controversies arise. That’s no problem.” JM: “That will free us up to do more Code amendments to grow our regulations while they do most of our permitting and oversight work, work we could never manage.” JM: “Sounds good, let’s do it.” Law and Due Process Rights Matter
I really don’t come in principle as an adversary to the City or the project. I could be wrong, but I doubt any public servant involved here came to their position or this matter to intentionally break the law and deprive citizens of civil rights, just as TRPA does. I see the City staff and appointees 1466
Appeal of Alan Miller, PE 5/1/2025 Page 12 of 20
as well-intentioned, even if misinformed. Why persist then with regulatory folly in the light of information in my Petition, the many self-evident truths pointed out, not opinions. Two wrongs never make a right. I come to inform and advise, not damn. I’m not offering legal advice in simply pointing out the laws. I am nonetheless well aware of past City corruption and misfeasance (e.g., actions and inactions re monopine wireless macrotowers and microplastics). I really have to wonder what kind of legal advice you are getting from the City attorney(s) in such matters as the MOU. Or is TRPA the self-interested legal advisor here? Should I be faulted for pointing out the legal inadequacies of the agencies which now accrue to the detriment of the applicant and the community and Tahoe region? No; the applicant and public is being shafted with only the agencies to blame because I’ve been petitioning TRPA for years, in court and in the public record, to clean up its act and end the illegal charades. All else is TRPA propaganda and misdirection. TRPA is a two-faced criminal racketeer-agency; it fits the general legal characteristics. Mainly, I want TRPA to comply with the Compact. Then maybe they would stop poisoning Lake Tahoe with toxic microplastics in support of recreational boating for the few, and address wildfire and evacuation issues in its planning regulations, both of which it refuses to do.
I suggest the Applicant must apply to TRPA for a development permit because the MOU with the City is legal garbage. Insist that TRPA process your project application under statute law and outside the MOU to move your project forward. By law this project requires a TRPA environmental impact statement of some sort. TRPA will process your application if they want the project more than they want the fraudulent and therefore non-binding MOU with the City to impede the project. The City hearing is invalidated. TRPA needs to conduct its own hearing.
If the appeal is denied, it is not a difficult matter for me to file a lawsuit with the City, in which case, win, lose or draw, the project is likely over. The facts are on my side, as is time. Again, I blame TRPA for running a calculated risk that its illegalities, which I’ve testified against many, many times, won’t come back to bite their permit applicants and thwart their plans for the region, those they’ve shoved down our throats in TRPA’s ongoing Operation Ignore Everyone who detracts from their actions and inactions. Except for MOU “partners,” that is, who seldom push back. The City must push back on this MOU.
City Must Cease Breaking the Law
The far more serious basis for this appeal than the TRPA illegalities is that the City staff and appointees under your charge have acted in absolute violation of State law and the authority provided in the City Code of Ordinances. It is up to the City Council to put things right. I know most people do not have my regulatory background and these issues are perhaps esoteric matters with overwhelming “details” of little interest to lay decision-makers to take the time to understand. I know the general public will understand far less and has been propagandized by TRPA. I assure you the issues are understandable based on my sorting out of the regulations, and 1467
Appeal of Alan Miller, PE 5/1/2025 Page 13 of 20
you are elected and charged to grapple with such issues. I believe the lawyers have exploited this limitation in understanding, particularly prior TRPA lawyers, to the detriment of the City, the environment and the public the servants are charged to serve. It’s either that or intentional, negligent law-breaking that is occurring. I’ve seen both. While the circumstances here are so legally bizarre as to boggle the mind, they are like water to the fish, accepted as a part of the Tahoe planning/regulatory environment without any actual awareness of the waters you are in, the Tahoe swamp, growing murkier under TRPA’s watch.
On the basis of the foregoing, my appeal fees are paid by check in protest. I shouldn’t have to pay to interrupt illegal activities by my City government, which I do as a service to the public which you are charged to serve. Perpetuating such illegal activity is an abuse of the power of the state under color of law. If the City wants to follow the law and rescind the Project approval without an appeal hearing and refund my appeal fee that would be fine, too. I suggest the Council not “double-down” on the errors of the Planning Commission after the cost and trouble of an appeal and thereby invite repeats of this appeal for other projects, or litigation that could be costly when you have no case, as here.
What I don’t consent to is the City servants going out on a legal limb of any kind for the TRPA to the potential detriment of the citizen taxpayers! TRPA is the BIGGEST fraud. There are enough problems in this City without taking on needlessly defending TRPA fraud and committing your own, at cost and potential legal risk to the City taxpayers. Even if you think that risk is low, the City is nonetheless charged to follow the law, not gamble on legal risks for a “partner” agency under illegal MOU provisions. That choice is for poor if not tyrannical government and, again, I do not consent. TRPA has to come up with other ways to meet its obligations, legal ways that do not usurp Governing Board authority and deprive the public of guaranteed constitutional rights, and the City can’t do that for it.
Illegal Delegations of Illegal Delegations of Governing Board Authority My career experience with the Lahontan Water Quality Board may be informative because the same Constitutions and similar statute laws apply to the City. The CA Water Code sets very specific limits on what can’t be delegated to its Executive staff; issuing or modifying “waste discharge requirements” is one example among others. Therefore as staff I was made keenly aware that I was not at liberty to make changes to duly-adopted requirements of the governing body, make up my own requirements, or otherwise usurp Board authority. TRPA is under the same limitation in the Compact, though perhaps less explicit, and its governing body and staff (as advised by staff attorneys) illegally abused that. TRPA doesn’t honor the Compact and hasn’t for decades. It was under these circumstances that I lodged my Petition to TRPA.
Think of it this way: The City Council can’t delegate its voting authority for project approvals to the City Manager in every case except when an Environmental Impact Report is required under CEQA. What we have with the TRPA regulations is an illegal delegation of Compact authority 1468
Appeal of Alan Miller, PE 5/1/2025 Page 14 of 20
by the governing body to TRPA staff and, with the MOU, a further illegal sub-delegation by unbridled TRPA staff of Compact authority to the City. There are no such delegable authorities.
The City clearly has no authority under the federal laws of TRPA. In my experience I also found three general types of entities: those willing to comply with the spirit and letter of the law; those who would minimally comply with the letter of the law; and those who would skirt the requirements, sometimes outrageously as here, generally with a fraudulent and inadequate defense when caught in the act. TRPA behaves as the latter.
This fraudulent MOU program has to end or the current City leaders will self-identify as scofflaws like the TRPA has. I certainly hope not, but I see here the City is a TRPA “wannabe” with the MOU despite no basis or authority in law, under bogus TRPA regulations. City Council member Bass is certainly not learning about these matters for the first time; I’ve been writing and testifying to TRPA about these issues for years while they continue their scams. Mr. Bass has been supportive at times; maybe he can’t change the 15-member TRPA Board but the City duties to the public are another matter squarely in his domain.
Very Deficient City Public Records Administration
Pursuant to the California Public Records Act the public has a right to expect that public records represent “any handwriting, typewriting, printing, photostating, photographing, photocopying, transmitting by electronic mail or facsimile, and every other means of recording upon any tangible thing any form of communication or representation, including letters, words, pictures, sounds, or symbols, or combinations thereof, and any record thereby created, regardless of the manner in which the record has been stored.” (Government Code § 7920.545.) The public also has a right to expect public records, including emailed comments and attachments, will be treated as such. However, the City treats emailed public records with nearly absolute disregard, discarding them from the public records.
The City Clerk has informed me that public comments provided to the City’s email address [email protected] as instructed with each agenda announcement, as email with attachments, are forwarded to the Planning Commission (i.e., in this case) with the attachments, which can be read or downloaded by the individuals. For the public record, the Clerk then files a printed copy of any email received, excluding any attachments, for public review at a meeting.
Any actual public records provided as attachments to email are then simply discarded from the official public records maintained and provided in response to requests for public records. All of this is in dismal disregard for requirements under the California Public Records Act. I suspect printing attachments for the record is simply just too much bother, so they are illegally occluded from public view and illegally discarded by the Clerk. See Exhibit 7 concerning public comments and City public records that are dishonored and discarded in violation of law.
Bad as that record keeping is, the City took public records mismanagement one large step further out of compliance with my public comments in this matter: my emailed comments, submitted 1469
Appeal of Alan Miller, PE 5/1/2025 Page 15 of 20
timely and with attachments, was routed to a “junk” email folder, where it remained until I made an inquiry. The City Clerk wrote she did not know why, and vaguely suggested some kind of problem with the electronic information system. Perhaps, but my experience with email is that when unwanted email is received from a known email address it can be set up to be routed to a junk folder or “spam” folder, as many are well aware. It so happens that I have submitted comments previously detracting from City actions or encouraging other actions where lacking, under the same email address. The implication is that my emails were deliberately routed to a junk folder, where they are typically deleted after 30 days or some period set by the user. In this event, I was disenfranchised from participation in the decision. In the future I may feel compelled to accompany each comment letter to the city with a public records request to ascertain whether or not my comments and others related to the public’s business are being illegally junked.
Let the record in this appeal show the City’s computer set-up for emailed public comments sent my emailed comments to a JUNK folder, so the Clerk did not provide them to the Planning Commission prior to the decision, and did not include them in the public record of the meeting, except for limited comments in the body of the email mainly describing the attachments. These are illegal actions, deleting public records, excluding them from consideration by the decisionmakers, not posting complete comments received to the City’s website with dissemination to the decision-makers, and not saving them in some form for retrieval upon request. The original comments and Petition are provided herein, with attachments, for this appeal record. Since this records mismanagement appears to be long-standing standard procedure at the City, at least as far as discarding attachments to emails, the City stands inexcusably in abject violation of the California Public Records Act requirements. The Planning Commission’s action must therefore be set aside.
Public Notice Requirements Not Met
This item before the Planning Commission was announced by email from the City’s list server on April 10, 2025, seven days before the planned meeting on April 17, 2025, when the agenda was posted online. Pursuant to City Code § 6.55.640 “Procedure to Grant Use Permits” subsection B.1. is the relevant part, and states:
B. Notice Required. The zoning administrator shall give notice of application and hearing, not less than 10 days prior to the date of the hearing, in each of the following manners:
1. By publishing a copy of such notice one time in the official city newspaper.
2. By mailing a copy of such notice on a postcard to all property owners whose property is adjacent to any one or more of the parcels of property for which the use permit or variance is sought, using the ownerships’ names and addresses from the last equalized assessment roll of the county. For the purposes of determining adjacent parcels of 1470
Appeal of Alan Miller, PE 5/1/2025 Page 16 of 20
property, public streets and rights-of-way shall be ignored and parcels shall be deemed adjacent if they have any point of their boundaries in common.
This agenda item was not properly noticed since the notice was given less than 10 days in advance, and only online. The notice concerning the project was NOT noticed in the official City newspaper of record. The City staff claimed provision 2., above, was met by contacting “adjacent property” owners. The City is also charged to faithfully implement the TRPA Compact through its MOU and by incorporation of certain TRPA regulations in its Code. In the instant case the Planning Commission was ostensibly acting as “TRPA Hearing Officer” and did not do what TRPA regulations require with regard to public notice for the hearing. The TRPA Rules of Procedure require the following:
12.6. NOTICE TO AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS
If notice is required, the proponent of the project or matter shall submit a list to TRPA of the names and addresses of the persons who own property, or a portion thereof, within 300 feet of the project area boundaries. The list shall be compiled from the current county assessor’s rolls and shall be verified by the applicant. The proponent also shall provide addressed envelopes, postage prepaid to the persons listed. Notice shall be given to such persons by TRPA. Notice shall be given reasonably early in the project review process.
The benefit of giving notice early in the project review process should be balanced with the potential for re-notice of the project if significant modifications occur during the review process. Notice to affected property owners may be waived if the applicant provides TRPA with a written waiver of notice from each affected property owner.
The TRPA regulations require notice to owners with properties within 300 feet of, not adjacent to, the development boundaries for “Hearings Officer” hearings, illegal though such hearings are.
Since that was not done by the City, public notice requirements for this project were not met, thereby depriving the public of constitutionally protected rights to due process. See also SLTCC § 6.55.230.B.2. If the MOU has any legal validity the City must honor with regard to land use planning and permit administration, the City failed to meet TRPA’s greater noticing requirements, while simultaneously and improperly providing only seven days public notice of the hearing, not ten. Pursuant to SLTCC 6.55.640 the City should likewise observe the 10- day newspaper noticing requirement for this appeal hearing and, pursuant to the MOU, extend the notice to affected property owners within 300 feet of the project boundaries, as would be required if TRPA were conducting the hearing. I will note TRPA publishes its public notices seven days in advance of its meetings pursuant to public meeting laws applicable to TRPA. However, the City failed to meet its own Code concerning 10-day noticing for the Planning Commission hearing, beyond dispute based on the public records provided me. Public notice for this project approval fails all tests. The Planning Commission’s approval must be set aside by upholding this appeal.
1471
Appeal of Alan Miller, PE 5/1/2025 Page 17 of 20
Project Not in Compliance with Development Standards; Deficient Findings The project was approved under a FONZE pursuant to TRPA regulations. It is relatively easy for me to go through the Staff Report for the project approval (see Exhibit 3) and Checklist responses and call into question a number of its conclusions and findings. I will point out a few things and I am going to share a comment letter concerning the project from another member of the public, previously unknown to me. The comments followed the approval from an individual who was also disenfranchised by the late and deficient public hearing notice provided by the City, and apparent confusion that TRPA would not be reviewing the project under the MOU. I found her short emailed comment letter to the City (Exhibit 8) among the public records I requested; at least it didn’t get junked.
I subsequently found a more detailed comment letter on the project, with several attachments, sent by email to TRPA for the April 26, 2025 Governing Board meeting under agenda item XIII.
General Public Interest Comments and posted on TRPA’s website (I herein incorporate her comments in this appeal as Exhibit 9. It’s a caring and thoughtful comment letter from Ms.
Carthan raising a number of issues with potentially significant effects not addressed in the City staff report and inconsistencies with City and TRPA policies. The comment letter speaks for itself and I provide it as an example of how valuable public input has been and is thwarted by TRPA’s deficient project reviews, its failures to conduct environmental impact studies, its failure to give adequate notice to the public and its public steam-rolling generally in service to its permit clients and its own narrow self-interests. Those deficiencies are further promulgated with the MOUs and TRPA’s Kangaroo-Court of Appeals which is why the City should abandon the current MOU and send it to the “junk” folder.
I will mention Ms. Carthan notes potential impacts to “scenic thresholds” with construction of the four-story high-rise, and that several TRPA threshold indicator viewpoints are on or near the project site. The project is within a “non-attainment” area with regard to TRPA scenic thresholds; the Initial Environmental Checklist states that impacts are mitigated because the project meets standards of the Scenic Quality Improvement Program. Just my opinion, but I don’t think this behemoth structure is going to improve the quality of anyone’s “scenic view” of anything, they will see only the structure. The staff report indicates a number of TRPA thresholds were evaluated. Scenic evaluation was not included. I don’t know why. My guess is it somehow doesn’t matter in Area Plans, gets an exemption.
I noted that, in typical fashion, the applicant submitted a “geotechnical report” for the deep foundation design indicating “no impacts to ground water.” Under the MOU the City refers these matters to TRPA, where TRPA will later approve the deficient report as a proper groundwater investigation, though it is not, in a back room at the office where no one will ever know unless they track the approval down through TRPA’s project database. TRPA doesn’t have a ground water protection program, doesn’t have expertise; it has an “exception” program for ignoring significant ground water impacts and doesn’t even follow that. Trust me, I sued TRPA in federal 1472
Appeal of Alan Miller, PE 5/1/2025 Page 18 of 20
court over their failings in that regard and the facts stand. Read the Court filings attached to my Petition to TRPA.
Traffic and evacuation in the event of wildfire are not addressed in the staff report though the project sits in the heart of one of the busiest intersections in the City, where Highway 50 and Pioneer Trail meet. There is no discussion of traffic impacts in the staff report or Findings. The Initial Environmental Checklist indicates “NO” increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians, with no discussion, despite Commissioner Williams’ voiced but unmitigated concerns with people-car and bike-car interactions. Ms. Carthan also raises these same traffic safety issues in her comments to TRPA, and other health and safety issues. The only discussion of traffic is on page 11 and mainly discusses the exemption to Vehicle Miles Traveled emissions standards and says the project meets parking standards; however, the staff presentation to the Planning Commission indicated parking standards were not met, and were allowed some exception or another not discussed in the written materials, or conflicting.
To highlight regional concerns with wildfire and evacuation planning, among other things, I am attaching a letter from Tahoe Clean Air (non-profit organization) to TRPA for a planning retreat held April 27, 2025 which adequately represents some my concerns. Mr. Flaherty has been commenting to TRPA on these fire and evacuation issues for years with entirely inadequate response, or none, from the TRPA. Meanwhile, TRPA and others are intent on potentially making evacuation more difficult, and thereby endangering lives, while not addressing the planning needs identified to protect public safety. The Tahoe region has been set up for a Lahaina or Paradise wildfire disaster, with congestion in town centers likely to make matters worse. The main point: little or no policy/planning in matters of public safety in this regard from the region’s principal planning agency. It’s not a priority. This project, located at one of the most significant traffic bottlenecks in the City is a case in point, with absolutely no analysis or consideration of public safety in the event of wildfire from the City (or TRPA) for this project – or any other under their FONZEs. Note that Checklists prompt discussion of these critical public safety matters which are routinely ignored, blindly dismissing potentially significant impacts..
See Exhibit 10.
These are but a few of the glaring planning deficiencies I could point out, typical of what I see on most TRPA projects with their Checklist approach to planning, duplicated here. I know City also uses Checklists to implement CEQA. The problem isn’t the Checklist, which is simply a starting point. The issue is more with the level of analyses of the items in the Checklists so frequently just glossed over, with opportunities for public input severely limited by time and generally given no consideration anyway, as with Mr. Flaherty or myself. Both TRPA and City need to give more weight public input and facilitate public participation. Both agencies need to do the public the minimal service of posting on your websites current lists of applications received and project descriptions, links to project info in your database, and anticipated hearing schedules to encourage and facilitate public input given your short timelines for comments. Let the public know what’s coming. (If it doesn’t happen soon I’ll likely start making timely routine regular 1473
Appeal of Alan Miller, PE 5/1/2025 Page 19 of 20
public record requests for same from each agency and submit the results myself as public interest comments for posting on TRPA’s meeting website, with a moniker of shame for not minimally serving the public in this way.)
Conclusion: Uphold the Appeal
The City Council must uphold this appeal and comply with applicable laws and legal limitations on its authorities in these non-discretionary matters. City must cease trying to be TRPA for these project and permit approvals. Fulfill your duties under public meeting law, records administration, CEQA compliance and City permits implementing City Code. My Petition explains that under the Compact TRPA was given a higher charge to protect Lake Tahoe than provided by CEQA. CEQA provides statewide requirements for environmental planning reviews in California, and is what it is, but it’s not the Compact. TRPA acted, in essence, to say CEQA is the standard we will apply at Lake Tahoe, forgetting their higher charge, usurping the public’s civil rights and the Compact in the process by implementing illegal regulations for environmental review and project permitting. (They weren’t as smart or didn’t have as many lawyers as the Legislature that put together CEQA.) Then TRPA illegally delegated its mandated duties to the local governments.
The elected officials in my fair City must cease and desist from aiding and abetting TRPA in its fraudulent and illegal activities under the MOU. Either that or more appeals and/or other actions will be incumbent on the people to bring forward until the ship of state at Lake Tahoe is righted by bringing agency actions into compliance with law. The restoration of Lake Tahoe will follow the restoration of the rule of law at Lake Tahoe and we’ll all be much better off.
In closing I would like to thank Director Hitchcock and the City Clerk for their timely responses to my requests for public records needed to prepare the appeal in this matter.
Respectfully, uphold the appeal.
Sincerely,
Alan Miller, Civil and Environmental Engineer
P.O. Box 7526, South Lake Tahoe CA 96158
Exhibits:
1. July 2015 City-TRPA Memorandum of Understanding
1474
Appeal of Alan Miller, PE 5/1/2025 Page 20 of 20
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
1475
f
CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TF
RESOLUTION NO. 1992 - 49`
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE
SETTING FORTH A CODE OF ETHICS
RELATING TO ADMINISTRATION
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of South Lake Tahoe wishes to provide guidance to elected and appointed City officials and to City employees in their conduct while discharging their public responsibilities;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE that:
The _Council of the City of South Lake Tahoe hereby adopts. the Code of Ethics set forth below:
CODE OF ETHICS
These provisions shall be guidelines as to the City Council members, the City Clerk and City Treasurer. These provisions shall be binding as to all appointed City Commissioners, the City Manager and the City Attorney and shall be in addition to any other penalties or remedies provided by law. Any violation of the provisions of this chapter shall constitute a cause for suspension, removal from office or employment or other disciplinary action after notice and hearing conducted by the appropriate appointed authority.
In the event of allegation of a violation of this ordinance as to any appointed commissioner, a hearing panel consisting of the Mayor, the City Manager and the City Attorney shall convene within 30 days of the filing of the allegation to determine if substantial evidence exists concerning' the alleged violation and if so, the matter shall be forwarded to the City Council within 30 days of any such determination for appropriate action at a regular or special meeting. _
1 1476
I
In the event of allegation . of a violation concerning the City Manager or City Attorney, a Council subcommittee shall be appointed by the Mayor to hear any such allegations ' within 30 days of the filing of the allegation and determine if substantial evidence exists to support the allegation. If so, it shall be forwarded within 30 days of any such determination to the full City Council for appropriate action.
With regard to all other City employees, these provisions shall constitute guidelines to be utilized by the appointing authority for purposes of performance evaluation under the applicable City personnel rules and policies.
Persons in the public service shall not engage in nor shall they have any interest, direct or indirect, in any business or transaction, nor incur. any obligation which is in substantial conflict with the proper discharge of their official duties in the public interest or which impairs their independence of judgement in the discharge of such duties. If, however, persons in the public service have financial interests in matters coming before them, or before the department in which they are employed, they shall disqualify themselves from any participation therein.
Persons in the public service shall not only be ever conscious that public service is a public trust but also shall be impartial and devoted to the best interests of the City, and shall so act and conduct themselves, both inside and outside the City' s service, as not to give occasion for distrust of their impartiality or of their devotion to the City' s best interests. Each person taking the oath of office to enter City service' shall be held accountable to the terms of this Code of Ethics.
A) Persons in the public service shall not accept money or other consideration or favors from anyone other than the City, for the performance of an act which they would be required or expected to perform in the regular course of their duties.
B) Persons in . the public service shall not accept any gifts, gratuities or favors of any kind which might reasonably be interpreted as an attempt to influence their action or actions with respect to city business, or as a reward for performance of a service rendered in the course of their official duties.
No person in the public service shall accept favors or gratuities which, as a general guideline, collectively exceed $ 1, 000 in any one(( 2 1477
f
year from any person or entity or any combination of person or entities. Any such favors or gratuities phall be disclosed in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Fair Political Practices Act and its regulations.
Excluded from the $ 1, 000 amount are favors or gratuities when received as the authorized representative or delegate of the City at a function to which an official invitation was extended.
This section also excludes campaign contributions properly disclosed under the Fair Political Practices Act and its regulationsPersons in the.- public service shall not disclose confidential information acquired by or available to them in the course of their employment with the' City, or use such information for speculation or personal gain.
Persons in the public service shall not use, for private gain or advantage, their city time or the City' s facilities, equipment or supplies, nor shall they use or attempt to use their position to secure unwarranted privileges or exemptions for themselves or others.
The following rules govern the personal use by employees of City owned equipment, other than motor vehicles.
1. No City equipment will be used by an employee in his or her private business.
2. No City equipment will be removed from the City premises where it•is normally kept, for an employee' s personal use unless such equipment is available to the general public.
3. With permission of their supervisor, employees may
use City equipment occasionally for personal tasks, as. long as these tasks are performed on the employee' s own time and the equipment is not removed from the premises where it is normally kept.
4. Employees will be responsible for any damage to City equipment occurring during their personal use thereof.
5. Employees will reimburse the City for any supplies
consumed in their personal use of City equipment. _
6. The City' s letterhead will not be used for personal 3 1478
correspondence or in personal business correspondence.
7. Individual departments may establish stricter rules
governing the use of specific types of equipment.
Persons in the public service shall not exercise any
discretionary powers for, or make any recommendations on behalf of or to the City or any department or officer thereof with respect to any contract or sale to which the City or any department thereof is a party and in which such persons shall knowingly be directly or indirectly financially interested.
Persons in the public service shall not engage in outside employment or business activity which involves such hours of work or physical effort that it would or could be reasonably expected to substantially reduce the quality or quantity of work or interfere with such persons' giving a full day' s labor for a full day' s pay.
Outside Employment Incompatible with Official Duties
Persons in the public service shall not engage in any outside' s employment which involves the performance by them of any work which will come before them as officers or employees of the City, or under their supervision, for approval or inspection; provided that nothing. in this paragraph shall be taken to limit in any manner the outside employment of such persons ._where the interests of the City are protected under the applicable provisions of the City personnel rules.
Persons in the public service shall not make personal
investments in enterprises which they have reason to believe may be involved in decisions or recommendations to be made by them, or under their supervision, or' which will otherwise create a substantial conflict between their private interests and the public interest.
If, however, persons in the public service have financial interests in matters coming before them, or before the department " in which they are employed, they shall disqualify themselves from any participation therein.
Persons in the public service shall not negotiate for future, employment outside the city service with any person, firm or`( , 1479
organization known by such persons to be dealing with the City concerning matters within such persons' areas of responsibility or upon which they must act or make a recommendation.
Persons in the public service shall perform their duties earnestly, economically and efficiently.
egg
0 • • • • • • - • - U i
Persons in the public service shall not engage in any improper governmental activity - or in any actions or practices which would interfere with the proper performance.. of the duties of others.
Persons in the City service are strongly encouraged to fulfill their own moral obligations to the City by disclosing to the extent not expressly prohibited by law, improper' governmental - activities within their knowledge. No officer or employee of the City shall directly or indirectly use or attempt to use the authority or influence of. such officer or employee for the purpose of intimidating, threatening, coercing, commanding, or influencing any person with the intent of interfering with that person' s duty to disclose such improper activity.
Loyalty
Persons in the public service shall uphold the Constitutions of the United States and California, and duly enacted laws of the United States, the State of California, the City of South Lake Tahoe.
Persons in the public service shall not, in the performance of their service responsibilities, discriminate against any person- on the basis of race, religion, color, creed, age marital status, national origin, ancestry, sex, or handicap and they shall cooperate in achieving the equal employment opportunity and affirmative action goals and objectives of the City.
It shall be improper for any former officer or employee to appear as a compensated representative at any time before the Council, or any of its agencies in which they were formerly employed, in connection with any case or other matter in which such former officer or employee was duly connected in a policy- making capacity or managerial capacity while an officer or employee of the City for six 6) months following the termination of the officer or employee. 5 1480
t
I
Such officer or employee may be released from the obligation imposed by the provisions of this section upon the submission of a written'- request to the Council in advance of his /her proposed appearance and` a certification that, while an officer or employee of the City, took no action or obtained no information which would prejudice his /her conduct or presentation, either at the time he / she was an officer or employee, or at the time of the presentation.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of South Lake Tahoe at a
regular meeting held on
June 2 , 1992, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers KLEIN, COLE, WOODS & OSTI
NOES: Councilmen
ABSENT: Councilmen
ATTEST:
City Clerk
City Seal)
0 j
m
19 65
titi
1F0
0 1481
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM
TAHOECLEANAIR.ORG DATED JUNE 10, 2026 AND
RESPONSES TO COMMENTS
1482
1 of 79
June 10, 2026
To: [email protected] and [email protected] Cc: Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board, California Tahoe Conservancy, and Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
RE: Agenda Item 3. - City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission Meeting June 11, 2026 – Public Comment – Agenda Item 3:
Requested Action / Suggested Motions: Adopt a Resolution: 1) Finding that the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the City’s independent judgment and analysis: 2) Finding that there is no substantial evidence that the proposed Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project will have a significant effect on the environment; 3) Adopting the Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration; and 4) Approving the Major Design Review, Special Use Permit, and Variance, File #DR25-007. CEQA Determination: The Mitigated Negative Declaration concludes that the Project will have no significant impacts to the environment with the mitigation measures that will be implemented.
Disclaimer: These substantive comments are submitted on behalf of the Tahoe Sierra Clean Air Coalition (TSCAC) and are based on publicly available information, research, and analysis. They do not constitute legal advice.
Supporting Materials and Attachments: Due to the volume of referenced materials, a consolidated Attachment Page with direct electronic links to all supporting documents (including the PyroAnalysis/Ladris Evacuation Analysis, TRPA presentations, Regional Evacuation Plan, 2025 Tahoe Basin CWPP, Mahmoud (2024) publication, Upper Truckee Marsh restoration documents, and others) is provided as a separate reference page. All materials are publicly available or accessible via the links. TSCAC reserves the right to provide hard copies upon request. References throughout this letter to “Attachment A,” “Attachment B,” etc., correspond to the items on the Attachment Page.
Commission Chair and Members:
The Tahoe Sierra Clean Air Coalition (TSCAC), doing business as TahoeCleanAir.org, is a Nevada-based 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization registered to do business in the State of California.
TSCAC is dedicated to protecting air quality and water quality in the Lake Tahoe Basin, advancing 1483
2 of 79
safe and effective wildfire evacuation, and promoting transparency and accountability in government decision-making. Our organizational purpose extends to ensuring that environmental protection, public safety, and sound governance remain central to all actions affecting the Basin and to all matter’s incidental to our primary charitable purposes.
TSCAC requests that the City of South Lake Tahoe immediately withdraw the Draft IS/MND and prepare a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) under CEQA. Because the Project also requires Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) approvals and may affect TRPA Environmental Threshold Carrying Capacities, TSCAC further requests coordinated environmental review with the TRPA, including preparation of a corresponding TRPA Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) as required under TRPA procedures.
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Project Description and Procedural History
The Project, as described in the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration ("IS/MND") circulated by the City, proposes the comprehensive redevelopment of the Tahoe Keys Marina located at 2435 Venice Drive, South Lake Tahoe, California 96150, on Assessor's Parcel Numbers 022-210-032, 022- 210-040, and 022-210-041, encompassing approximately 16.5 acres. The Project applicant is Tahoe Keys SMI, LLC ("TKSMI"), an affiliate of Suntex Marinas. The document bears State Clearinghouse Number 2026040227 and TRPA File Number ERSP2025-0602.
In broad terms, the Project proposes demolition of three existing marina buildings, ancillary structures, parking lots, and utility infrastructure, and the construction of: (1) an approximately 52,600-square-foot indoor boat storage facility with indoor water tanks; (2) three workforce housing units; (3) approximately 60,000 square feet of restaurant, retail, and office space distributed among four new two-story buildings; (4) an approximately 23,250-square-foot marina support building; (5) an approximately 65,000-square-foot water and fire flow storage tank; (6) replacement of the existing bulkhead bordering the Tahoe Keys Lagoon; (7) relocation of the existing boat launch and gantry crane; (8) site-wide stormwater best management practice ("BMP") infrastructure; (9) a public waterside promenade and multimodal connectivity improvements; and (10) formal approval of sixty-six (66) previously unrecognized boat slips, increasing the total recognized slip count from the 239 slips contemplated in the 2001 Tahoe Keys 1484
3 of 79
Marina Master Plan to 305 recognized slips — an increase authorized by the TRPA Settlement Agreement approved November 20, 2024. The Project also requires amendment to TRPA Code of Ordinances Chapters 37 and 90.
The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency ("TRPA") Regional Plan Committee received an informational briefing on the Project on March 18, 2026. No TRPA approval has been granted to date. The waterways directly affected by or adjacent to the Project include Lake Tahoe, the Upper Truckee River, Trout Creek, and the three interconnected Tahoe Keys Lagoons comprising approximately 170 acres.
The city reinstated the public review period for the IS/MND from May 1, 2026 through June 1, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. TSCAC’s comments were submitted on or before the June 1, 2026 deadline.
TSCAC re-adopts those comments here as part of the record.
Although the City repeatedly characterizes this review as limited to upland facilities, the Project itself is inseparable from water-dependent infrastructure, including relocation of the boat launch, replacement of lagoon-side bulkheads, marina operations, circulation systems, and shoreline interface improvements. The Project description itself demonstrates substantial interdependence between upland and aquatic components. Environmental review may not segment functionally interdependent project elements merely because jurisdiction is divided among agencies.
B. Statutory and Regulatory Basis for Comments
These comments are submitted pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), California Public Resources Code sections 21000 through 21189.5, and the State CEQA Guidelines, Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations, sections 15000 through 15387. These comments are further submitted in accordance with the City's established public comment process and the requirements of CEQA Guidelines section 15105, which governs public notice and comment periods for Negative Declarations and Mitigated Negative Declarations.
C. Requests for Record Inclusion and Written Response
I respectfully request that all comments and information contained in this letter, and in the attachments hereto, be entered into the administrative record for the Project in their entirety. 1485
4 of 79
The obligation to consider and meaningfully address substantive environmental comments is not merely procedural; it ensures that decision-makers and the public have the benefit of informed deliberation before project approval. Inadequate, conclusory, or unsupported responses to substantive technical and legal comments may undermine the evidentiary basis for the City’s action.
1. D. Preservation of Legal Rights and Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies By submitting these comments, I expressly preserve all legal rights to challenge the IS/MND, any Mitigated Negative Declaration adopted thereon, and any subsequent approvals of the Project in any court of competent jurisdiction.
E. Overview of Principal Contentions
For the reasons set forth in detail in the sections that follow, it is my considered view that the IS/MND prepared for the Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project is legally and technically deficient, and that a full Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") is required under CEQA before the Project may lawfully proceed. The principal deficiencies of the IS/MND, addressed in detail below, include:
1. The IS/MND fails to analyze, or grossly under analyzes, the Project's contribution to wildfire evacuation risk in a Basin already identified as acutely vulnerable to life-threatening evacuation bottlenecks during wildfire events;
2. The IS/MND fails to provide an adequate analysis of hydrology, water quality, and stormwater management, particularly in light of the high-water-table conditions of the former wetland site and the ecological sensitivity of the Tahoe Keys Lagoon system;
3. The IS/MND fails to adequately address the Project's impacts on aquatic invasive species, which constitutes one of the most serious and immediate threats to the ecological integrity of Lake Tahoe;
1486
5 of 79
4. The IS/MND does not demonstrate compliance with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency's threshold standards and improperly bifurcates the analysis of connected TRPA actions in violation of CEQA's anti-piecemealing mandate;
5. The IS/MND's mitigation measures are vague, deferred, and legally unenforceable;
6. The IS/MND fails to consider a reasonable range of project alternatives; and
7. The IS/MND's cumulative impact analysis is perfunctory and inadequate.
Each of the deficiencies identified herein, individually and cumulatively, together with the analysis and supporting evidence contained in Appendix A, entitled "Response to Final IS/MND Responses to Tahoe Sierra Clean Air Coalition Comments – Deficiencies in the Final IS/MND Responses," provides substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in significant environmental effects. Under CEQA's Fair Argument Standard, the existence of such substantial evidence precludes adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and requires preparation of a full Environmental Impact Report.
F. SUMMARY OF IS/MND FINDINGS CHALLENGED IN THIS COMMENT LETTER The Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment IS/MND repeatedly concludes that Project impacts will be less than significant, less than significant with mitigation incorporated, or otherwise concludes that preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate because the Project will not result in significant environmental impacts.
However, as discussed throughout this comment letter, the IS/MND fails in multiple instances to provide substantial evidence supporting these impact determinations because the IS/MND omits critical analyses, relies upon incomplete information, contains unsupported assumptions, fails to adequately evaluate potentially significant environmental impacts, or otherwise lacks the evidentiary foundation necessary to support the conclusions reached.
Accordingly, substantial evidence exists supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in significant environmental impacts requiring preparation of a full Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") under CEQA and a corresponding Environmental Impact Statement ("EIS") under TRPA requirements.
1487
6 of 79
To the extent the Planning Commission recommends approval of the challenged impact determinations, or the City ultimately adopts the challenged findings despite the evidentiary deficiencies identified herein, such actions may constitute prejudicial abuse of discretion, arbitrary and capricious decision making, failure to proceed in the manner required by law, and adoption of findings unsupported by substantial evidence.
The following summary identifies the specific findings, impact determinations, and conclusions within the Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project IS/MND that are challenged in this comment letter.
For each finding, substantial evidence is lacking, the supporting analysis is incomplete, or substantial evidence exists supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in significant environmental impacts requiring preparation of a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and corresponding Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
1. IS/MND SECTION: 4.4 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
IS/MND IMPACT DETERMINATION
Biological impacts will be Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.
BASIS FOR CHALLENGE:
The IS/MND fails to provide substantial evidence demonstrating that mitigation measures will fully address Aquatic Invasive Species (AIS) transport risks, wetland impacts, habitat impacts, cumulative ecological effects, and long-term biological resource impacts associated with redevelopment of the marina facility.
2. IS/MND SECTION: 4.10 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
IS/MND IMPACT DETERMINATION
Hydrology and Water Quality impacts will be Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.
BASIS FOR CHALLENGE:
The IS/MND fails to provide substantial evidence supporting assumptions regarding infiltration performance, groundwater conditions, stormwater treatment effectiveness, protection of Lake Tahoe water quality, and consistency with Outstanding National Resource Water (ONRW) protections.
1488
7 of 79
POTENTIAL CEQA / REGULATORY DEFICIENCIES:
• Clean Water Act §§401, 404
• CEQA Appendix G Hydrology
• TRPA Water Quality Thresholds
• Lake Tahoe TMDL
• ONRW Protections
3. IS/MND SECTION: 4.15 PUBLIC SERVICES
IS/MND IMPACT DETERMINATION:
Public Service impacts will be Less Than Significant.
BASIS FOR CHALLENGE:
The IS/MND fails to provide substantial evidence demonstrating that police, fire, emergency medical, and emergency management resources can adequately accommodate increased Project occupancy, visitor concentrations, and emergency response demands.
4. IS/MND SECTION: 4.17 TRANSPORTATION
IS/MND IMPACT DETERMINATION:
Transportation impacts will be Less Than Significant.
BASIS FOR CHALLENGE:
The IS/MND fails to provide substantial evidence supporting this finding because no evacuation demand analysis, evacuation throughput analysis, emergency traffic simulation, roadway clearance analysis, or cumulative evacuation analysis was performed.
POTENTIAL CEQA / REGULATORY DEFICIENCIES CEQA Guidelines §15064 • Appendix G Transportation
• SB 743
• CEQA Guidelines §15130 (Cumulative Impacts)
5. IS/MND SECTION: 4.20.3(a) WILDFIRE
IS/MND IMPACT DETERMINATION:
The Project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
CONCLUSION:
Less Than Significant Impact.
POTENTIAL CEQA / REGULATORY DEFICIENCIES
1489
8 of 79
• CEQA Guidelines §15064(g)
• Public Resources Code §21082.2
• CEQA Appendix G Wildfire Checklist
• CEQA Guidelines §15126.2
• CEQA Guidelines §15065
• Tahoe Basin Community Wildfire Protection Plan (2025) • Lake Tahoe Regional Evacuation Plan (2024)
BASIS FOR CHALLENGE:
The IS/MND fails to provide substantial evidence supporting this finding.
The IS/MND analysis relies primarily upon three assertions:
(1) the Project does not physically modify evacuation routes; (2) the city maintains an emergency notification system through CodeRED; and (3) an adopted evacuation map exists for Tahoe Keys.
These statements do not constitute substantial evidence supporting the conclusion reached.
The existence of an emergency evacuation map does not itself demonstrate that evacuation capacity is adequate.
The IS/MND identifies the existence of the Tahoe Keys evacuation map but provides no projectspecific analysis whatsoever regarding:
• evacuation route capacity;
• roadway throughput;
• evacuation clearance times;
• peak occupancy conditions;
• seasonal visitor loading;
• project-generated evacuation demand;
• interaction between marina visitors and residential evacuation traffic; • performance of evacuation routes under no-notice1 wildfire scenarios; • compatibility between increased occupancy and evacuation assumptions underlying the evacuation map; or
1 US DOT Federal Highway Administration - A little- or no-notice incident is one that occurs unexpectedly or with minimal warning. The lack of warning and the quick response time required introduce distinct challenges for evacuating at-risk populations. No-notice incidents do not provide emergency responders sufficient time to prepare for a specific incident. This greatly affects agencies' abilities to pre-activate emergency protocols, pre-position needed assets, and warn and direct the public. No-notice evacuations require a significantly different approach to planning than advance-notice evacuations because they will be based on a set of capabilities and strategies that will likely be more limited in the time and resources available for implementation. 1490
9 of 79
• whether the Project remains consistent with evacuation planning assumptions used to develop the Tahoe Keys evacuation framework.
The relevant CEQA question is not whether evacuation routes physically change.
The relevant question is whether the Project increases demand upon constrained evacuation infrastructure.
The Project proposes approximately 60,000 square feet of new visitor-serving commercial space, expanded marina operations, workforce housing, public promenade facilities, increased boat storage capacity, and increased public occupancy within a peninsula-like environment dependent upon constrained roadway access.
No evacuation modeling, emergency traffic simulation, occupant loading analysis, evacuation throughput analysis, or clearance-time analysis was performed.
Because the City relies upon the existence of an evacuation map without analyzing whether the Project is compatible with the assumptions underlying that evacuation framework, the less-thansignificant finding lacks substantial evidence.
6. IS/MND SECTION: 4.20.3(b) WILDFIRE
IS/MND IMPACT DETERMINATION:
The Project would not exacerbate wildfire risks or expose occupants to wildfire hazards.
CONCLUSION:
Less Than Significant Impact.
BASIS FOR CHALLENGE:
The IS/MND fails to provide substantial evidence supporting this finding because no wildfire spread analysis, ember transport analysis, structure-to-structure fire propagation analysis, builtenvironment fire spread analysis, or community-scale wildfire modeling was performed. Recent peer-reviewed wildfire science (Mahmoud 2024) demonstrates that wildfire vulnerability depends upon both vegetation conditions and built-environment fire propagation. The IS/MND evaluates vegetation-related wildfire hazards while omitting critical built-environment fire propagation mechanisms identified in contemporary wildfire literature.
POTENTIAL CEQA / REGULATORY DEFICIENCIES
• CEQA Guidelines §15064
• Appendix G Wildfire Checklist
• PRC §21083
• Mahmoud (2024)
1491
10 of 79
• TRPA Environmental Threshold Carrying Capacities
7. IS/MND SECTION: 4.20.3(c) WILDFIRE
IS/MND IMPACT DETERMINATION:
The Project would not require infrastructure that may exacerbate fire risk or create ongoing firerelated environmental impacts.
CONCLUSION:
Less Than Significant Impact.
BASIS FOR CHALLENGE:
The IS/MND fails to provide substantial evidence supporting this finding because no projectspecific analysis was performed regarding increased fire risks associated with marina operations, fuel storage facilities, boat storage facilities, expanded utility infrastructure, increased occupancy, or emergency response complexity.
8. IS/MND SECTION: 4.20.3(d) WILDFIRE
IS/MND IMPACT DETERMINATION:
The Project would not expose people or structures to significant post-fire flooding, erosion, landslide, runoff, slope instability, or drainage hazards.
CONCLUSION:
Less Than Significant Impact.
BASIS FOR CHALLENGE:
The IS/MND fails to provide substantial evidence supporting this finding because no projectspecific post-fire hazard analysis was prepared evaluating post-fire runoff, sediment transport, drainage system performance, marsh impacts, lagoon impacts, or downstream flooding effects.
9. IS/MND SECTION: 4.21 MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE IS/MND IMPACT DETERMINATION:
The Project will not substantially degrade environmental quality, substantially reduce habitat, create cumulatively considerable impacts, or cause substantial adverse effects on human beings.
CONCLUSION:
No Significant Unavoidable Impact.
BASIS FOR CHALLENGE:
The City cannot lawfully reach this conclusion where substantial evidence supporting multiple 1492
11 of 79
underlying environmental findings is absent and where substantial evidence supporting a fair argument of significant environmental impacts exists within the administrative record.
POTENTIAL CEQA / REGULATORY DEFICIENCIES CEQA
Appendix G XIV
PRC §21083
CEQA Guidelines §15065
10.CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
IS/MND IMPACT DETERMINATION:
Cumulative impacts are less than significant.
BASIS FOR CHALLENGE:
The IS/MND fails to analyze cumulative impacts associated with:
• increasing Basin visitation;
• wildfire evacuation loading;
• AIS management efforts;
• restoration investments;
• climate-driven wildfire risks;
• ongoing South Shore development projects.
The cumulative impact analysis is conclusory and lacks substantial evidence.
11.OVERALL CEQA DETERMINATION
IS/MND IMPACT DETERMINATION:
Preparation of a Mitigated Negative Declaration is appropriate, and the Project will not result in significant environmental effects following mitigation.
CONCLUSION:
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) / Mitigated Negative Declaration.
The remainder of this comment letter provides the factual, technical, scientific, and legal basis supporting each of the challenged findings identified above.
II. MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION VERSUS ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT — THE
FAIR ARGUMENT STANDARD
1493
12 of 79
A. The Fair Argument Standard
The threshold legal question presented by this proceeding is whether the City of South Lake Tahoe may lawfully approve the Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project on the basis of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, or whether CEQA compels the preparation of a full Environmental Impact Report. For the reasons set forth throughout this letter, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that preparation of an EIR is required..
Under CEQA, an agency must prepare an EIR whenever substantial evidence in the whole record supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment.2 This is the so-called "fair argument" standard, and it is intentionally a low threshold. The standard does not require proof of actual significant environmental effects; it requires only that there be substantial evidence from which a reasonable person could conclude that the project may cause significant harm.3 The California Supreme Court has confirmed that the fair argument standard is the most protective of all CEQA standards of review, and that when substantial evidence supports a fair argument that significant effects may occur, the agency has no discretion to adopt a Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration — the EIR is mandatory.4 The standard is well-established in California jurisprudence. In No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, the California Supreme Court articulated the foundational principle that CEQA must be interpreted to afford maximum protection to the environment, and that doubts regarding the need for an EIR must be resolved in favor of environmental review. The Court emphasized that the EIR is "the heart of CEQA" — the mechanism by which the Legislature intended to ensure that decision-makers have the information necessary to make informed, environmentally conscious choices.5
In Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, the Court of Appeal reiterated that the fair argument standard applies even where an agency has commissioned studies that purport to show no significant effect — if other substantial evidence supports a fair argument that significant effects may occur, the EIR obligation is triggered regardless of whether the agency's own consultants reached a contrary conclusion.6 Similarly, in Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, the 1494
13 of 79
Supreme Court held that an EIR must "contain facts and analysis, not just bare conclusions," and that an agency's conclusory findings of no significant impact are legally insufficient where substantial contrary evidence exists.7
CEQA Guidelines section 15064(g) reinforces this principle by specifying that "[i]n marginal cases where it is not clear whether there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall be guided by the following principle: if in doubt, an EIR should be prepared."8 This is not merely aspirational guidance; it is a binding rule of decision for lead agencies confronting ambiguous evidence.
In the present case, the evidence of potentially significant environmental effects — as to wildfire and evacuation risk, AIS disturbance, hydrological impacts, and cumulative effects on Lake Tahoe — is not merely marginal or ambiguous. It is substantial, documented, and legally compelling. The city cannot lawfully resolve this evidence in favor of a Mitigated Negative Declaration.
The record before the city now contains substantial additional technical information regarding aquatic invasive species management, marina operations, dredging compatibility, snow storage, endangered species considerations, stormwater feasibility, and marina permitting requirements.
Whether these issues ultimately require new mitigation or project redesign, they collectively undermine the conclusion that no substantial evidence supports a fair argument of potentially significant environmental effect
B. The Mitigation Commitment Problem
Even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the City could demonstrate that mitigation measures are available to reduce all potentially significant effects of the Project to below a level of significance — a showing the City has decidedly not made — the IS/MND would still be legally defective because numerous mitigation measures fail to satisfy CEQA's definiteness requirement.
A Mitigated Negative Declaration may lawfully be adopted only when mitigation measures are fully specified and committed to before adoption of the MND, such that the agency can find, with confidence, that the project as mitigated will not have significant effects on the environment.9 This 1495
14 of 79
requirement is not a technicality. It is the essential foundation of the MND process, because the MND substitutes the agency's pre-adoption commitment to specific mitigation for the rigorous environmental analysis — alternatives comparison, detailed impact quantification, independent response to comments — that an EIR would provide. When mitigation is vague, deferred, or conditioned on future discretionary determinations, the predicate for adopting an MND disappears.
In Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, the Court of Appeal held that an MND is legally inadequate when it relies on mitigation measures that will be determined and implemented at some future date, rather than being specified with particularity before MND adoption.10 The court specifically noted that deferring the formulation of mitigation to the permitting stage defeats the purpose of environmental review under CEQA, because it deprives the public and decision-makers of the ability to evaluate whether the mitigation is actually adequate.
CEQA Guidelines section 15126.4 requires that mitigation measures be "fully enforceable through permit conditions, agreements, or other measures." A mitigation measure that directs the applicant to "consider" a mitigation approach, to implement measures "to the extent feasible," or to use "best available" practices without specifying what those practices are and how they will be verified, does not satisfy this standard. As the court observed in Sacramento Old City Association v.
City Council (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011, vague commitments to future mitigation are the legal equivalent of no mitigation commitment at all, because they provide no assurance that any particular level of impact reduction will actually be achieved.11 A review of the IS/MND for the Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project reveals precisely the kind of vague, deferred, and legally insufficient mitigation language that these authorities have condemned. Mitigation measures addressing AIS disturbance, construction turbidity, groundwater management, and wildfire evacuation impacts variously employ language such as "shall be considered," "to the extent feasible," "best management practices," and "consistent with applicable regulations." None of these formulations provides the specificity, enforceability, or precommitment required by CEQA. These deficiencies are addressed in detail in Section XIV of this letter.
1496
15 of 79
C. The Piecemealing Prohibition
A distinct and independently sufficient ground for requiring an EIR is the City's improper segmentation of the Project's environmental analysis in violation of CEQA's prohibition on piecemealing.
CEQA requires that an environmental document analyze the full scope of a project, including all connected, related, or dependent actions that form part of the same project as a matter of practical or legal reality.12 The anti-piecemealing doctrine is designed to prevent lead agencies from artificially fragmenting a larger project into smaller pieces, each of which may appear individually insignificant, while the collective environmental impact of the whole project is never subjected to comprehensive review. As the California Supreme Court stated in Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, the requirement that connected actions be analyzed together is fundamental to the integrity of CEQA review.13 In the present case, the City has prepared an IS/MND that purports to address only the landside physical redevelopment of the marina, while deferring environmental analysis of the directly connected TRPA actions that are the legal and practical predicate for the Project. Specifically, the TRPA Settlement Agreement approved on November 20, 2024, which governs the formal recognition of 66 additional boat slips, and the required amendments to TRPA Code of Ordinances Chapters 37 and 90, are not merely ancillary regulatory approvals — they are the essential legal instruments that authorize the specific project features that drive the most significant environmental concerns identified in this letter, including increased AIS vector risk, increased marine engine emissions, and increased visitor traffic.
These TRPA actions are "connected actions" within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines section 15378 and section 15003(h) because they depend upon the same factual predicate (the redevelopment of the Tahoe Keys Marina), they are implemented by the same applicant, and the physical project would not occur — or would not occur in the form proposed — without the TRPA approvals.
Analyzing the landside construction while deferring review of the waterside slip approvals and code amendments constitutes exactly the kind of piecemealing that CEQA prohibits. Given the full 1497
16 of 79
scope of connected approvals, a Program EIR is likely the appropriate vehicle for comprehensive environmental review.
D. Cumulative Intensification of Land Use Requires Full Environmental Review The Project cannot properly be viewed as a simple modernization of an existing marina facility.
Rather, the Project represents the cumulative effect of multiple discretionary approvals, development entitlements, operational expansions, and regulatory exceptions that collectively intensify the use of the property far beyond existing conditions.
The significance of the Project is not limited to the number of variances, discretionary approvals, or regulatory actions requested. Rather, those approvals collectively facilitate a transformation of the site from a traditional marina facility into a substantially expanded mixed-use commercial destination with significantly increased building area, visitor-serving uses, boat-storage capacity, marina activity, workforce housing, and year-round occupancy. CEQA requires agencies to evaluate the environmental consequences of that transformation as a whole. Viewed in that context, the Project constitutes a substantial intensification of land use that may reasonably result in significant impacts to transportation, wildfire evacuation, water quality, aquatic invasive species management, recreation, scenic resources, public services, and environmental threshold carrying capacities.
The Planning Commission is simultaneously being asked to approve a Major Design Review Permit, a Special Use Permit, a Variance for encroachment into a required setback, adoption of an IS/MND, and findings that the Project will not result in significant environmental impacts.
As discussed above, the Project also depends upon multiple connected TRPA approvals, including implementation of the 2024 Settlement Agreement, recognition of additional marina slips, and amendments to TRPA Code provisions governing marina development. When considered together with the City approvals presently before the Commission, these actions substantially expand the scale and intensity of the Project beyond existing conditions. 1498
17 of 79
When viewed as a whole, the Project includes:
• expansion from approximately 49,800 square feet of existing development to approximately 153,200 square feet of development;
• replacement of three buildings with seven buildings;
• construction of a 52,600-square-foot indoor boat storage facility; • expanded restaurant, retail, concession, office, and visitor-serving commercial uses; • workforce housing;
• relocation of marina facilities;
• replacement of approximately 1,600 linear feet of bulkhead; • expansion of winter boat storage capacity;
• recognition of sixty-six additional marina slips through related TRPA proceedings; and • substantial increases in visitors, employees, customers, marina users, and service activity.
When the entire Project is evaluated as a single integrated undertaking, the resulting scale of redevelopment, operational expansion, and increased intensity of use must be analyzed under CEQA based upon the Project's combined environmental footprint rather than the incremental effects of individual components viewed in isolation.
Although the IS/MND repeatedly evaluates individual impact categories separately, it fails to adequately evaluate the cumulative effect of the Project's overall intensification on public safety, wildfire evacuation, transportation systems, aquatic invasive species management, water quality, recreation resources, scenic resources, public services, and environmental threshold carrying capacities.
The cumulative effect of these approvals is to substantially increase the intensity of human activity, occupancy, commercial use, marina operations, traffic generation, parking demand, emergency evacuation demand, utility demand, and shoreline use within one of the most environmentally constrained and environmentally sensitive portions of the Lake Tahoe Basin.
The significance of these impacts derives not merely from individual Project components, but from the combined effect of increased development intensity, increased occupancy, increased visitation, increased marina activity, increased transportation demand, and increased reliance upon already 1499
18 of 79
constrained environmental and public safety systems. The Project's environmental consequences therefore must be evaluated based upon the cumulative transformation of the site and its surrounding environment rather than through isolated review of individual Project features.
Accordingly, once the improperly segmented City and TRPA approvals are viewed as a single integrated project, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the cumulative increase in building area, marina capacity, commercial activity, occupancy, traffic generation, evacuation demand, shoreline activity, and environmental resource utilization may result in significant environmental effects. Under CEQA's Fair Argument standard, preparation of a full Environmental Impact Report is therefore required. Because the same integrated project also has the potential to affect multiple TRPA Environmental Threshold Carrying Capacities, a corresponding Environmental Impact Statement should likewise be prepared under the TRPA Compact.
III. WILDFIRE RISK AND PUBLIC SAFETY: THE IS/MND'S ANALYSIS IS FATALLY DEFICIENT A. Background: Lake Tahoe Basin Wildfire Risk
The Lake Tahoe Basin is recognized by fire scientists, emergency managers, and regulatory agencies as one of California's most challenging wildfire environments. The combination of dense coniferous forest — including extensive stands of drought-stressed lodgepole pine, white fir, and Jeffrey pine — steeply sloping terrain, low relative humidity during summer months, and wind patterns that can rapidly accelerate fire spread across ridge systems creates a fire hazard profile that is among the most severe in the Sierra Nevada. CAL FIRE formally designates the South Lake Tahoe area as within a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone ("VHFHSZ") — the highest designation under California's statutory framework — reflecting the objective, science-based assessment that the risk of loss of life, property, and natural resources from wildfire in this area is extreme.
The recent fire history of the Tahoe Basin makes this designation tragically real. In August and September of 2021, the Caldor Fire ignited southeast of South Lake Tahoe and burned with extraordinary intensity through the Eldorado National Forest, ultimately covering more than 221,000 acres and becoming one of the most destructive wildfires in California history. At the height of the Caldor Fire's advance, South Lake Tahoe was placed under a mandatory evacuation order — the first in the city's history. Approximately 22,000 residents, plus an unknown and likely 1500
19 of 79
substantially larger number of tourists and visitors who were in the Basin at the time, were required to evacuate along the same US-50 and SR-89 corridors that constitute the primary egress routes for the Tahoe Keys Marina and the Tahoe Keys community. The evacuation exposed with stark clarity the limitations of the Basin's road network as an emergency egress system.
Climate science reinforces the expectation that wildfire risk in the Lake Tahoe Basin will intensify.
Cal-Adapt modeling developed by the California Natural Resources Agency ("CNRA") projects that under both moderate and high greenhouse gas emission scenarios, Sierra Nevada communities will experience longer fire seasons, higher peak temperatures, lower relative humidity, and increased ignition probability through mid-century and beyond. The 2025 Tahoe Basin Community Wildfire Protection Plan ("CWPP"), completed in February 2025, identifies critical fuels reduction priorities, structural ignitability risk reduction, and evacuation preparedness as the three foundational pillars of community wildfire resilience — recognizing that despite years of fuels management investment, the Basin's residents and visitors remain exposed to significant wildfire risk during the summer months, precisely the period of peak visitation.
B. Wildfire risk analysis deficiency
Peer-Reviewed Scientific Evidence Demonstrates the IS/MND Omits a critical portion of the Wildfire Risk Equation
Substantial information exists in the form of peer-reviewed wildfire science.
The 2024 Mahmoud analysis demonstrates that contemporary wildfire risk assessment must evaluate both wildland fire behavior and built-environment fire propagation. The IS/MND contains no such analysis. Because this scientific information directly addresses the adequacy of the Project's wildfire conclusions and was not meaningfully evaluated within the environmental document, it constitutes substantial new information supporting preparation of a full EIR/EIS.
The Project's wildfire analysis is incomplete because it evaluates only vegetation-related wildfire factors while omitting analysis of structure-to-structure fire spread, ember-driven urban conflagration, and built-environment wildfire propagation. 1501
20 of 79
This analytical omission is inconsistent with contemporary wildfire science. In his 2024 peerreviewed publication, "Reimagining a Pathway to Reduce Built-Environment Loss During Wildfires," Dr. Hussam Mahmoud explains that wildfire losses increasingly result not only from wildland fire behavior but also from interactions between vegetation and structures, ember-driven ignition, structure-to-structure fire spread, urban conflagration dynamics, and the influence of urban expansion on wildfire vulnerability and risk. Dr. Mahmoud further explains that accurate wildfire risk assessment requires evaluation of how fire propagates through interconnected networks of vegetation and buildings rather than evaluation of vegetation conditions alone.
The IS/MND contains no comparable analysis. Instead, it evaluates only traditional wildland fire behavior while omitting analysis of built-environment fire propagation, structure-to-structure fire spread, marina-related fuel concentrations, ember transmission pathways, and urban conflagration potential. Consequently, the IS/MND analyzes only a portion of the wildfire risk equation and fails to provide substantial evidence supporting its determination that wildfire impacts would be less than significant.
The significance of Mahmoud's analysis extends beyond identifying deficiencies in traditional wildfire assessment methodologies. The research specifically explains that wildfire vulnerability and risk are influenced by the interaction between urban development, built-environment characteristics, interconnected fuel networks, and community-scale fire propagation. These considerations are directly relevant to the Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project because the Project proposes substantial expansion and intensification of development within a Wildland Urban Interface ("WUI") environment containing residential neighborhoods, marina facilities, commercial structures, boats, fuel storage areas, parking facilities, transportation infrastructure, and other interconnected fuel sources.
In 2024, Professor Hussam Mahmoud of Colorado State University published a peer-reviewed analysis addressing wildfire vulnerability and risk within Wildland Urban Interface ("WUI") communities. Mahmoud explains that wildfire losses are increasingly driven not merely by vegetation fires but by fire propagation through interconnected networks of vegetation and structures. The paper specifically notes that the likelihood of a structure igniting depends not only 1502
21 of 79
upon vegetation conditions but also upon the properties and ignition status of neighboring structures and interconnected fuel sources.
Mahmoud further explains that modern wildfire assessment requires evaluation of:
• Structure-to-structure fire spread;
• Vegetation-to-structure fire spread;
• Ember transport and ember-driven ignition;
• Community-scale fuel network connectivity;
• Built-environment vulnerability; and
• Community-wide fire propagation pathways.
The Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project is precisely the type of development where these considerations are relevant. The Project proposes substantial intensification of development within a constrained Wildland Urban Interface environment surrounded by residential neighborhoods, marina infrastructure, boats, fuel storage facilities, parking areas, commercial structures, and visitor-serving uses.
Mahmoud further identifies urban growth and expansion within Wildland Urban Interface environments as important contributors to wildfire vulnerability and risk. The Project's substantial increase in building area, marina activity, visitor-serving uses, occupancy, and overall development intensity therefore represents precisely the type of urban expansion that contemporary wildfire science recognizes should be evaluated when assessing community wildfire vulnerability and risk.
Despite these conditions, the IS/MND contains no analysis of built-environment fire propagation.
Instead, the IS/MND limits its analysis almost entirely to vegetation management measures, defensible space, fire-resistant landscaping, hydrant availability, and compliance with applicable building and fire codes.
The document therefore evaluates only the wildland component of wildfire risk while omitting analysis of built-environment fire spread, structure-to-structure fire propagation, ember-driven community ignition pathways, and community-scale fire transmission mechanisms. 1503
22 of 79
Because current peer-reviewed scientific literature identifies built-environment fire propagation as a major driver of wildfire losses, the omission of this analysis leaves the wildfire conclusions unsupported by substantial evidence.
This scientific evidence independently supports a fair argument that the Project may result in significant wildfire impacts requiring preparation of a full EIR and corresponding TRPA EIS.
The omission of these analyses prevents informed evaluation of wildfire risk, evacuation performance, and built-environment fire propagation, thereby reinforcing the need for preparation of a Joint CEQA Environmental Impact Report and TRPA Environmental Impact Statement.
C. Significant and Substantial South Lake Tahoe Evacuation Timing Information: The PyroAnalysis/Ladris AI Findings
In October 2024, TahoeCleanAir.org released the Independent Lake Tahoe Basin Wildfire Evacuation Analysis, prepared by PyroAnalysis LLC and Ladris AI (the “Evacuation Analysis”). This study provides the first basin-wide, independently conducted evacuation-timing assessment using advanced traffic simulation and scenario-based modeling to evaluate wildfire evacuation performance under a range of conditions. The Evacuation Analysis was developed by researchers and modelers with direct operational experience in catastrophic California wildfire events — including a former CAL FIRE Incident Commander and CAL FIRE Incident Management Team 4 Operations Section Chief during the 2018 Camp Fire, which destroyed Paradise and claimed 85 lives. The analysis integrates subject-matter expertise, data-driven simulation modeling, AI-supported scenario generation, and more than 400 individual simulation runs to evaluate evacuation throughput, constraints, and failure points across the Lake Tahoe Basin.
The findings of the Evacuation Analysis are alarming, and they bear directly on the Project now under review. The analysis divided the Lake Tahoe Basin into five study areas: Placer/Tahoe, Washoe Tahoe, Douglas Tahoe, El Dorado South Shore Tahoe, and West Shore Tahoe. The El Dorado South Shore Tahoe study area — which encompasses South Lake Tahoe, the Tahoe Keys community, and the Project site — was identified as particularly vulnerable to acute evacuation bottlenecks for a combination of structural reasons. First, the South Shore road network converges 1504
23 of 79
on a small number of egress corridors, primarily the US-50/SR-89 junction at the "Y" intersection — a single choke point through which the vast majority of South Shore evacuees must pass.
Second, the peninsula-like geography of the Tahoe Keys community, bounded by lagoon waters on multiple sides and accessible only through a constrained network of local streets feeding onto Tahoe Keys Boulevard and thence to US-50, creates a secondary bottleneck that compounds the primary corridor constraint.
The Evacuation Analysis modeled both "no-notice" evacuation scenarios — where a fast-moving fire provides little or no warning before the evacuation order — and "planned event" scenarios where some advance warning is available. Under no-notice conditions during peak summer tourist season, the simulations demonstrated that evacuation times for South Shore residents and visitors could extend for hours beyond the theoretical minimum, with the risk of fatal gridlock if fire behavior changes rapidly or if the evacuation order is delayed. The analysis specifically identified peak summer tourist season — typically July and August — as the highest-risk period for evacuation failure, precisely because the population requiring evacuation is at its maximum while the available road capacity remains fixed.
These regional evacuation vulnerabilities become more significant when evaluated in the context of Project-specific characteristics, occupancy assumptions, and site constraints.
September 2024 Lake Tahoe Regional Evacuation Plan
September 2024 Lake Tahoe Regional Evacuation Plan – Operational Coordination Does Not Constitute Evacuation Capacity Analysis
The September 2024 Lake Tahoe Regional Evacuation Plan establishes an operational framework intended to facilitate coordinated evacuation activities across the Tahoe Basin. The Plan establishes evacuation zones, communication protocols, operational triggers, interagency coordination procedures, and incident management structures intended to support managed evacuation operations.
Importantly, however, the Regional Evacuation Plan is not an evacuation capacity analysis. 1505
24 of 79
The Plan does not provide substantial evidence demonstrating that constrained roadway systems possess adequate evacuation capacity, that evacuation clearance times remain acceptable under peak occupancy conditions, or that additional Project-generated occupancy remains compatible with the assumptions underlying the operational framework.
This distinction is important because Page 5 of the Regional Evacuation Plan defines evacuation as:
"An organized, phased, and supervised withdrawal, dispersal, or removal of civilians from dangerous or potentially dangerous areas, and their reception and care to safe areas." This definition demonstrates that the Regional Evacuation Plan is fundamentally built upon assumptions that evacuation occurs as an organized, coordinated, and managed operational process.
However, the IS/MND contains no analysis demonstrating that these assumptions remain valid under Project conditions involving increased occupancy, expanded visitor-serving uses, increased marina activity, workforce housing, seasonal tourism loading, constrained roadway access, and rapidly developing wildfire conditions.
The omission is particularly significant because wildfire evacuations frequently occur under Red Flag Warning conditions characterized by low humidity, ember transport, rapidly changing fire conditions, extreme fire behavior, and sustained high wind events that may persist continuously in both daylight and darkness throughout a multiday and twenty-four-hour periods.
The IS/MND contains no analysis evaluating whether evacuation remains organized, phased, or supervised during:
• rapidly developing no-notice wildfire events;
• nighttime wildfire ignition scenarios;
• Red Flag Warning conditions;
• sustained high wind events;
• power outages;
1506
25 of 79
• smoke-obscured visibility conditions;
• roadway congestion;
• compromised communications;
• peak tourism occupancy conditions;
• simultaneous roadway obstruction scenarios; or
• conditions where coordinated evacuation transitions into panic-driven self-evacuation behavior.
These omissions are particularly important because rapidly developing wind-driven wildfire events may significantly reduce available evacuation time, degrade roadway operations, increase traffic conflicts, reduce emergency responder access, impair communications, and alter human behavioral responses during evacuation.
Under such conditions, occupants located within constrained shoreline environments surrounded by waterways may perceive conventional evacuation routes as compromised, inaccessible, or unsafe and may seek improvised refuge alternatives not contemplated by conventional evacuation assumptions.
The Project is located within a constrained peninsula-like environment dependent upon limited evacuation corridors and surrounded by waterways.
Despite these conditions, the IS/MND provides no project-specific analysis evaluating:
• evacuation route capacity;
• evacuation throughput;
• evacuation timing performance;
• roadway clearance times;
• Project-generated evacuation demand;
• compatibility with assumptions underlying existing evacuation planning; • alternative evacuation scenarios;
• emergency traffic conflicts;
• occupancy loading assumptions; or
• evacuation performance under varying wildfire conditions. 1507
26 of 79
The omission of evacuation scenario analysis is particularly significant because modern wildfire planning guidance increasingly recognizes that evacuation planning cannot rely upon a single operational assumption.
The California Attorney General publication entitled "Best Practices for Analyzing and Mitigating Wildfire Impacts of Development Projects Under the California Environmental Quality Act" identifies multiple analytical components that should be considered when evaluating wildfire evacuation impacts including roadway capacity analysis, evacuation timing analysis, alternative evacuation planning, evaluation of project impacts upon existing evacuation plans, emergency access analysis, emergency response evaluation, and traffic modeling evaluating travel times under multiple likely scenarios.
The IS/MND contains little or no analysis addressing these considerations.
Accordingly, because the IS/MND relies upon operational evacuation planning documents without evaluating whether Project-related increases in occupancy remain compatible with the assumptions underlying those frameworks, fails to evaluate evacuation performance under multiple reasonably foreseeable wildfire scenarios, and omits fundamental evacuation capacity analyses, the record lacks substantial evidence supporting the determination that emergency evacuation impacts would remain less than significant.
D. Project-Specific Wildfire and Evacuation Impacts Not Addressed in the IS/MND
1. Increased Visitor Load at an Evacuation Bottleneck
The Project proposes approximately 60,000 square feet of restaurant, retail, and office space across four new two-story buildings — a substantial visitor-serving commercial development that would transform what is currently a working marina with limited retail presence into a regional recreational and dining destination. In addition to this commercial space, the Project includes a public waterside promenade designed to attract pedestrian visitors, a relocated boat launch facility with expanded capacity, and associated parking infrastructure. Together, these elements will substantially increase the peak daily visitor load at the Tahoe Keys Marina during precisely the summer months when wildfire risk is highest.
1508
27 of 79
The IS/MND does not quantify the expected increase in peak daily visitor population at the marina attributable to the Project. This is a critical omission because the magnitude of visitor load addition is a central variable in evaluating the Project's contribution to evacuation demand and evacuation performance assessment of the Project's contribution to evacuation risk. Even a conservative estimate suggests that 60,000 square feet of restaurant, retail, and event space, if operating at typical summertime utilization rates for a destination marina complex, could generate several hundred to more than a thousand concurrent visitors on peak days. Those visitors, together with marina tenants, slip users, boat storage customers, and workforce housing residents, would all require evacuation through Venice Drive — a single-access-point, dead-end street — in the event of a no-notice wildfire evacuation order.
The IS/MND addresses wildfire risk in only the most cursory terms, acknowledging that the site is within a VHFHSZ but failing to analyze how the Project's substantial visitor population addition interacts with the documented evacuation bottleneck at Tahoe Keys Boulevard and the US-50/SR89 "Y" intersection. This is not a speculative or attenuated environmental concern — it is the exact scenario that the PyroAnalysis/Ladris simulations modeled and that the 2024 Regional Evacuation Plan was specifically designed to address.
2. Evacuation Route Conflict and Peninsula Geometry
The Project site is located at 2435 Venice Drive — a street that dead-ends at the lagoon edge of the Tahoe Keys peninsula. The Tahoe Keys community, of which the marina forms the commercial core, is a peninsula-within-a-peninsula configuration. Residents and visitors in the Tahoe Keys must egress through the Tahoe Keys Boulevard entrance — a controlled intersection that is the only vehicular access point to the community — before joining the broader South Lake Tahoe evacuation corridor on US-50.
In a no-notice wildfire evacuation, marina visitors unfamiliar with the local street network, potentially panicked, and possibly attempting to retrieve boats or vehicles from secure storage, would create significant conflicting traffic movements within the Tahoe Keys community. The Project does not include any Evacuation Traffic Management Plan, signage plan, or coordination agreement with the El Dorado County Sheriff's Office or CHP to address this scenario. The IS/MND 1509
28 of 79
does not model or even acknowledge the peninsula geometry bottleneck as a project-specific safety concern.
3. Fire Flow and Emergency Access During Construction
The Project proposes construction of an approximately 65,000-square-foot water and fire flow storage tank — described as a project benefit in terms of on-site fire protection. However, the IS/MND does not analyze the construction timeline for this facility or address the period between demolition of existing fire infrastructure and commissioning of the new storage tank during which on-site fire protection may be diminished. Major construction projects in VHFHSZ areas are themselves sources of ignition risk — construction equipment, cutting and welding operations, and temporary electrical infrastructure all represent ignition hazards. The gap between demolition and the operational commissioning of the new fire storage tank must be analyzed and addressed with specific interim fire protection measures.
Additionally, the IS/MND does not address whether the construction staging area for a project of this magnitude — demolishing three buildings and constructing approximately 200,000 square feet of new building space — will obstruct emergency vehicle access to the marina during construction. Emergency access must be maintained at all times during construction, and the IS/MND's failure to address this issue in a VHFHSZ context is a significant gap in the safety analysis.
4. Indoor Boat Storage Fire Risk in a VHFHSZ
The proposed 52,600-square-foot enclosed indoor boat storage facility presents a distinct wildfirerelated hazard scenario that the IS/MND does not analyze. The Indoor boat storage facilities house dozens to potentially more than a hundred vessels, each of which may contain fiberglass and composite hull materials, marine fuel (gasoline and diesel), oil, lubricants, solvents, and marine electronics. The fuel loads in such a facility are extraordinary. A fire in an enclosed boat storage building would generate intense heat, toxic smoke from burning fiberglass and fuel, and potentially explosive conditions if fuel tanks rupture.
Sited within a VHFHSZ, in a peninsula community with constrained evacuation access, the structural fire risk of the boat storage facility is a significant environmental concern under CEQA. 1510
29 of 79
The IS/MND does not address: (a) the building's fire-resistance construction standards relative to the VHFHSZ designation; (b) the fire suppression system design and water supply adequacy; (c) the implications for emergency response times given the constrained access network; (d) the potential for a fire in the boat storage facility to spread to adjacent structures, the lagoon margins, or the restored Upper Truckee Marsh; or (e) the toxic air quality implications of a large-scale composite materials fire in the Tahoe Basin, a region that already faces PM2.5 nonattainment issues during wildfire events.
5. Failure to Incorporate Forward-Looking Climate Projections CEQA requires that environmental documents consider not only current conditions but foreseeable future conditions, including the effects of climate change on the significance of project impacts. The IS/MND fails to incorporate any forward-looking climate projections for the Sierra Nevada as they relate to wildfire risk, despite the readily available Cal-Adapt datasets and CNRA planning documents that quantify projected increases in wildfire probability, fire weather frequency, and fire season duration through 2050 and 2100. As climate change increases average summer temperatures, reduces snowpack (which currently provides natural firebreak and humidity retention functions), and extends fire weather conditions, the evacuation risk scenarios modeled in the PyroAnalysis/Ladris analysis will become more frequent, not less. A CEQA document that treats wildfire risk as a static, current-condition factor without accounting for the trajectory of climate change is analytically incomplete and legally inadequate.
E . EIR Required for Wildfire and Public Safety Impacts The substantial evidence supporting a fair argument of significant wildfire and public safety impacts is overwhelming and well-documented. The PyroAnalysis/Ladris Evacuation Analysis, the 2024 Regional Evacuation Plan, the 2025 Tahoe Basin CWPP, and the Project's own site characteristics — including its location at the end of a dead-end street on an evacuationconstrained peninsula, its proposed addition of hundreds of daily visitors, and its inclusion of a high-fuel-load enclosed boat storage facility — all constitute substantial evidence from which a reasonable person could conclude that the Project may have significant effects on public safety, emergency response, and the welfare of people in the environment. These impacts fall squarely within CEQA Appendix G checklist items addressing public safety and hazards (Item J) and 1511
30 of 79
population and housing (Item XIII), as well as the general catch-all provision requiring analysis of any effect that "may cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly." An EIR is required to address these impacts comprehensively.
IV. HYDROLOGY, WATER QUALITY, AND STORMWATER: INADEQUATE ANALYSIS A. Setting: The Tahoe Keys Lagoon and the Upper Truckee River System To understand the hydrological significance of the Project, it is essential to understand the ecological history of the site and its surroundings. The Tahoe Keys was developed between the late 1950s and early 1960s on what was, prior to development, the largest freshwater wetland complex in the Sierra Nevada — the Upper Truckee River delta, a broad, shallow marsh system where the Upper Truckee River, Trout Creek, and several smaller tributaries converged before flowing into the southern arm of Lake Tahoe. The development of the Tahoe Keys involved largescale dredging and filling of this wetland system, creating the network of residential canals and lagoons that now define the community. This transformation permanently altered the hydrology of the Upper Truckee River delta, concentrating what had been a diffuse, wetland-filtered flow into a system of channelized canals and open lagoons that discharge directly into Lake Tahoe.
The resulting three interconnected Tahoe Keys Lagoons, encompassing approximately 170 acres, are now hydrologically connected to Lake Tahoe, the Upper Truckee River, and Trout Creek in ways that are ecologically and regulatory complex. The lagoons receive stormwater runoff from the 1,500-home Tahoe Keys community, receive tidal-like circulation from Lake Tahoe through the marina entrance channels, and are subject to the same TRPA Total Maximum Daily Load ("TMDL") requirements that apply to all tributary inputs to Lake Tahoe. The TMDL — developed to address Lake Tahoe's famous and ecologically critical water clarity — establishes numeric limits on fine sediment, nutrients (particularly nitrogen and phosphorus), and turbidity that must be achieved through a combination of load reductions from all tributary sources.
Adjacent to the Project site, the California Tahoe Conservancy completed in October 2022 a landmark $11.9 million restoration of the Upper Truckee Marsh — the most significant ecological restoration project in the Tahoe Basin in decades. This project restored over 250 acres of floodplain, returning river flows to historical channels, converting artificial water features to 1512
31 of 79
functioning wetlands, and establishing 12 or more acres of restored wetland immediately adjacent to the Tahoe Keys Marina property. This investment represents an extraordinary commitment of public resources to the restoration of the ecological function that the original Tahoe Keys development destroyed, and it creates a directly adjacent sensitive resource that must be protected from construction disturbance and operational impacts of the Project.
The Tahoe Keys Green Infrastructure Planning effort, initiated in August 2023, has further acknowledged the hydrological complexity of the site by noting that the Tahoe Keys community sits on a former wetland with a high, fluctuating water table that fundamentally limits the applicability of conventional stormwater BMP infiltration strategies in this subarea. This documented constraint which is a constraint specific to this site and directly relevant to the Project's claimed stormwater management benefits — appears nowhere in the IS/MND's analysis.
B. Bulkhead Replacement: Unanalyzed Hydrological and Ecological Impacts One of the most significant physical interventions proposed by the Project is the replacement of the existing bulkhead bordering the Tahoe Keys Lagoon. Bulkheads in the Tahoe Keys lagoon system are critical structural interfaces between the upland marina property and the AIS-infested lagoon water. They are also habitats for a variety of aquatic invertebrates, periphyton, and other organisms that exploit the hard substrate environment. Bulkhead replacement is not a routine maintenance activity — it is a major structural and ecological intervention that involves physical disruption of the lagoon margin, removal and reinstallation of sheet pile or equivalent structural elements, and the generation of significant turbidity plumes in the lagoon water column.
The IS/MND is remarkably silent on the specifics of the bulkhead replacement. It does not disclose the total linear footage of bulkhead to be replaced, which is the most basic parameter necessary for evaluating the scale and duration of construction impacts. It does not disclose the construction methodology — whether work will be conducted from the upland side using conventional equipment, from floating barges on the lagoon, or using some hybrid approach — each of which carries very different implications for lagoon disturbance. It does not include any turbidity plume modeling for the lagoon or Lake Tahoe to assess the duration and spatial extent of elevated turbidity during construction. And critically, it does not address the timing of bulkhead 1513
32 of 79
replacement relative to the sensitive life stages of fish and other aquatic organisms that occupy the lagoon, or relative to the ongoing AIS Control Methods Test ("CMT") treatment schedule.
Turbidity in the Tahoe Keys Lagoon during bulkhead construction is not merely an aesthetic concern. Elevated turbidity reduces light penetration, which is the principal mechanism by which TRPA's aquatic invasive species control efforts — specifically the use of aquatic herbicides and ultraviolet light treatment — achieve efficacy. Construction-generated turbidity during an active treatment period could directly undermine the CMT program, which has taken years and substantial public resources to establish. The IS/MND does not acknowledge this interaction, let alone analyze it.
Furthermore, bulkhead replacement in an AIS-infested lagoon creates a specific and serious risk of AIS propagule mobilization. The lagoon substrate and the lagoon margin in the vicinity of the existing bulkhead are colonized by aquatic invasive plants — particularly Eurasian watermilfoil and curlyleaf pondweed — whose stem fragments, turions, and seeds are viable propagules capable of establishing new infestations when mobilized and distributed by water currents.
Physical disturbance of the bulkhead and lagoon margin during construction could fragment and disperse AIS material throughout the lagoon and, potentially, into Lake Tahoe through the marina entrance channels. The IS/MND does not address this risk in any analytical depth.
C. Stormwater BMP Adequacy
The IS/MND presents the Project's site-wide stormwater BMP infrastructure as a significant benefit — a positive environmental outcome of the redevelopment that will improve upon the current stormwater management conditions at the marina. While it is true that the current marina site likely generates significant stormwater runoff with elevated pollutant loads, the IS/MND's characterization of the proposed BMPs as adequate mitigation for stormwater impacts is legally and technically insufficient for several reasons.
First, the IS/MND does not disclose the specific BMP types, sizing calculations, or hydraulic design standards that will be employed. References to "site-wide stormwater BMP infrastructure" without specification of whether the BMPs are bioretention systems, media filters, vegetated swales, mechanical separators, or some combination thereof do not provide sufficient information for the 1514
33 of 79
public, for resource agencies, or for TRPA's technical reviewers to evaluate whether the proposed BMPs are adequate to achieve the TMDL load reduction standards applicable to the site. This level of vagueness would be inadequate in any CEQA document; it is particularly problematic in an IS/MND, where the adequacy of mitigation is the dispositive legal question.
Second, and critically, the IS/MND does not acknowledge or address the documented constraint identified by the Tahoe Keys Green Infrastructure Planning effort — specifically, that conventional infiltration-based BMPs are not effective in the Tahoe Keys subarea due to the high and fluctuating water table that characterizes the former wetland site. This constraint means that the most common and most effective stormwater BMPs for pollutant removal — bioretention cells, infiltration basins, permeable pavement — may not function as designed in this location. The IS/MND cannot rely on "site-wide stormwater BMPs" as adequate mitigation without first acknowledging and addressing this site-specific constraint.
Third, the IS/MND does not model the Project's drainage to the lagoon under the full range of design storm events — specifically the 10-year, 25-year, and 100-year return period storms — that are relevant to assessing BMP performance and pollutant loading under extreme conditions. The Tahoe Basin experiences episodic heavy precipitation events, particularly in late fall and early spring, during which stormwater management systems are most taxed. The IS/MND does not demonstrate that the proposed BMPs will adequately protect the lagoon and Lake Tahoe under these conditions.
Finally, the IS/MND does not address the post-construction establishment period — typically one to three growing seasons — during which vegetated BMPs are not yet fully functional. During this period, pollutant removal efficiency is substantially lower than design efficiency, and the newly disturbed site may generate elevated sediment and nutrient loads from construction areas. This transitional period must be analyzed and addressed with specific interim protection measures.
D. Groundwater and Construction Dewatering
The Project involves demolition of existing structures and construction of new buildings, underground utilities, and infrastructure on a site that is, as noted above, underlain by former wetland soils with a documented high and fluctuating water table. On a 16.5-acre site of this 1515
34 of 79
character, any significant foundation construction, underground utility installation, or below-grade excavation will almost certainly encounter groundwater at shallow depths, requiring construction dewatering — the pumping and discharge of groundwater to maintain a dry working environment during excavation and concrete placement operations.
Construction dewatering on a site of this nature can generate substantial volumes of discharge water that is typically turbid, may carry elevated concentrations of nutrients and metals from the disturbed soil, and may contain AIS propagules if drawn from the shallow lagoon-influenced groundwater table. The Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board ("Lahontan RWQCB") regulates construction dewatering discharges under the State's NPDES Construction General Permit and may require individual discharge authorization depending on volume and receiving water characteristics. The IS/MND does not acknowledge the likelihood of construction dewatering, does not estimate the volume or duration of dewatering that would be required, does not identify discharge locations, and does not disclose the applicable Lahontan RWQCB requirements or the treatment measures that would be employed prior to discharge. This is a significant omission in the hydrological analysis.
E. Cumulative Hydrological Effects
The IS/MND's analysis of cumulative hydrological impacts is equally deficient. Two specific cumulative interactions deserve particular attention.
First, the Upper Truckee Marsh Restoration, completed in 2022 at a cost of $11.9 million in public funds, has restored a complex and ecologically sensitive wetland system immediately adjacent to the Project site. The restoration has re-wetted portions of the floodplain, established new vegetation communities, and created newly functioning hydrological pathways that are still in an early ecological establishment phase. Major construction activity on the adjacent marina property — involving ground disturbance, bulkhead replacement, drainage alteration, and potentially years of heavy equipment operation — creates real risks of sediment, turbidity, and pollutant loading into the restored marsh that could impair the restoration's ecological outcomes and potentially jeopardize the public investment. The IS/MND does not analyze this interaction in any meaningful way.
1516
35 of 79
Second, the Tahoe Keys AIS Control Methods Test — an ongoing, multi-agency environmental program involving the treatment of the Tahoe Keys Lagoons with aquatic herbicides and physical control methods — represents a distinct and ongoing project whose hydrological interactions with major lagoon-margin construction have never been analyzed. The cumulative interaction between CMT treatment activities (which depend on particular water circulation patterns, turbidity levels, and chemical residence times) and major construction in the lagoon margin is a specific, quantifiable hydrological concern that demands disclosure and analysis in a CEQA document of adequate scope.
F. Responsible Agency Comments Demonstrate Continuing Uncertainty Comments submitted by responsible agencies themselves demonstrate that critical components of project implementation remain unresolved. These include future dredging compatibility, aquatic invasive species management planning, snow storage design capacity, waste discharge prohibitions, marina permit modifications, and water quality certifications. Where substantial uncertainty remains regarding the environmental consequences of project implementation, reliance upon an IS/MND rather than a full EIR becomes increasingly difficult to justify.
G. Conclusion
The IS/MND's hydrology and water quality analysis fails to satisfy CEQA's requirement for a "good faith effort at full disclosure" of project impacts.14 The omissions identified above — failure to disclose bulkhead construction methodology, failure to address the high-water-table BMP constraint, failure to analyze construction dewatering, and failure to assess cumulative impacts on the restored marsh and the CMT program — individually and collectively constitute substantial evidence supporting a fair argument of significant effects under CEQA Appendix G, Items IX (Hydrology and Water Quality) and XIV (Mandatory Findings of Significance). An EIR is required.
V. AQUATIC INVASIVE SPECIES: A THREAT TO LAKE TAHOE OF STATEWIDE SIGNIFICANCE H. The AIS Crisis in the Tahoe Keys Lagoon
The Tahoe Keys Lagoon harbors the largest and most entrenched aquatic invasive species infestation in Lake Tahoe. This infestation, which has been developing for decades since the 1517
36 of 79
inadvertent introduction of non-native aquatic plants during and after the development of the Tahoe Keys community, now encompasses several target invasive species across large portions of the 170-acre lagoon system. The primary target species include curlyleaf pondweed (Potamogeton crispus), Eurasian watermilfoil (Myriophyllum spicatum), and coontail (Ceratophyllum demersum) — each of which is highly productive, capable of dense monoculture formation, and resistant to control without aggressive and sustained management intervention.
The significance of the Tahoe Keys AIS infestation extends far beyond the lagoon itself. As TRPA's AIS Program Manager, Dennis Zabaglo, explained in a presentation to the TRPA Governing Board on July 23, 2025, "success in the Keys dictates success in the lake." This formulation captures a fundamental ecological reality: the Tahoe Keys Lagoons, which are hydraulically connected to Lake Tahoe through the marina entrance channels, serve as both a reservoir and a launching point for AIS spread into the open lake. Every boat that enters or exits the marina, every current event that moves water between the lagoon and the lake, represents a potential vector for the transport of AIS propagules from the lagoon into Lake Tahoe's previously uninfested waters. If the lagoon infestation is not controlled, control of AIS in Lake Tahoe itself becomes effectively impossible.
AIS in the Tahoe Keys Lagoon threatens the Tahoe Region's recreation-based economy, estimated at approximately $5 billion annually, by degrading water quality, impeding navigation, and reducing the aesthetic and recreational value of the lagoon and, if spread succeeds, of Lake Tahoe itself. They also directly threaten the ecological integrity of the lake, altering the underwater light environment, reducing oxygen levels, displacing native aquatic vegetation, and potentially affecting native fish populations — impacts that implicate TRPA's legally binding threshold standards for water quality, ecological preservation, and recreation.
The AIS Control Methods Test ("CMT") — a landmark multi-year, science-based environmental program using aquatic herbicides and physical control methods, developed through years of planning, extensive environmental review, and approval by multiple regulatory bodies with nearunanimous support — is now underway in the Tahoe Keys Lagoons. The CMT represents one of the most significant and consequential environmental programs in the Tahoe Basin, and its success or failure will determine whether Lake Tahoe's open waters can be protected from the AIS 1518
37 of 79
infestation that has overwhelmed the lagoon system. This Project, as proposed, threatens the CMT program in ways that the IS/MND does not acknowledge.
I. Project-Specific AIS Risks
1. Construction Disturbance and AIS Propagule Mobilization Demolition of existing structures, replacement of the bulkhead, relocation of the boat launch and gantry crane, and foundation and utility construction in and immediately adjacent to the AISinfested lagoon will create extensive physical disturbance of the lagoon bottom, the lagoon margin, and the water column in the lagoon vicinity. Each of these activities poses a specific and serious risk of fragmenting, dislodging, and dispersing AIS propagules — including stem fragments of Eurasian watermilfoil, which is capable of establishing new infestations from fragments as small as a single node; turions and seeds of curlyleaf pondweed; and plant fragments and seeds of coontail.
Eurasian watermilfoil is particularly notorious for its ability to spread through fragmentation — a characteristic that makes any physical disturbance in an infested area an AIS spread risk event of potentially serious consequence. Mechanical disturbance of watermilfoil beds during bulkhead construction or boat launch relocation could generate thousands of viable fragments in a single work session. These fragments, once mobilized into the lagoon water column, may be transported by lagoon currents through the marina entrance channels and into Lake Tahoe, or may re-settle in previously untreated areas of the lagoon, undermining the CMT program's carefully sequenced treatment plan.
The IS/MND does not include any analysis of the specific AIS species assemblage in the vicinity of the proposed construction areas. It does not include an AIS baseline survey that would identify the location and density of target invasive species immediately adjacent to the bulkhead replacement zone, the boat launch relocation site, or the foundation excavation areas. Without this baseline, there is no basis for evaluating the magnitude of AIS disturbance risk, and no rational basis for designing adequate mitigation measures.
1519
38 of 79
2. Additional Boat Slips as AIS Vectors
The formal approval of sixty-six (66) additional boat slips, increasing the total recognized marina capacity from 239 to 305 slips, represents a substantial increase in the AIS vector population using the marina. Each boat that uses the marina — particularly boats that have been launched from other water bodies or that travel between water bodies — is a potential carrier of AIS hitchhiking on hull surfaces, propellers, bilge water, live wells, and bilge pumps. The addition of 66 slips means that the marina will attract a larger number of boats from a wider geographic area, increasing the probability of AIS introduction from external sources into the lagoon, and increasing the number of boats that may carry AIS from the lagoon to other water bodies.
TRPA's mandatory decontamination program provides some protection against this risk, but the IS/MND does not disclose whether the 66 new slip approvals are conditioned on specific, enforceable AIS boat inspection, decontamination, and quarantine protocols at the marina, nor does it identify what enforcement mechanisms would ensure compliance. Reference to TRPA's existing program does not constitute an adequate mitigation commitment — TRPA's program is a general Basin-wide requirement; what is needed for a marina of this scale is a site-specific, binding, and enforceable AIS management plan that addresses the particular risk profile of a 305-slip facility in an AIS-infested lagoon.
3. Boat Launch Relocation and Spatial AIS Risk Redistribution The relocation of the existing boat launch and gantry crane changes the spatial configuration of AIS introduction and spread risk within the lagoon. The current boat launch site has presumably been the subject of whatever AIS inspection protocols are currently in effect. Moving the launch site to a new location within the marina changes the point of entry for externally sourced AIS, potentially placing it in closer proximity to untreated areas of the lagoon or to the CMT treatment zones. The IS/MND does not analyze how the relocated launch site interacts with the CMT treatment zone boundaries, whether the new launch location poses greater or lesser AIS spread risk to the lagoon, or what AIS inspection and decontamination infrastructure will be co-located with the new launch facility.
1520
39 of 79
4. Indoor Water Tanks and Water Source Disclosure
The Project includes indoor water storage tanks within the approximately 65,000-square-foot water and fire flow storage facility. The source of water for these tanks — whether drawn from public utility supply or from the lagoon — and the discharge pathway of water used for fire flow or other purposes must be disclosed and analyzed for AIS risk. If water is drawn from the lagoon (whether intentionally or inadvertently during fire suppression activities), it may carry AIS propagules and must not be discharged to uninfested water bodies or areas without treatment. If water is drawn from public supply, the discharge of used water to the lagoon during fire suppression or system testing raises different but equally important questions about AIS transport. The IS/MND is entirely silent on this issue.
5. Absence of Construction-Period AIS Monitoring Plan
Effective AIS risk management during construction requires a monitoring framework that can detect elevated AIS disturbance and trigger protective responses before propagule dispersal becomes widespread. The IS/MND does not include any AIS monitoring plan for the construction period — no surveillance protocols for the lagoon margin adjacent to construction activities, no turbidity-based trigger thresholds that would indicate excessive lagoon disturbance, and no defined criteria for halting construction if AIS fragmentation risk reaches an unacceptable level.
This absence of a monitoring framework means that the proposed Project would proceed with no systematic mechanism for detecting or responding to AIS disturbance events during what may be years of construction activity in and adjacent to the most AIS-infested lagoon in the Tahoe Basin.
J. Golden Mussel Risk
TRPA's July 2025 AIS program update specifically highlighted the emerging threat of the golden mussel (Limnoperna fortunei) — an invasive bivalve native to China that has spread throughout South America and parts of Europe, and which has the potential to be one of the most ecologically destructive AIS introductions to Lake Tahoe's freshwater ecosystem if it arrives in the Basin.
Golden mussels spread through the transport of infested water and hull-fouling on recreational watercraft, and they are capable of establishing dense populations that clog water intake infrastructure, displace native invertebrate communities, and alter the fundamental trophic 1521
40 of 79
structure of freshwater ecosystems. The marina, with its 305 recognized slips and relocated boat launch, represents a high-risk pathway for golden mussel introduction. The IS/MND is entirely silent on the golden mussel risk, despite TRPA's own July 2025 identification of this threat as a current and pressing concern in the Tahoe Basin context.
K. Interaction with the Ongoing CMT Program
The AIS Control Methods Test is not merely a background regulatory program — it is an active, ongoing, multi-phase scientific program whose operational integrity depends on maintaining specific conditions in the Tahoe Keys Lagoons, including water clarity for UV treatment efficacy, controlled herbicide distribution and residence time, and unimpeded access for surveillance monitoring transects. Major construction activity in the lagoon margin threatens the CMT program in at least three specific, concrete ways.
First, construction-generated turbidity will reduce the efficacy of UV-based treatment methods, which depend on light penetration into the water column to achieve lethal doses to target AIS plants. A turbidity spike during an active UV treatment event could substantially reduce treatment effectiveness and waste the significant cost and effort invested in the treatment. Second, turbidity plumes generated by construction may mask the eDNA monitoring and visual surveillance methods used by CMT researchers to track AIS distribution and evaluate treatment outcomes, confounding the program's scientific data and potentially leading to incorrect conclusions about treatment efficacy. Third, if construction activity disturbs AIS beds that CMT treatments have successfully reduced in density, re-mobilization of AIS material from disturbed areas may recolonize treated zones and undo prior treatment results.
Despite the obvious logical necessity of analyzing how major marina construction activity will interact with the ongoing CMT program, the IS/MND contains no such analysis. It does not identify CMT treatment zones or schedules, does not propose any construction timing coordination with CMT program management, and does not acknowledge any potential for construction to interfere with CMT operations or outcomes. This is a fundamental analytical failure that must be corrected in a full EIR.
1522
41 of 79
L. Conclusion
AIS impacts constitute significant environmental effects under CEQA Appendix G, Items IV (Biological Resources) and IX (Hydrology and Water Quality). The IS/MND's treatment of AIS as a manageable issue addressed by general references to TRPA's existing decontamination program is legally and technically insufficient. A full EIR must include a comprehensive AIS impact analysis prepared by qualified aquatic ecologists, with site-specific baseline surveys, quantitative propagule dispersal risk assessment, detailed construction-period AIS management protocols, and binding, performance-based mitigation measures subject to independent third-party verification.
VI. TRPA COMPLIANCE AND THRESHOLD STANDARDS
A. TRPA Regulatory Framework
The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency is a bistate compact agency established under the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact, as ratified by Congress (Pub. L. 91-148, as amended by Pub. L. 96- 551), with authority shared between the States of California and Nevada. TRPA's unique legal status gives it authority to adopt and enforce environmental threshold standards — numeric and qualitative benchmarks for environmental quality — that are legally binding upon all development in the Lake Tahoe Basin, including projects within California portions of the Basin subject to CEQA review.
TRPA's Regional Plan and Code of Ordinances establish threshold standards across a comprehensive array of environmental categories, including water quality, soil conservation, air quality, wildlife habitat, scenic resources, recreation, and noise. These threshold standards are not mere policy goals — they represent the minimum conditions for environmental quality that TRPA has determined must be maintained to protect Lake Tahoe's ecological integrity and the public trust values associated with the lake. Because the Project requires TRPA approval, consistency with applicable TRPA Environmental Threshold Carrying Capacities, Regional Plan policies, and Code of Ordinances provisions is relevant to environmental review and project approval.15 As noted above, the Project requires TRPA review under File No. ERSP2025-0602. The March 18, 2026 briefing before the TRPA Regional Plan Committee was purely informational — it did not 1523
42 of 79
constitute a finding of threshold compliance, an approval of the Project, or a determination that the Project is consistent with the TRPA Regional Plan. Formal TRPA approval remains pending.
Despite this, the IS/MND appears to treat the informational briefing as adequate evidence of TRPA regulatory compliance, which is legally insufficient.
B. Piecemealing with TRPA Actions
As discussed in Section II.C above, CEQA's prohibition on piecemealing requires the city to analyze the full scope of connected actions in a single environmental document. The TRPA Settlement Agreement of November 20, 2024, which is the legal predicate for the formal recognition of 66 additional boat slips, and the required amendments to TRPA Code of Ordinances Chapters 37 and 90, are not separable from the physical redevelopment project proposed by TKSMI. They are part of the same integrated regulatory and development transaction, and they carry their own significant environmental implications — most directly the increase in marina capacity and the change in regulatory framework for marinas and boat use throughout the Basin under Chapter 37.
The Chapter 37 and 90 amendments are particularly significant from a piecemealing perspective because they are not site-specific regulatory changes — they are Basin-wide amendments to the TRPA Code of Ordinances that will affect how marinas and marina-adjacent uses are regulated across the entire Tahoe Region. The environmental implications of such code changes — which could, depending on their content, facilitate additional marina development, alter boat use restrictions, or modify land use designations in sensitive areas — are entirely unanalyzed in the IS/MND. A Program EIR encompassing both the site-specific physical project and the broader regulatory changes is likely the legally appropriate vehicle for comprehensive review.16 C. Coverage and Impervious Surface Thresholds
TRPA's coverage standards are one of the most fundamental tools for protecting Lake Tahoe's famous water clarity. Because impervious surfaces prevent the natural infiltration of precipitation, they increase stormwater runoff volume, velocity, and pollutant loads — all of which ultimately contribute to the fine sediment and nutrient inputs that cloud Lake Tahoe's deep, clear waters.
TRPA's Regional Plan and Code establish maximum impervious surface coverage percentages for 1524
43 of 79
each land use designation and each coverage allocation area, and development projects must demonstrate that they do not exceed applicable coverage thresholds.
The Project involves construction of approximately 200,000 total square feet of new building space — calculated as the sum of the indoor boat storage facility (52,600 sq ft), restaurant/retail/office buildings (60,000 sq ft), marina support building (23,250 sq ft), and water/fire storage facility (65,000 sq ft) — plus new parking areas, the public promenade, utility infrastructure, and other site improvements. The net change in impervious surface coverage on the
16.5-acre site resulting from the simultaneous demolition of existing structures and construction of new structures at this scale is a critical parameter for evaluating TRPA threshold compliance.
The IS/MND does not disclose this figure.
The Project site is located within TRPA Plan Area Statement No. 1 — the Tahoe Keys Special Area — where coverage allocations are strictly limited given the ecological sensitivity of the lagoonadjacent former wetland soils. Without disclosure of the project's net coverage change and a clear demonstration of compliance with the applicable TRPA coverage thresholds for this plan area, the IS/MND's assertion of TRPA regulatory consistency is an unsupported conclusion, not an analytical finding.
D. Land Capability District Compliance
TRPA's Land Capability District ("LCD") system assigns every parcel in the Lake Tahoe Basin to one of seven sensitivity categories, ranging from LCD 1a (the most sensitive, typically riparian, and wet meadow areas) to LCD 7 (the least sensitive, typically upland areas with deep soils and low slope).
The LCD classification determines, among other things, the maximum permissible impervious surface coverage and the specific construction standards that apply to development. LCD 1a and 1b lands — the most sensitive categories — are typically not available for coverage, and any existing coverage in these categories may be required to be deducted from the project's overall coverage calculation.
The Tahoe Keys Marina site, occupying former wetland soils immediately adjacent to the AISinfested lagoon, is likely to include substantial acreage in the most sensitive LCD categories. The specific LCD mapping of the 16.5-acre project site is therefore a critical parameter for evaluating 1525
44 of 79
the Project's TRPA compliance. The IS/MND does not disclose the LCD mapping of the site, does not identify what proportion of the project area falls within sensitive LCD categories, and does not analyze compliance with LCD-specific coverage limits. This omission must be rectified in a full EIR.
E. Scenic Quality and Height Standards
TRPA imposes scenic quality thresholds and specific building height limitations as part of its threshold standards framework. Lake Tahoe's scenic quality — including the panoramic views of the surrounding Sierra Nevada from on-water perspectives — is one of the Basin's most valued and most legally protected environmental resources. Four new two-story commercial buildings totaling approximately 60,000 square feet, a separate two-story marina support building, and a large, enclosed boat storage facility of undisclosed height represent a substantial increase in built mass on the marina site, visible from both the lake and from the surrounding community.
The IS/MND does not include a visual impact analysis assessing the Project's effect on scenic quality from on-water perspectives across Lake Tahoe, from the shoreline of the Upper Truckee Marsh restoration area, from public viewpoints along the lake, or from the surrounding Tahoe Keys residential community. The height of the indoor boat storage facility — a critical parameter for visual impact assessment given that boat storage facilities are typically tall, large-footprint structures — is not disclosed in the IS/MND. Without this information, neither TRPA reviewers nor the public can evaluate the Project's consistency with TRPA's scenic quality threshold standards.
F. TRPA Environmental Threshold Carrying Capacities — Comprehensive Disclosure Required
CEQA requires the lead agency to analyze the Project's consistency with all applicable plans, programs, and regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects.17 In the context of a project within the Lake Tahoe Basin, this requirement encompasses a comprehensive analysis of consistency with all of TRPA's more than twenty-five threshold standards across the full range of environmental categories. The IS/MND's "land use and planning" section cannot satisfy this requirement by reference to the informational briefing before the TRPA Regional Plan Committee — an informational briefing carries no regulatory weight and constitutes 1526
45 of 79
no finding of threshold compliance. A legally adequate CEQA document for this Project must include a threshold-by-threshold compliance analysis, prepared in consultation with TRPA staff, that addresses each of the applicable environmental quality standards on their merits.
VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES AND SENSITIVE HABITATS
A. Upper Truckee Marsh Adjacency and Restoration Investment The proximity of the Project to the Upper Truckee Marsh Restoration creates a set of biological resource impacts that the IS/MND has not adequately addressed. The California Tahoe Conservancy's restoration, completed in October 2022, invested $11.9 million in public funds to restore over 250 acres of floodplain wetland — the single largest investment in ecological restoration in the Tahoe Basin's recent history. The restored marsh represents a functioning, highvalue habitat for migratory birds, native fish, sensitive wetland plant communities, and the broader suite of organisms that depend on healthy Sierra Nevada wetland ecosystems. Twelve or more acres of restored wetland lie immediately adjacent to the Tahoe Keys Marina project site.
The IS/MND does not analyze the full range of construction-period impacts on the adjacent restored marsh. These include, but are not limited to: ground-borne vibration from heavy demolition and construction equipment potentially affecting the restored marsh's soil structure and newly established plant communities; construction noise potentially disturbing nesting and foraging wildlife within and adjacent to the marsh during the breeding season; light trespass from extended construction hours or from temporary construction lighting potentially affecting nocturnal wildlife that depend on the marsh; stormwater runoff and turbidity from the construction site potentially entering the marsh through overland flow or subsurface pathways; and dust and particulate matter deposition on the marsh vegetation from demolition activities.
None of these construction-period pathways for impact are analyzed in the IS/MND.
Operational impacts on the adjacent marsh are similarly unanalyzed. The long-term increase in lighting from restaurant, retail, and marina operations; the increase in noise from a busy recreational and commercial destination; and the potential for stormwater runoff from the developed site to reach the marsh through surface or subsurface pathways are ongoing impacts 1527
46 of 79
that will persist for the Project's lifetime. The IS/MND does not include any assessment of operational impacts on the adjacent restored wetland ecosystem.
B. Special-Status Species
The Project site and its immediate surroundings, including the Tahoe Keys Lagoon and the adjacent Upper Truckee Marsh restoration area, lie within the documented range of multiple special-status wildlife and plant species. The lagoon and marsh system support migratory shorebirds and wading birds, including species that are sensitive to construction-period disturbance during nesting season. The lagoon supports Osprey (Pandion haliaetus) foraging and potentially nesting in the vicinity, a species that is sensitive to boat traffic and human disturbance at nest sites. The Upper Truckee River and Trout Creek, tributary to the lagoon and Lake Tahoe, support populations of native Lahontan cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarkii henshawi) — a species of special concern under California law — and other native fish species that may be affected by construction-generated turbidity and altered water flows.
The IS/MND must disclose the specific biological surveys that were conducted for special-status species, including the dates, methods, surveyors' qualifications, and protocol compliance with California Department of Fish and Wildlife ("CDFW") and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS") survey guidelines. Surveys conducted outside of appropriate seasonal windows for target species, or surveys using methodologies not consistent with agency-approved protocols, do not provide an adequate basis for finding that no significant impacts to special-status species will result from the Project. The IS/MND's biological resources analysis must be supplemented with the full survey data, species lists, and methodology documentation necessary to support the lead agency's impact findings.
C. Wetland Jurisdiction and Regulatory Permits
Bulkhead replacement and any construction activity within or immediately adjacent to the Tahoe Keys Lagoon likely triggers regulatory jurisdiction under Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act, administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States. Any Section 404 permit application triggers a corresponding Section 401 Water Quality Certification requirement administered by the Lahontan 1528
47 of 79
RWQCB, which evaluates whether the proposed activity will comply with applicable State water quality standards. Additionally, work within or adjacent to the lagoon and any adjacent riparian or wetland areas may require a Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW under Fish and Game Code section 1602.
The IS/MND must disclose the status of each of these regulatory approvals — whether preapplication consultation has been conducted with the Corps of Engineers, Lahontan RWQCB, and CDFW; whether any jurisdictional delineation of wetlands and waters of the United States has been completed; and what permit conditions or mitigation requirements these agencies are likely to impose. Reliance on unspecified future agency approvals as a basis for finding that wetland impacts will be adequately mitigated does not satisfy CEQA's pre-commitment requirement for MND adoption.
VIII. TRAFFIC, CIRCULATION, AND VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED
A. Project-Generated Traffic
The Project's proposed uses — multiple restaurants, retail stores, a boat sales showroom, a public waterside promenade, a large boat storage facility, and expanded marina slip capacity — represent a substantial transformation of the Tahoe Keys Marina from a primarily utilitarian marine service facility to a significant regional visitor destination. This transformation will generate substantial new vehicle trips to a location that currently draws relatively limited visitor traffic beyond marina slip holders and boat service customers. The IS/MND must disclose and quantify the Project's expected trip generation — including Average Daily Trips ("ADT"), peak-hour AM and PM trips, and seasonal peak volumes — using recognized industry methodologies such as the Institute of Transportation Engineers ("ITE") Trip Generation Manual or, where marina destination uses are not well-represented in standard databases, project-specific traffic studies.
The location of the Project at the terminus of Venice Drive, a dead-end street accessible from Tahoe Keys Boulevard, means that all Project-generated traffic must traverse Tahoe Keys Boulevard to reach the US-50 and SR-89 arterial network. The intersection of Tahoe Keys Boulevard with US-50 is already a congested intersection during summer peak periods. The IS/MND must analyze whether the Project's traffic generation will cause or worsen level of service deficiencies at this 1529
48 of 79
intersection and along the US-50/SR-89 corridor, and must propose specific, enforceable mitigation measures for any such impacts.
B. VMT Analysis Under SB 743
Effective for all CEQA projects since July 1, 2020, Senate Bill 743 fundamentally changed the methodology for analyzing transportation impacts under CEQA from a Level of Service ("LOS") metric focused on vehicle delay at intersections to a Vehicle Miles Traveled ("VMT") metric focused on the total distance driven by all vehicle trips generated by or attracted to the project. The VMT methodology better captures the cumulative environmental impacts of transportation — including greenhouse gas emissions, air quality effects, and pedestrian and bicycle safety — that LOS analysis obscures by focusing exclusively on motor vehicle throughput.
Under the VMT methodology, a retail and restaurant complex that functions as a regional destination — drawing visitors from throughout the Tahoe Basin and beyond — will generate substantial net new VMT, because visitors will drive longer distances to reach a destination establishment than they would for neighborhood-serving uses. The Project's location in the Tahoe Basin, a non-urban area with limited transit service, means that virtually all Project-generated trips will be automobile-dependent. The IS/MND must include a VMT analysis compliant with SB 743 requirements and must demonstrate either that the Project generates VMT below applicable significance thresholds, or must propose and commit to specific, enforceable VMT reduction measures adequate to reduce VMT to below-threshold levels.
C. Evacuation Route Conflict — The Intersection of Traffic and Safety The traffic analysis concerns described above are not merely operational inconveniences — they are directly connected to the wildfire evacuation risk discussed in Section III of this letter. US-50 and SR-89 serve simultaneously as the primary tourist transportation arteries for the South Lake Tahoe area and as the only viable mass evacuation corridors for the South Shore in the event of a major wildfire. Every new daily trip that the Project generates on these corridors represents an increment of reduced safety margin in a wildfire evacuation scenario — both because additional routine visitors are present in the evacuation zone and because traffic congestion from normal operations reduces the baseline throughput capacity available for emergency evacuation use. 1530
49 of 79
The issue presented is not merely whether roads currently function adequately, but whether the cumulative effect of increased occupancy, expanded visitor-serving commercial uses, workforce housing, marina intensification, and expanded public access infrastructure may alter emergency circulation demands during peak occupancy periods. The IS/MND provides limited analysis demonstrating that these demand changes would not create significant impacts during emergency conditions.
This connection between transportation planning and emergency preparedness constitutes a significant cumulative impact that is not addressed anywhere in the IS/MND. The City cannot analyze traffic and evacuation impacts in separate analytical silos; CEQA requires that the interrelationship between these two environmental topics be disclosed and analyzed as part of the Project's integrated impact assessment. The cumulative effect of this Project, combined with other visitor-serving developments on the South Shore, is to progressively narrow the margin of safety available for successful wildfire evacuation — an effect that demands recognition, quantification, and mitigation before the Project can lawfully proceed.
The transportation analysis improperly focuses on whether the Project physically modifies evacuation routes rather than whether it increases demand on those routes.
The proposed redevelopment substantially increases visitor-serving commercial activity, restaurant space, retail uses, marina activity, workforce housing occupancy, and public gathering opportunities. Each of these uses increases the number of persons who may require evacuation during a wildfire emergency.
The relevant CEQA question is not whether the Project changes the geometry of evacuation routes.
The relevant question is whether the Project increases evacuation demand on constrained transportation facilities.
The IS/MND contains no analysis quantifying:
• Additional persons requiring evacuation under peak summer conditions; • Additional vehicles generated during emergency evacuation; • Clearance times for Tahoe Keys Boulevard;
1531
50 of 79
• Clearance times for Venice Drive East;
• Impacts to the US-50 / SR-89 evacuation corridor;
• Cumulative evacuation impacts when combined with other South Shore development projects; • Evacuation performance under no-notice wildfire conditions.
Because the Project intensifies occupancy within a peninsula-like development area dependent upon a limited roadway network, the absence of evacuation throughput analysis leaves the lessthan-significant finding unsupported by substantial evidence.
IX. AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
A. Construction-Period Criteria Pollutant Emissions
The proposed demolition of three existing marina buildings and construction of approximately 200,000 square feet of new building space represents a large-scale construction project that will generate substantial criteria air pollutant emissions over what is expected to be a multi-year construction period. Construction emissions derive from multiple sources: demolition of existing structures generates fugitive dust (PM10 and PM2.5); earthwork and grading generate additional fugitive dust; diesel-powered heavy construction equipment — including excavators, cranes, concrete pumps, pile drivers, and haul trucks — generates emissions of NOx, PM, and hydrocarbons; and haul trips for demolition debris and construction materials generate road dust and vehicle exhaust emissions.
The Lake Tahoe Basin Air Basin is a federal nonattainment area for particulate matter (PM2.5), meaning that background concentrations of PM2.5 in the Basin already exceed federal healthbased standards during portions of the year, primarily due to wood smoke from residential fireplaces and wildfire smoke events. Construction-generated PM2.5 emissions in an alreadynonattainment air basin carry heightened significance because they contribute to a cumulative air quality burden that already poses public health risks to Basin residents and visitors. The IS/MND must disclose the construction equipment fleet by type and number, the anticipated hours of operation for each construction phase, the duration of each phase, and the daily and total emissions generated, compared against the applicable significance thresholds established by the El 1532
51 of 79
Dorado County Air Quality Management District for the Lake Tahoe Air Basin portion of its jurisdiction.
B. Operational Emissions and Marine Engine Impacts
The approval of 66 additional boat slips and the construction of expanded boat launch facilities will increase the number of motorized recreational watercraft using the marina, generating additional marine engine emissions. Two-stroke outboard marine engines — which are common on recreational watercraft — are particularly significant non-road emission sources, generating disproportionately high emissions of unburned hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide relative to their horsepower compared to four-stroke automobile engines. The operational air quality impact of increased marine engine use in the enclosed lagoon environment, where atmospheric dispersion may be limited during stable air conditions, is a legitimate environmental concern that the IS/MND does not quantify.
Restaurant operations, HVAC systems, and vehicular traffic associated with the new commercial uses will also generate operational air quality impacts. The IS/MND must include an operationalphase emissions inventory that accounts for all significant emission sources, compares emissions against applicable thresholds, and demonstrates that the Project will not cause or contribute to a violation of applicable air quality standards in the Lake Tahoe Air Basin.
C. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Climate Analysis
CEQA requires that environmental documents include an analysis of greenhouse gas ("GHG") emissions and a demonstration of consistency with applicable State and regional GHG reduction goals. California's commitment to GHG reduction — established through AB 32 (the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006), SB 32 (2016), and Executive Order S-3-05 — requires that CEQA documents evaluate the project's contribution to statewide GHG emissions and assess whether the project is consistent with the State's Scoping Plan and applicable GHG reduction targets.
The Project's demolition-and-rebuild approach — rather than renovation or adaptive reuse of existing structures — involves substantial embodied carbon impacts from two sources: first, the 1533
52 of 79
demolition and disposal of existing structures releases the embodied carbon stored in building materials and consumes energy for demolition, waste hauling, and disposal; second, the construction of approximately 200,000 square feet of new building space requires the manufacture, transport, and installation of new building materials, each of which carries a GHG footprint. Neither of these embodied carbon impacts is analyzed in the IS/MND. A project of this scale, in a region with a stated commitment to climate leadership, should include a full life-cycle carbon analysis that accounts for embodied carbon as well as operational emissions.
X. NOISE AND LIGHT IMPACTS
A. Construction Noise
The Project's demolition and multi-year construction phases will involve heavy equipment operating in close proximity to the Tahoe Keys residential community — a neighborhood of over 1,500 homes with direct lagoon frontage — and immediately adjacent to the restored Upper Truckee Marsh, a sensitive wildlife habitat during the critical spring and summer breeding and nesting season. Construction noise impacts on both residential receptors and sensitive wildlife receptors are foreseeable and significant, yet the IS/MND does not provide a noise level assessment for construction activities, does not compare anticipated noise levels against the City of South Lake Tahoe's noise ordinance thresholds, and does not propose specific noise attenuation measures beyond generic references to "compliance with applicable noise regulations." An adequate construction noise analysis would include noise level modeling at the nearest sensitive receptors — both residential and ecological — for the loudest anticipated construction activities (pile driving and demolition being among the highest-impact activities), would identify the hours of construction operation relative to applicable ordinance restrictions, and would specify enforceable mitigation measures for any receptor locations where predicted noise levels exceed significance thresholds. The IS/MND's failure to include this analysis is a significant gap that must be addressed in a full EIR.
1534
53 of 79
B. Operational Noise
The Project's proposed visitor-serving uses — multiple restaurants, retail establishments, a marine fueling facility, and the associated vehicular traffic on Venice Drive and Tahoe Keys Boulevard — will generate ongoing operational noise that differs materially in character, frequency, and intensity from the current marina environment. Evening and weekend restaurant operations in particular can generate noise from outdoor seating, amplified music, patron activity, and refuse collection that conflicts with the quiet enjoyment of adjacent residential properties and with the ecological function of the adjacent restored marsh as a wildlife habitat during the evening and nighttime hours.
The IS/MND does not include an operational noise study. It does not model noise levels at sensitive receptors under anticipated operating conditions, does not evaluate the significance of operational noise relative to applicable thresholds, and does not propose specific mitigation measures — such as hours of operation restrictions, sound attenuation requirements for mechanical equipment, or prohibitions on outdoor amplified music — that would bring operational noise levels below significance thresholds. This analysis must be provided in a full EIR.
C. Artificial Light and Dark Sky Impacts
TRPA's threshold standards include limitations on artificial light as part of the Agency's broader commitment to protecting the visual and ecological quality of the Lake Tahoe environment. Light pollution — the introduction of artificial illumination into natural environments during nighttime hours — has documented adverse effects on wildlife, including disorientation of migratory birds, disruption of nocturnal predator-prey relationships, alteration of aquatic insect emergence patterns, and impairment of the stargazing opportunities that many Tahoe Basin visitors specifically seek. The Tahoe Keys Marina and Lagoon, currently characterized by relatively low commercial light levels compared to the urban core of South Lake Tahoe, would be substantially transformed by the introduction of commercial restaurant and retail lighting, parking lot lighting, promenade and dock lighting, and the operational lighting of a large boat storage facility. 1535
54 of 79
The IS/MND does not include a photometric analysis of project-generated light levels at property boundaries, at the lagoon surface, or at the adjacent Upper Truckee Marsh restoration area. It does not demonstrate compliance with TRPA's lighting standards, which are designed to limit light spill and sky glow in the Basin. A full EIR must include a comprehensive lighting impact analysis, including a photometric study and a demonstration of compliance with TRPA lighting standards, with binding mitigation measures — including fixture selection, mounting heights, shielding requirements, and operational hours — that are enforceable conditions of project approval.
XI. DEFICIENCIES IN MONITORING PLAN
The Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program ("MMRP") does not provide meaningful assurance that environmental impacts will actually be reduced below significance.
The MMRP primarily identifies responsible parties and reporting intervals but does not establish measurable performance thresholds, adaptive management triggers, independent verification procedures, or mandatory corrective actions if mitigation measures fail.
Examples include:
• No measurable turbidity thresholds are identified for in-water construction activities. • No work-stop triggers are established for AIS migration or fragmentation. • No monitoring protocol exists for post-construction stormwater infiltration performance. • No independent third-party auditing mechanism is required. • No corrective-action requirements are specified if mitigation measures fail to achieve intended results.
• No reporting mechanism is established requiring public disclosure of monitoring results. • No adaptive management framework is provided despite the project's location within one of the most environmentally sensitive portions of the Tahoe Basin.
An adequate monitoring program must do more than identify responsible parties; it must establish objective criteria by which success or failure can be determined. Without measurable performance standards, the MMRP provides no substantial evidence that mitigation measures will actually reduce impacts below significance.
1536
55 of 79
XII. ARCHELOGICAL SENSITIVITY
A. Archaeological Survey and Subsurface Testing Requirements The former wetland complex underlying the Tahoe Keys Marina site, given its extraordinary productivity as a food-gathering environment and its location adjacent to one of the principal freshwater sources and transportation corridors in the Tahoe Basin, has high archaeological sensitivity. Washoe peoples would have frequented this area for seasonal encampments, fishing, hunting, plant gathering, and other subsistence activities over thousands of years. Ground disturbance from new building foundations, underground utility installation, and the construction of the large underground water and fire storage facility — all proposed on a site that, while previously developed, was not subjected to systematic archaeological investigation using modern methods — creates real and material risk of encountering significant cultural resources, including Washoe archaeological deposits, during construction.
The IS/MND must disclose whether a Phase I archaeological survey has been conducted on the Project site, whether the survey included subsurface testing in appropriate areas, and whether the survey methodology was reviewed and approved by a qualified consulting archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior's Professional Qualifications Standards. If a Phase I survey has not been conducted, or if one was conducted but did not include subsurface testing commensurate with the site's archaeological sensitivity, the IS/MND's conclusions regarding the absence of significant archaeological resources are not supported by an adequate evidentiary foundation.
Additionally, the IS/MND should include an Unanticipated Discovery Plan — a specific, written protocol establishing the procedures to be followed in the event that archaeological or human remains are encountered during construction. Such a plan should require immediate work stoppage in the discovery area, notification to CDFW, the State Historic Preservation Officer, and the Washoe Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, and retention of a qualified archaeologist and Washoe Tribal monitor to evaluate the significance of any discovery. The Unanticipated Discovery Plan should be an enforceable condition of project approval rather than a voluntary commitment. 1537
56 of 79
XIII. CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
A. Framework for Cumulative Impact Analysis
CEQA requires that environmental documents analyze the cumulative impacts of a project — defined as the combined environmental effects of a project when viewed in connection with the effects of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects.18 Cumulative impact analysis is not merely a mechanical listing of other projects in the vicinity; it is a substantive analysis of whether the combination of this project with other development results in environmental impacts that are significant, even if each individual project's contribution might be below a threshold of significance when viewed in isolation. CEQA Guidelines section 15130 requires that a cumulative impact analysis be based on a list of past, present, and probable future projects, or on a reasonable projection of future development activity in the project area and must identify the significant cumulative impacts to which the project makes a cumulatively considerable contribution.
B. Relevant Projects for Cumulative Analysis
A legally adequate cumulative impact analysis for the Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project must consider, at minimum, the following past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects:
1. Tahoe Keys AIS Control Methods Test (CMT) — ongoing: An active, multi-year environmental management program involving chemical and physical treatments in the Tahoe Keys Lagoons. The cumulative interaction between the CMT and major marina construction activity, as described in Section V above, is a significant and unremarked cumulative impact.
2. Upper Truckee Marsh Restoration (completed 2022) and ongoing monitoring and maintenance: The $11.9 million ecological restoration of the adjacent marsh creates a permanently sensitive environmental receptor for cumulative construction and operational impacts from the Project.
1538
57 of 79
3. Tahoe Keys Marina Dock Replacement Project (NOE exemption, SCH No. 2025080079, August 2025): This separate dock replacement project, which received a Notice of Exemption in August 2025, constitutes a connected action whose cumulative lagoon disturbance impacts — in combination with the broader marina redevelopment — have not been analyzed.
4. Tahoe Keys Green Infrastructure Planning stormwater project (initiated August 2023): This community-wide stormwater management planning effort addresses the same hydrological systems affected by the Project and must be considered in the cumulative stormwater analysis.
5. Other TRPA-approved development projects in the South Lake Tahoe area: Any commercial, residential, or tourist-serving development projects that have been approved or are reasonably foreseeable in the South Lake Tahoe area during the Project's construction and operational period must be included in the cumulative traffic, air quality, and visitor load analysis.
6. South Lake Tahoe tourist-serving commercial development generally: The broader trend of visitor-serving commercial intensification in South Lake Tahoe — driven by the region's growing popularity as a year-round recreational destination — constitutes a cumulative context that amplifies the significance of this Project's contributions to traffic, evacuation risk, AIS spread, and water quality impacts.
C. Significant Cumulative Impacts Not Analyzed
The cumulative combination of the Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment with the projects identified above creates synergistic environmental impacts that exceed the sum of individual project contributions in at least three important respects.
First, the cumulative addition of visitor traffic to the South Lake Tahoe area — from the marina redevelopment, from other commercial development projects, and from the general growth trend in Tahoe Basin visitation — progressively reduces the safety margin available for wildfire evacuation through the constrained US-50/SR-89 corridor. This is not a hypothetical concern; it is 1539
58 of 79
a documented, modeled, quantifiable risk that the PyroAnalysis/Ladris simulations specifically addressed in the context of peak summer season population. The City's refusal to analyze this cumulative safety impact is a significant legal deficiency in the IS/MND.
Second, the cumulative effect of multiple sources of lagoon disturbance — the marina redevelopment construction, the dock replacement project, the CMT treatment activities, and ongoing stormwater management activities — creates a cumulative lagoon disturbance burden that may exceed the ecological threshold for AIS propagule mobilization and spread. Individual activities that might be manageable in isolation may collectively overwhelm the lagoon system's resilience, particularly during the active growth season for AIS target species.
Third, the cumulative combination of impervious surface area from the marina redevelopment, existing Tahoe Keys community development, and other South Shore development creates a cumulative stormwater runoff and pollutant loading that must be evaluated against the Lake Tahoe TMDL load allocation framework. The IS/MND's project-level stormwater analysis does not place the Project in this cumulative loading context and therefore does not demonstrate that the Project is consistent with the TMDL's cumulative load reduction goals.
D. Conclusion
The IS/MND's cumulative impact analysis is perfunctory — a brief listing of nearby projects without substantive analysis of cumulative environmental consequences. This falls well short of the legally adequate cumulative analysis required by CEQA Guidelines section 15130 and the substantial body of case law interpreting that provision. A full EIR must include a rigorous, quantitative cumulative impact analysis that addresses each of the cumulative impact pathways identified above.
XIV. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS: THE IS/MND FAILS TO CONSIDER REASONABLE ALTERNATIVES A. Requirement for Alternatives Analysis
CEQA's requirement for analysis of a reasonable range of alternatives to a proposed project is one of the most fundamental elements of the environmental review process. The requirement reflects the Legislature's recognition that the best way to minimize environmental harm is often not to mitigate a chosen project design, but to identify alternative designs or approaches that achieve the 1540
59 of 79
project's objectives while avoiding or substantially reducing significant environmental effects.
While alternatives analysis is formally required in an EIR rather than an IS/MND, the absence of any alternatives consideration in the IS/MND is further evidence of the City's failure to rigorously evaluate whether the Project, as designed, represents the environmentally superior approach to achieving the applicant's legitimate development objectives. In any event, the EIR that must be prepared for this Project will be required to include a thorough alternatives analysis under CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6.
B. Required Alternatives
1. The Rehabilitation Alternative
Rather than demolishing all three existing marina buildings and replacing them with new construction totaling approximately 200,000 square feet, a rehabilitation alternative would renovate and adaptively reuse existing structures to the maximum extent feasible, reducing the scale of new construction while still achieving the applicant's marina modernization objectives. A rehabilitation alternative would substantially reduce embodied carbon impacts by avoiding the demolition waste stream and the manufacture of new building materials; would reduce construction-period lagoon disturbance by limiting the extent of foundation excavation and utility installation adjacent to the lagoon; and would reduce the visual and physical scale of the development in a sensitive lagoon-adjacent setting. The IS/MND's failure to consider or even acknowledge this alternative is a significant analytical gap that must be addressed in the EIR.
2. The Reduced-Intensity Alternative
A reduced-intensity alternative would eliminate or substantially downsize the visitor-serving commercial uses — the restaurants, retail establishments, and event spaces totaling approximately 60,000 square feet — while retaining the marina's core boating support functions. This alternative would substantially reduce VMT generation, reduce peak visitor load and the associated contribution to wildfire evacuation risk, reduce operational noise and light impacts on adjacent residential areas and the restored marsh, and reduce construction-period disturbance. The IS/MND does not consider any alternative that tests whether a smaller commercial footprint could 1541
60 of 79
achieve the Project's stated objectives of marina sustainability while avoiding or substantially reducing the Project's most significant environmental impacts.
3. The Phased Development Alternative
A phased development alternative would stage construction activities over a longer timeline, avoiding concurrent disturbance of multiple lagoon-margin areas and allowing earlier phases to demonstrate environmental performance before later phases are authorized. A phased approach would allow the CMT program to complete a full treatment cycle before construction activities that might disrupt CMT operations begin; would allow the stormwater BMPs installed in Phase 1 to demonstrate effective performance before additional impervious surface is added in later phases; and would reduce the peak construction workforce and equipment count on-site at any given time, reducing noise, emissions, and traffic impacts. The IS/MND does not consider any phased development alternative.
4. The No-Project Alternative
CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6(e) requires that any EIR include analysis of a no-project alternative — an alternative that describes what would occur if the proposed project were not approved. The no-project analysis establishes the environmental baseline against which the project's impacts are measured and provides decision-makers with a clear understanding of the trade-offs between approval and non-approval. For a project of the scope and environmental sensitivity of the Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment, a rigorous no-project analysis would address the implications of continued operation of the existing marina under current conditions, including the baseline AIS, water quality, and stormwater conditions that would persist absent the Project.
The IS/MND does not include a no-project alternative analysis.
XV. MITIGATION MEASURES: LEGALLY DEFICIENT AND UNENFORCEABLE A. Vague and Deferred Mitigation
As discussed in Section II.B of this letter, a Mitigated Negative Declaration may lawfully be adopted only when all mitigation measures are fully specified and committed to before adoption, with sufficient particularity to allow independent evaluation of whether each measure will in fact 1542
61 of 79
reduce the identified significant effect to below a level of significance. CEQA does not allow an agency to adopt an MND by promising to figure out the details of mitigation later — the mitigation must be substantive, specific, and enforceable at the time of MND adoption.
The IS/MND for the Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project contains multiple mitigation measures that do not satisfy this standard. Measures that direct the applicant to "implement best management practices" without specifying what those practices are, to "coordinate with applicable agencies" without identifying specific coordination requirements or outcomes, or to "comply with applicable regulations" without identifying the specific regulatory requirements to be satisfied, are legally equivalent to no mitigation commitment at all.19 Decision-makers reviewing such measures have no basis for concluding that specific, significant environmental effects will be reduced to below significance — they can only conclude that the applicant is directed to try.
B. Missing Mitigation for Key Issue Areas
Beyond the vagueness problem, the IS/MND is missing mitigation measures entirely for several of the most significant environmental issue areas identified in this letter. There is no mitigation measure for the Project's contribution to wildfire evacuation load, despite the documented constraints of the South Shore evacuation corridor. There is no specific, binding AIS construction disturbance protocol — a document governing the specific procedures for AIS containment and monitoring during all in-water and lagoon-margin construction activities. There is no mitigation for marine lighting impacts on the lagoon and adjacent marsh, and no photometric compliance standard. There is no mitigation for the specific and newly emerging risk of golden mussel introduction. There is no mitigation establishing turbidity monitoring and work-stop triggers for bulkhead replacement activities. And there is no mitigation addressing construction dewatering discharge treatment and disposal.
These are not minor or peripheral concerns — they are, as documented throughout this letter, among the most significant environmental risks posed by the Project. The absence of mitigation measures for these issue areas, in an IS/MND that purports to demonstrate that all potentially 1543
62 of 79
significant effects have been reduced to below a level of significance through mitigation, is independently sufficient to require preparation of a full EIR.
XVI. REQUEST FOR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
A. Formal Request for Recission of IS/MND and Preparation of EIR Based on the foregoing analysis, I hereby formally and respectfully request that the City of South Lake Tahoe rescind the Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project (SCH No. 2026040227) and direct staff to prepare a full Environmental Impact Report as required under CEQA before taking any further action toward approval of the Project.
The grounds for this request are both individually compelling and mutually reinforcing, constituting a body of substantial evidence that, when viewed in its totality, makes the legal obligation to prepare an EIR unmistakable:
1. Wildfire and Evacuation Significant Effects. The Project's substantial contribution to visitor population at an evacuation-constrained peninsula location, in a Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone, during the same summer season when wildfire risk peaks, constitutes substantial evidence supporting a fair argument of significant public safety effects. The PyroAnalysis/Ladris simulations, the 2024 Regional Evacuation Plan, and the 2025 Tahoe Basin Community Wildfire Protection Plan together provide more than adequate evidentiary support for this conclusion. No rational interpretation of the fair argument standard can excuse the City from fully analyzing these impacts in an EIR.
2. AIS and Water Quality Significant Effects. The Project's threat to the ongoing CMT program — the most consequential AIS control effort in Tahoe Basin history — the risk of AIS propagule mobilization during bulkhead replacement and lagoon-margin construction, and the inadequacy of the stormwater BMP analysis in the context of the site's documented high-water-table constraint all constitute substantial evidence of significant effects on biological resources and water quality. These impacts, if realized, 1544
63 of 79
could cause irreversible harm to the ecological integrity of Lake Tahoe — a water body of unique and irreplaceable statewide significance.
3. Cumulative Significant Effects. The Project's cumulative contributions to evacuation risk, AIS spread potential, visitor-sector traffic, stormwater pollutant loading, and commercial intensity on the South Shore of Lake Tahoe, when combined with the other past, present, and foreseeable future projects identified in Section XII of this letter, create significant cumulative environmental impacts that have not been adequately analyzed or disclosed.
4. Piecemealing of Connected TRPA Actions. The IS/MND's failure to analyze the connected TRPA Settlement Agreement, the 66 additional slip approvals, and the TRPA Code of Ordinances Chapter 37 and 90 amendments in the same environmental document as the physical redevelopment project violates CEQA's anti-piecemealing mandate and deprives the public and decision-makers of an integrated assessment of the Project's full environmental footprint.
5. Vague and Inadequate Mitigation. Multiple mitigation measures in the IS/MND are legally insufficient — either because they are vague, deferred, and lack the specificity required by Sundstrom and Sacramento Old City Association, or because key issue areas have no mitigation at all. The absence of adequate mitigation means that the IS/MND's finding of "no significant effect with mitigation" is not supported by substantial evidence.
6. Alternatives Not Considered. The IS/MND fails to consider any reasonable alternative to the Project as proposed — including a rehabilitation alternative, a reduced-intensity alternative, a phased development alternative, or the mandatory no-project alternative.
CEQA's alternatives analysis requirement exists precisely to ensure that decision-makers consider whether a project's significant environmental effects can be avoided or substantially reduced through a different approach; its absence from the IS/MND is a fundamental analytical failure.
1545
64 of 79
B. Specific EIR Content Requirements
At minimum, the EIR must include the following analytical components that are absent or inadequate in the current IS/MND:
1. A comprehensive wildfire evacuation capacity model, prepared by a qualified emergency management and traffic engineering team, that quantifies the Project's contribution to evacuation queue length and evacuation time under no-notice and planned-event scenarios at peak summer visitor occupancy, and that establishes a maximum permissible visitor load consistent with safe evacuation throughput;
2. A full hydrological analysis, including turbidity plume modeling for bulkhead replacement, BMP sizing calculations and high-water-table constraint analysis, construction dewatering volume and disposal analysis, and cumulative stormwater loading against TMDL allocations;
3. A comprehensive AIS impact analysis, prepared by qualified aquatic ecologists, including site-specific AIS baseline surveys, quantitative propagule dispersal risk assessment for each construction activity, AIS Construction Disturbance Protocol, and CMT construction timing coordination analysis;
4. A detailed biological resources assessment, including protocol-compliant special-status species surveys, wetland jurisdictional delineation, Section 404/401/1602 permit status, and construction-period and operational impacts on the Upper Truckee Marsh restoration;
5. A full VMT analysis compliant with SB 743, including project-generated trip generation, net VMT calculation, and mitigation measures achieving VMT below applicable thresholds;
6. A comprehensive cumulative impacts analysis including all past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, with quantitative analysis of cumulative evacuation risk, AIS spread potential, and stormwater loading; and
1546
65 of 79
7. A thorough alternatives analysis meeting the requirements of CEQA Guidelines section 15126.6, including at minimum the four alternatives identified in Section XIII of this letter.
C. The Public Trust Doctrine as an Additional Basis for Heightened Review Independent of and supplementing the CEQA grounds for requiring an EIR, the California public trust doctrine provides an additional, constitutional basis for heightened environmental review of a project with direct effects on Lake Tahoe. The California Constitution, Article X, section 2, and a long line of judicial decisions culminating in the landmark decision of the California Supreme Court in National Audubon Society v. Superior Court (1983) 33 Cal.3d 419 (Mono Lake), establish that the State of California holds navigable waters and their beds in trust for the people of California for the purposes of navigation, commerce, recreation, and the preservation of natural ecosystems.20 Lake Tahoe is a navigable water of California and Nevada, held in public trust for the benefit of present and future generations. Its extraordinary water clarity, its unique deep-water ecosystem, and its status as one of the largest alpine lakes in North America make it a public trust resource of incalculable ecological, cultural, recreational, and economic value. A project that may affect Lake Tahoe’s water quality through AIS disturbance, stormwater management, and cumulative pollutant loading potentially implicates public trust resources and warrants careful environmental review.
The City, as a public agency exercising regulatory authority over land adjacent to this public trust resource, bears a duty of heightened care in evaluating the Project's impacts on the lake — a duty that reinforces and supplements the rigorous environmental review mandated by CEQA.
XVI.A. SUMMARY OF CEQA DEFICIENCIES REQUIRING PREPARATION OF AN EIR The deficiencies identified throughout this comment letter collectively demonstrate multiple independent CEQA deficiencies that preclude lawful adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project. Based upon the information presented in the Draft and Final IS/MND, the City's responses to comments, and the materials submitted by Tahoe Sierra Clean Air Coalition on June 1, 2026, substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the Project may result in significant environmental effects requiring preparation of a full Environmental Impact Report.
1547
66 of 79
1. Failure to Apply the Fair Argument Standard
CEQA requires preparation of an Environmental Impact Report whenever substantial evidence supports a fair argument that a project may have a significant effect on the environment. (Pub.
Resources Code § 21080(c); CEQA Guidelines §§ 15064(f)(1), 15064(g); No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68.)
As documented throughout this comment letter, substantial evidence raises fair argument concerns regarding wildfire evacuation constraints, emergency access limitations, aquatic invasive species impacts, hydrologic and water quality impacts, cumulative impacts, biological resource impacts, and impacts associated with increased occupancy and intensification of use. The existence of differing opinions, contrary conclusions, or proposed mitigation measures does not eliminate the requirement to prepare an EIR where substantial evidence supports a fair argument that significant environmental effects may occur.
2. Findings Are Not Supported by Substantial Evidence
CEQA requires that agency findings and environmental determinations be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. (Pub. Resources Code § 21080(e); CEQA Guidelines § 15384.)
Numerous less-than-significant determinations contained in the IS/MND are not supported by substantial evidence because critical technical analyses necessary to support the conclusions reached were not prepared or disclosed.
Examples include, but are not limited to:
• project-specific evacuation capacity analysis;
• evacuation clearance-time analysis;
• roadway throughput analysis;
• emergency traffic simulation;
• built-environment wildfire propagation analysis;
• AIS fragmentation and dispersal analysis;
• stormwater feasibility analysis under documented high-groundwater conditions; 1548
67 of 79
• construction dewatering analysis;
• cumulative impact analysis; and
• comprehensive analysis of Project consistency with applicable environmental threshold standards.
Assertions of future regulatory compliance, future permitting, or future agency review do not substitute for substantial evidence supporting environmental conclusions reached under CEQA.
3. Failure to Proceed in the Manner Required by Law
An agency's decision may be set aside where it has failed to proceed in the manner required by CEQA. (Pub. Resources Code § 21168.5.)
The record reflects multiple instances where environmental review was incomplete, potentially significant environmental issues were not fully analyzed, material questions were deferred to future permitting processes, and substantive comments were not meaningfully addressed through project-specific analysis. These deficiencies undermine CEQA's core purposes of informed decision-making, full public disclosure, and meaningful public participation.
Among other deficiencies, the IS/MND:
• fails to adequately analyze wildfire evacuation impacts; • fails to adequately analyze Project-generated evacuation demand; • fails to adequately evaluate aquatic invasive species disturbance and spread risks; • fails to adequately evaluate hydrologic constraints associated with shallow groundwater and former wetland conditions;
• fails to adequately analyze cumulative impacts;
• fails to adequately evaluate the environmental consequences of Project intensification; • fails to adequately analyze connected actions and related TRPA approvals; • fails to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives; and • relies in several instances upon deferred, vague, or inadequately enforceable mitigation measures.
1549
68 of 79
4. Improper Segmentation and Piecemealing of Environmental Review CEQA requires evaluation of the whole of an action and prohibits the improper segmentation of interrelated project components. (CEQA Guidelines § 15378; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v.
Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376.) The Project relies upon interconnected City approvals, TRPA approvals, implementation of the 2024 Settlement Agreement, recognition of additional marina slips, marina-related operational changes, and related TRPA Code amendments. The IS/MND does not adequately evaluate these connected actions as components of a single integrated undertaking. By evaluating individual project components in isolation and relying upon separate future reviews to address related environmental consequences, the IS/MND understates the Project's cumulative and reasonably foreseeable environmental effects.
5. Mitigation and Monitoring Deficiencies
Several mitigation measures and monitoring provisions rely upon future regulatory compliance, future permitting actions, future agency review, or generalized best-management-practice commitments rather than clearly defined, enforceable performance standards capable of demonstrating that impacts will be reduced to a less-than-significant level.
Similarly, the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program does not consistently establish measurable performance criteria, objective success standards, adaptive management triggers, corrective-action requirements, or other mechanisms necessary to demonstrate that mitigation measures will actually achieve the environmental outcomes assumed by the IS/MND.
6. The Record Raises Significant Questions Concerning the City's Determination That Recirculation Is Unnecessary
CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5 requires recirculation of a proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration when significant new information is added after public notice is given and before adoption.
1550
69 of 79
The Final IS/MND concludes that comments received did not identify additional significant effects, increases in the severity of impacts, or significant new information requiring recirculation. TSCAC respectfully disagrees. The comments submitted identified substantial information concerning wildfire evacuation constraints, emergency access, aquatic invasive species risks, hydrologic feasibility, cumulative impacts, Project intensification, and related environmental concerns that were not meaningfully analyzed in the Draft IS/MND. To the extent this information constitutes significant new information within the meaning of CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5, recirculation may be required to ensure meaningful public review and informed decision-making.
Conclusion
For all of the foregoing reasons, and for the reasons set forth throughout this comment letter and supporting appendices, the administrative record contains substantial evidence supporting a fair argument that the Project may result in significant environmental effects. Accordingly, the City has not demonstrated that the Project qualifies for approval based upon a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and preparation and circulation of a full Environmental Impact Report is required prior to approval of the Project.
XVII. CONCLUSION AND RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
A. Summary of Principal Objections
For the reasons set forth in detail throughout this letter, I respectfully urge the City of South Lake Tahoe and the Planning Commission to reject the IS/MND for the Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project and to direct the preparation of a full Environmental Impact Report before any further action is taken on the Project. The IS/MND is legally and technically deficient in multiple independently sufficient respects, including its failure to analyze wildfire evacuation risk; its inadequate treatment of aquatic invasive species disturbance risks; its incomplete and internally inconsistent stormwater and hydrological analysis; its failure to demonstrate compliance with TRPA threshold standards; its impermissible piecemealing of connected TRPA regulatory actions; its reliance on vague, deferred, and legally unenforceable mitigation measures; its failure to consider a reasonable range of project alternatives; and its perfunctory cumulative impact analysis.
1551
70 of 79
1. Wildland-Urban Interface Wildfire Analysis
The IS/MND appears to evaluate wildfire impacts primarily through the lens of urban fire protection measures associated with the Project site itself, including emergency access, building standards, and fire-suppression capabilities. While such considerations are important, contemporary wildfire science increasingly recognizes that wildfire risk within Wildland-Urban Interface environments arises from the interaction of development, vegetation, infrastructure, human activity, and surrounding landscape conditions rather than from individual structures considered in isolation.
Recent wildfire research emphasizes that built environments and adjacent wildlands function as interconnected systems in which urban growth, increased occupancy, transportation infrastructure, and expanded human activity can influence ignition probability, exposure, vulnerability, and wildfire propagation across the broader landscape. The Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project proposes expanded visitor-serving commercial uses, workforce housing, marina operations, public gathering areas, and increased occupancy immediately adjacent to environmentally sensitive marsh, shoreline, and open-space environments.
The IS/MND provides limited discussion of how these development intensification factors may interact with surrounding Wildland-Urban Interface conditions, wildfire propagation pathways, ignition probabilities, cumulative wildfire vulnerability, or ecosystem-level wildfire risk. Instead, the analysis appears largely focused on project-site fire protection measures. This narrow approach may not adequately evaluate reasonably foreseeable wildfire-related environmental impacts within the broader Tahoe Keys, Upper Truckee Marsh, Cove East, and shoreline interface environment.
Accordingly, substantial evidence supports preparation of an EIR to evaluate wildfire impacts using a broader Wildland-Urban Interface framework that considers both built-environment and wildland conditions rather than limiting review primarily to project-site fire protection measures.
These are not technical objections raised for procedural purposes. They reflect genuine and substantive concerns about a project that proposes significant physical changes to one of the most ecologically sensitive, most actively managed, and most publicly significant environmental sites in 1552
71 of 79
the Lake Tahoe Basin — the Tahoe Keys Marina and its adjacent lagoon, marsh, and lake margin.
Lake Tahoe's future as a world-class ecological and recreational resource depends, in no small measure, on the quality of the environmental decisions made at precisely these critical junctures — when large-scale development proposals come before public agencies with the authority to demand rigorous environmental review. I respectfully submit that this is such a juncture, and that the City has the legal obligation, and the moral responsibility to the public, to require a full EIR.
ATTATCHMENTS:
ELECTRONIC LINKS TO ATTACHMENTS
Due to the volume of supporting materials referenced herein, electronic links are provided in lieu of hard-copy attachments. All referenced materials are publicly available or otherwise accessible through the provided links. TSCAC reserves the right to provide hard copies of any or all referenced materials to the Planning Commission, City Council, TRPA, or any reviewing body during future proceedings associated with this matter.
Attachment A: PyroAnalysis LLC and Ladris AI, Independent Lake Tahoe Basin Wildfire Evacuation Analysis (TahoeCleanAir.org, August 2024) [LINK HERE] and [LINK HERE] Attachment B: TRPA AIS Program Update, Presentation to TRPA Governing Board, July 23, 2025 (Dennis Zabaglo, TRPA AIS Program Manager) [LINK HERE]
Attachment C: Lake Tahoe Regional Evacuation Plan (CAL FIRE, El Dorado County Sheriff's Office, South Lake Tahoe Fire Rescue, Lake Valley Fire Protection District, California Highway Patrol, et al., September 2024) [LINK HERE]
Attachment D: 2025 Tahoe Basin Community Wildfire Protection Plan (February 2025) [LINK HERE]
Attachment E: California Tahoe Conservancy, Upper Truckee Marsh Restoration Project Summary (2022) [LINK HERE]
Attachment F: Tahoe Keys Green Infrastructure Planning Document [LINK HERE] 1553
72 of 79
Attachment G: TRPA Regional Planning Committee Staff Report, Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment and Expansion Project, March 18, 2026 (TRPA File No. ERSP2025-0602) [LINK HERE]
Attachment H: Mahmoud, Hussam (2024). "Reimagining a Pathway to Reduce Built-Environment Loss During Wildfires," Cell Reports Sustainability, Vol. 1, Article 100121 (Elsevier, June 2024). [LINK HERE]
This peer-reviewed scientific publication explains that modern wildfire risk assessment must evaluate not only wildland fire behavior, but also structure-to-structure fire spread, ember-driven fire transmission, urban conflagration dynamics, community vulnerability, urban growth, and interactions between the built environment and surrounding vegetation. The paper concludes that wildfire mitigation strategies should integrate both wildland and built-environment analyses because wildfire losses increasingly result from fire propagation through developed communities and not solely through natural vegetation systems.
ENDNOTES
1. CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15074(b) (requiring the lead agency to consider comments received during the public review period for a proposed Negative Declaration or Mitigated Negative Declaration before adoption); Vineyard Area Citizens for Responsible Growth v. City of Rancho Cordova (2007) 40 Cal.4th 412, 447 (environmental review requires meaningful consideration of substantive comments and reasoned responses to significant environmental issues raised during the review process).
2. Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 21080(c)(1); CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15064(f)(1) ("If the lead agency determines there is substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR.").
3. Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 928 ("The fair argument standard is a low threshold for requiring preparation of an EIR."); Communities for a Better Environment v. California Resources Agency (2002) 103 Cal.App.4th 98, 109.
4. No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 84–85 ("Where there is substantial evidence that a project may have a significant environmental impact, preparation of an environmental impact report is mandatory, even in the face of contrary evidence."); Laurel 1554
73 of 79
Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 393.
5. No Oil, Inc. v. City of Los Angeles (1974) 13 Cal.3d 68, 74 ("The [EIR] is the heart of CEQA"); Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 392 ("An EIR must be prepared whenever it can be fairly argued on the basis of substantial evidence that the project may have significant environmental impact.").
6. Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 903, 930–932; see also Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1200 ("[T]he fair argument standard requires the preparation of an EIR even though the lead agency itself may have concluded there is no significant effect.").
7. Laurel Heights Improvement Association v. Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 404–405 ("CEQA requires that an EIR contain facts and analysis, not just bare conclusions or opinions."); Concerned Citizens of Costa Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd Dist.
Agricultural Association (1986) 42 Cal.3d 929, 936.
8. CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15064(f)(1) ("If the lead agency determines there is substantial evidence that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, the lead agency shall prepare an EIR."); CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15064(g); Friends of "B" Street v. City of Hayward (1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 1002–1003.
9. Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 21064.5 (defining a Mitigated Negative Declaration as permissible only where revisions in the project or mitigation measures agreed to by the applicant would avoid or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur, and there is no substantial evidence in light of the whole record before the public agency that the project as revised may have a significant effect).
10. Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 306–308 ("Mitigation measures must be fully discussed in the environmental document, and measures which are only speculative or vague promises of future action to reduce adverse impacts cannot support a negative declaration."); see also Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d 692, 726–727.
11. Sacramento Old City Association v. City Council (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1028–1029 ("A negative declaration based upon mitigation measures that are not fully enforceable is 1555
74 of 79
not supported by substantial evidence."); CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15126.4(a)(1)(B).
12. CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. §§ 15378, 15003(h); Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 21065; Orinda Association v. Board of Supervisors (1986) 182 Cal.App.3d 1145, 1170.
13. Bozung v. Local Agency Formation Commission (1975) 13 Cal.3d 263, 283; Whitman v.
Board of Supervisors (1979) 88 Cal.App.3d 397, 412.
14. CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15151; Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 404–405.
15. Tahoe Regional Planning Compact, Pub. L. 91-148 (1969), as amended by Pub. L. 96-551 (1980); TRPA Regional Plan for the Lake Tahoe Basin; TRPA Code of Ordinances (2012 and as amended); Cal. Gov't Code § 66801.
16. CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15168; Laurel Heights Improvement Association v.
Regents of the University of California (1988) 47 Cal.3d 376, 396.
17. CEQA Appendix G, Environmental Checklist, Item X (Land Use and Planning); CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15125(d).
18. CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15130(a); Cal. Pub. Resources Code § 21083(b)(2); Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control v. City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184, 1215–1220.
19. Sacramento Old City Association v. City Council (1991) 229 Cal.App.3d 1011, 1028–1029; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 296, 307; CEQA Guidelines, 14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15126.4(a)(1)(B); Defend the Bay v. City of Irvine (2004) 119 Cal.App.4th 1261, 1275.
20.Cal. Const., art. X, § 2; National Audubon Society v. Superior Court (1983) 33 Cal.3d 419, 435–437; People v. Gold Run Ditch & Mining Co. (1884) 66 Cal. 138, 151; Marks v. Whitney (1971) 6 Cal.3d 251, 259–260.
1556
75 of 79
APPENDIX A
Response to Final IS/MND Responses to Tahoe Sierra Clean Air Coalition Comments Deficiencies in the Final IS/MND Responses
TSCAC respectfully submits this Appendix to address deficiencies in the Final IS/MND Responses to Comments concerning TSCAC’s June 1, 2026 comment letter.
The Final IS/MND states that the comments received did not identify any additional significant effects, any increase in the severity of an impact identified in the Draft IS/MND, or any significant new information, and therefore concludes that recirculation is not required under CEQA Guidelines section 15073.5. TSCAC respectfully disagrees.
The Responses to Comments do not resolve the substantive deficiencies identified by TSCAC.
Instead, the Responses repeatedly rely on generalized conclusions, future regulatory compliance, existing evacuation maps, CodeRED notification systems, and assertions that TSCAC failed to provide substantial evidence. Those responses do not cure the Draft IS/MND’s failure to provide project-specific analysis of evacuation demand, wildfire risk, stormwater feasibility, AIS spread risk, cumulative impacts, or the Project’s substantial intensification of use.
1. Response O3-1 Does Not Resolve the Core Fair Argument Issue Response O3-1 states that the Draft IS/MND is “appropriate, adequate, and in accordance with CEQA requirements.” This is conclusory. TSCAC’s comment did not merely express opposition to the Project. It identified specific analytical deficiencies, including inadequate baseline data, deferred mitigation, wildfire evacuation omissions, hydrology and stormwater deficiencies, AIS spread risk, and cumulative impact deficiencies. A generalized statement that the IS/MND is adequate does not address whether substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the Project may result in significant environmental impacts.
2. Response O3-2 Does Not Adequately Address the Impaired Baseline TSCAC’s comment identified the Tahoe Keys Marina as part of one of the most environmentally impaired portions of the Lake Tahoe Basin, including direct hydrologic connectivity to the Tahoe 1557
76 of 79
Keys Lagoons and Lake Tahoe, existing AIS infestation, high seasonal groundwater, and potential legacy contamination from decades of marina operations.
The response relies primarily on Project objectives, BIO-4, equipment inspection, decontamination, and future permits. Those measures do not constitute an adequate baseline analysis. The issue raised by TSCAC was not merely whether construction equipment would be inspected for AIS. The issue was whether the IS/MND adequately analyzed the Project against the existing impaired environmental setting, including hydrologic connectivity, AIS infestation, shallow groundwater, and possible legacy contamination. The Response does not meaningfully address that broader baseline issue.
3. Response O3-3 Relies on Future Permitting and Regulatory Compliance Rather Than Present CEQA Analysis
TSCAC specifically identified the absence of site-specific hydrogeologic data, groundwater elevation monitoring, infiltration testing, and analysis of stormwater system performance under high groundwater conditions. The Response refers to other responses, future RWQCB review, future SWPPP preparation, compliance with the Clean Water Act, TRPA Code, NPDES requirements, and City Code.
This does not answer the technical question raised. The issue is whether the IS/MND presently contains substantial evidence demonstrating that proposed stormwater systems will function as claimed under site-specific Tahoe Keys conditions. Future permit compliance does not substitute for a current CEQA analysis of feasibility, performance, and environmental consequences. The Response does not identify groundwater data, infiltration testing, seasonal groundwater monitoring, or hydrologic modeling demonstrating that the proposed infiltration-based systems will perform as assumed.
4. Response O3-4 Does Not Adequately Address Construction-Phase AIS Fragmentation and Spread Risk
TSCAC raised a specific concern that prolonged in-water construction, bulkhead replacement, pile driving, sediment disturbance, and increased boating activity in a heavily AIS-infested area could fragment and spread aquatic invasive species.
1558
77 of 79
The Response refers to BIO-4, future 401 certification, future AIS HACCP review, and other permitting requirements. However, the Response does not provide a project-specific analysis of AIS fragmentation risk during bulkhead replacement and in-water construction. Nor does it identify baseline AIS density at the work areas, construction sequencing to avoid AIS spread, enforceable turbidity thresholds, work-stop triggers, third-party monitoring, or adaptive management requirements. The Response therefore does not resolve the concern that the IS/MND relies on generalized mitigation rather than substantial evidence demonstrating that AIS impacts will be reduced below significance.
5. Response O3-5 Does Not Adequately Address Transportation, VMT, Scenic, and Cumulative Impact Concerns
TSCAC raised concerns that the Project triples the developed footprint, increases visitor-serving uses, relies on a 218 daily VMT estimate, fails to address peak-season congestion and parking spillover, lacks adequate visual analysis of the 42-foot boat storage building, and applies an unduly narrow cumulative impact framework.
The Response states that the IS/MND analyzed these impacts and found them less than significant, and that TSCAC did not provide substantial evidence. This response is conclusory. It does not address the specific concern that the Project’s operational intensity and public-facing commercial activity may increase peak-season traffic, parking demand, evacuation demand, and visual massing impacts beyond what is captured by average daily VMT metrics. Nor does it explain why cumulative impacts should be narrowly framed where wildfire evacuation, AIS spread, Lake Tahoe water quality, and South Shore transportation impacts are regional in nature.
6. Response O3-6 / O3-9 Does Not Resolve the Evacuation Demand Issue The Responses rely heavily on the assertion that the Project would not modify existing evacuation routes and would participate in CodeRED. This does not answer TSCAC’s central point.
TSCAC did not merely allege that evacuation routes would be physically modified. TSCAC alleged that the Project increases evacuation demand within a constrained Tahoe Keys roadway system and that the IS/MND contains no evacuation clearance-time analysis, evacuation capacity analysis, 1559
78 of 79
roadway throughput analysis, emergency traffic simulation, or project-generated evacuation demand analysis.
The existence of an evacuation map and an emergency notification system does not demonstrate that roadway capacity is adequate. Notification does not create evacuation capacity. The relevant CEQA issue is whether the Project’s increased occupancy, employees, visitors, commercial uses, boat storage, marina activity, and public gathering spaces could increase demand on constrained evacuation facilities during wildfire conditions. The Responses do not meaningfully answer that question.
7. The Responses Improperly Recast Substantial Evidence as “Supposition” or “Opinion” Response O3-11 characterizes TSCAC’s wildfire and evacuation concerns as based on “supposition” regarding increased vehicle trips and “opinion” regarding the adequacy of the wildfire analysis. That framing is incomplete.
TSCAC relied on the Project’s own scale and intensification, including increased square footage, expanded commercial uses, boat storage, workforce housing, and public access improvements.
TSCAC also cited independent wildfire evacuation information and raised the absence of modeling or clearance-time analysis. These are not merely expressions of opinion. They are factual and analytical objections to the IS/MND’s lack of substantial evidence supporting its less-thansignificant wildfire and evacuation determinations.
8. The Final IS/MND’s No-New-Information Finding Is Unsupported The Final IS/MND broadly concludes that the comments received did not identify any additional significant effects, any increase in severity, or any significant new information. That conclusion is not supported by the Responses to TSCAC’s comments.
TSCAC identified information and omissions regarding wildfire evacuation, emergency access, fire risk, hydrology, stormwater feasibility, AIS spread, impaired baseline conditions, and cumulative impacts. The Responses largely reject these issues by relying on prior conclusions, future permitting, or assertions that no substantial evidence was presented. A lead agency may disagree with comments, but it must still demonstrate that its conclusions are supported by substantial evidence. The Responses do not provide that missing analysis. 1560
79 of 79
9. Conclusion
The Responses to TSCAC’s comments do not eliminate the fair argument that the Project may result in significant environmental effects. The Responses do not provide the missing technical analyses identified by TSCAC, including evacuation modeling, clearance-time analysis, site-specific stormwater feasibility analysis, AIS fragmentation analysis, built-environment wildfire spread analysis, or a broader cumulative impact analysis appropriate to the Tahoe Basin setting.
Accordingly, TSCAC maintains that the Final IS/MND does not provide substantial evidence supporting the Project’s less-than-significant findings or the determination that no EIR is required.
The City should decline to adopt the IS/MND and should instead require preparation of a full CEQA EIR and corresponding TRPA environmental review.
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
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. 1561
Responses to Late Comment Letter (TSCAC, June 10, 2026)
Responses to Late Comment Letter on Tahoe Keys Marina IS/MND Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
Response to Late Comment Letter from Tahoe Sierra Clean Air Coalition (TSCAC) Dated: June 10, 2026
File No. DR25-007 / SCH No. 2026040227
Introductory Note Regarding Late Comment
This comment letter from the Tahoe Sierra Clean Air Coalition (TSCAC), dated June 10, 2026, was received after the close of the public review and comment period for the IS/MND, which ended on June 1, 2026 at 5:00 p.m. CEQA does not require formal written responses to comments received after the close of the public review period. (See CEQA Guidelines § 15074(b).) Nevertheless, the letter has been included in the administrative record and provided to the decision-makers for their awareness. The following responses are provided for informational purposes.
Response to Section I: Introduction
Comment Summary: The comment provides an introduction to the commenter organization (TSCAC), describes the Project, summarizes procedural history, states the commenter’s legal and regulatory basis for commenting, requests record inclusion, preserves legal rights, and provides an overview of principal contentions. The comment requests the City withdraw the IS/MND and prepare a full EIR.
Response: The comment is introductory in nature and provides a summary of concerns that are addressed in detail in the responses below. The City, as lead agency under CEQA, prepared the IS/MND in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15063 and 15070 through 15073.5. The Draft IS/MND and revised Notice of Intent were circulated for public review for no less than 30 days, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15105. All comments received during the public review period (May 1 through June 1, 2026) were accepted and are addressed in the Final IS/MND. The comment letter and its attachments are included in the administrative record. The IS/MND is considered appropriate, adequate, and prepared in accordance with CEQA requirements. No further response is required.
For clarification, the comment does state the commenter’s understanding that the Project includes the approval of 66 boat slips. The 66 slips to which the comment refers are and have been operational within the existing lagoon. The administrative matter was corrected in 2024 through an agreement with TRPA. As the slips to which the comment refers are part of the existing/baseline condition, they do not represent a potential change in physical environmental conditions as a result of the Project and are not required to be evaluated as part of the IS/MND. 1562
Responses to Late Comment Letter (TSCAC, June 10, 2026)
Response to Section II: Mitigated Negative Declaration Versus Environmental Impact Report — The Fair Argument Standard
Comment Summary: The comment asserts that substantial evidence supports a fair argument that the Project may result in significant environmental effects, requiring an EIR. The comment discusses the fair argument standard, CEQA’s prohibition on deferred mitigation and piecemealing, and cumulative intensification of land use. The comment contends that the IS/MND relies on vague and deferred mitigation and improperly segments TRPA actions from the City’s environmental review.
Response: The comment expresses the commenter’s legal opinion regarding the appropriate level of CEQA review. The IS/MND was prepared in accordance with CEQA requirements and represents the City’s independent judgment and analysis. The IS/MND evaluates the whole of the action for which City approval is sought. TRPA actions are within TRPA’s independent jurisdiction. The City cannot direct TRPA (an independent agency) to prepare an EIS, and TRPA’s environmental review obligations are independent of the City’s CEQA obligations. The dock replacement project received separate permits and is analyzed separately, consistent with its independent utility. Refer to Response to Comment I4-5. The commenter has not presented substantial evidence of a new significant effect or a substantial increase in the severity of an impact not already addressed in the IS/MND. The mitigation measures are specific, enforceable, and committed to prior to project approval through the MMRP adopted concurrently with the IS/MND. Refer to Response to Comment O3-7 in the Final IS/MND. No further response is required.
Response to Section III: Wildfire Risk and Public Safety Comment Summary: The comment asserts that the IS/MND’s wildfire analysis is deficient because it does not include evacuation modeling, built-environment fire propagation analysis, or evaluation of the Project’s contribution to evacuation demand. The comment references the 2021 Caldor Fire evacuation, the 2024 Regional Evacuation Plan, the 2025 CWPP, and a 2024 peerreviewed publication by Mahmoud regarding built-environment wildfire propagation.
Response: The comment repeats and expands upon concerns raised by TSCAC in its June 1, 2026 comment letter, which are addressed in Responses O3-6, O3-9, and O3-11 of the Final IS/MND. The IS/MND evaluates wildfire impacts under CEQA Appendix G, Section XX (Wildfire). As explained in Section 4.9, the Project area is located within a mix of locallydesignated Moderate, High, and Very High FHSZs, trending higher in terms of risk from west to east (CAL FIRE 2025). The Project does not modify existing evacuation routes. Tahoe Keys Boulevard is an existing evacuation route and would remain accessible during both construction (with traffic control and coordination with SLT Fire Rescue and Public Works) and operation.
The Project would participate in the CodeRED notification system, an evacuation map has been adopted for the Tahoe Keys area, and continued implementation of the City’s evacuation plan was considered as part of baseline conditions during preparation of the IS/MND.
The Project is required to meet the 2022 California Fire Code (CCR Title 24, Part 9), which establishes regulations to safeguard against the hazards of fire, explosion, or dangerous conditions in new and existing buildings, structures, and premises. The Fire Code also 1563
Responses to Late Comment Letter (TSCAC, June 10, 2026)
establishes requirements intended to provide safety for and assistance to firefighters and emergency responders during emergency operations. The provisions of the Fire Code apply to the construction, alteration, movement, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal, and demolition of every building or structure throughout California. Chapter 33 (Fire Safety During Construction and Demolition) of the California Fire Code outlines general fire safety precautions to maintain required levels of fire protection, limit fire spread, establish the appropriate operation of equipment and promote prompt response to fire emergencies. The Fire Code includes regulations regarding fireresistance-rated construction, fire protection systems such as alarm and sprinkler systems, fire services features such as fire apparatus access roads, means of egress, and fire safety during construction and demolition. The Project complies with current fire and building codes, includes ignition-resistant construction, fire sprinklers, adequate hydrant flows, emergency/fire apparatus access, defensible space, and TRPA native vegetation requirements. The Project includes water storage tanks (up to 500,000 gallons) for fire flow and proposes to underground electrical lines, reducing ignition risk. The site is flat and previously developed. In addition, the Project would reduce on-site parking from 325 to 251 spaces, which would reduce the number of vehicles capable of being present within the Project area. It is logical to assume then that the number of vehicles that may attempt to exit the Project area at any given time (including during an evacuation event) would be less than under existing conditions, and as a result, the Project would not exacerbate evacuation timing or vehicle delays along evacuation routes in the area.
The evidence does not demonstrate that the Project will increase off-site wildfire ignitions. The Project’s code compliant design aligns with conditions shown in the literature to have low ignition risk. The IS/MND does not require built-environment fire propagation modeling because the analysis adequately demonstrates impacts are less than significant based on project design, regulatory compliance, and site conditions. The commenter’s references to general wildfire science literature do not constitute project-specific substantial evidence of a significant impact.
Refer to Responses O3-6, O3-9, and O3-11. No further response is required.
Response to Section IV: Hydrology, Water Quality, and Stormwater Comment Summary: The comment asserts the IS/MND inadequately analyzes hydrology and water quality, particularly regarding infiltration performance under high-groundwater conditions, stormwater treatment effectiveness, disclosure of the bulkhead replacement component, and consistency with ONRW protections and the Lake Tahoe TMDL.
Response: The comment repeats and expands upon concerns raised in TSCAC’s prior comment letter, which are addressed in Responses to Comments O3-3 and O3-7 of the Final IS/MND. The IS/MND Section 4.10 evaluates hydrology and water quality impacts. The Project would install new stormwater infrastructure including permeable pavement, bioswales, landscaping, and underground stormwater storage/infiltration facilities designed to infiltrate the 20-year, 1-inchper-hour storm event as required by TRPA Code Section 60.4. Refer to Response to Comment L1-6. The proposed subsurface infiltration facilities (with capacities of 2,800 cubic feet [cf], 4,600 cf, and 900 cf) exceed water-quality requirements and are designed to meet regulatory groundwater separation requirements. The Project requires enrollment and compliance with applicable Lahontan RWQCB permits, including preparation of a SWPPP by a qualified professional. The Lahontan RWQCB commented on the Draft IS/MND and acknowledged that water-quality impacts would be mitigated through compliance with applicable Water Board 1564
Responses to Late Comment Letter (TSCAC, June 10, 2026)
permits. The Project must also comply with Marina General Permit R6T-2016-0038. The commenter does not identify a specific inadequacy in the stormwater design supported by substantial evidence; general assertions regarding groundwater conditions do not constitute substantial evidence of a significant impact. Refer to Responses to Comments L1-1 through L1-
8. With respect to the bulkhead replacement component of the Project, refer to pages 17-21 of the Draft IS/MND. No further response is required.
Response to Section V: Aquatic Invasive Species
Comment Summary: The comment asserts the IS/MND inadequately addresses the Project’s impacts on AIS, including risks of AIS fragmentation and spread during bulkhead replacement and in-water construction, and interactions with the ongoing CMT program.
Response: The comment repeats and expands upon concerns addressed in Responses to Comments O3-2 and O3-4 of the Final IS/MND. MM BIO-4 requires all equipment and materials entering or leaving the lagoon to be inspected for AIS and decontaminated if needed, consistent with the TRPA AIS Management Program. MM BIO-2 includes measures to prevent contamination during bulkhead removal, including secure disposal of attached plants and invertebrates, and modifications to drainage inlets near bulkhead materials to prevent AIScontaminated water from flowing back to the lagoon. The bulkhead replacement involves placement of new sheet piles in front of existing sheet piles; in-water work requires a Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) from CDFW, a CWA Section 404 permit from USACE, and Section 401 certification from Lahontan RWQCB, which will require an AIS HACCP plan. The Biological Resources Assessment identifies measures to prevent establishment, control and eradicate, reduce spread, and provide early detection of AIS. The commenter’s concerns regarding potential AIS impacts are addressed through enforceable mitigation measures and regulatory permit conditions. The CMT program is a separate program that is part of the existing environmental baseline accounted for in the IS/MND analysis. The CMT program is not a component of the Project. It is also worth noting that the CMT involved the generation and collection of field data to guide and support the development of additional methods for AIS control. Based on the Draft Final Report that was prepared for the CMT in April 2025, testing and implementation of the CMT was completed in 2024. Refer to Responses to Comments O3-2 and O3-4.
In partnership with the Tahoe Resource Conservation District, TRPA currently manages the Lake Tahoe Watercraft Inspection Program to protect Lake Tahoe from the introduction of invasive species by watercraft entering the Lake Tahoe basin. As this comment correctly notes, in 2025, the TRPA Governing Board approved an update to the Inspection Program to strengthen watercraft inspection procedures by requiring comprehensive inspection of all watercraft entering Lake Tahoe basin for the presence of golden mussels, an invasive species that, in October 2024, was found in the O’Neil Forebay, a Merced County feature of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta. Pursuant to the updated Inspection Program, all watercraft entering the Tahoe Basin, including watercraft that might pass through the Tahoe Keys Marina, must be inspected for invasive species, including golden mussels, and be completely decontaminated of any such species before the watercraft will be permitted to enter Lake Tahoe basin. The 2025 update to the Inspection Program also included a decontamination fee increase to fund the new inspection procedures. All watercraft that might travel to the Project site will be required to comply with the Watercraft Inspection Project and thus must be decontaminated of any golden mussels before 1565
Responses to Late Comment Letter (TSCAC, June 10, 2026)
it will be permitted within the basin and before it would reach the Tahoe Keys marina. The Project is thus not expected to exacerbate any impacts related to the inadvertent introduction of golden mussels to the aquatic environment of Lake Tahoe. No further response is required.
Response to Section VI: TRPA Compliance and Threshold Standards Comment Summary: The comment asserts the IS/MND does not adequately demonstrate compliance with TRPA Environmental Threshold Carrying Capacities and improperly bifurcates the analysis of connected TRPA actions.
Response: The comment is noted. The City is the CEQA lead agency for the proposed project.
TRPA is an independent regulatory agency with its own environmental review obligations under the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact. The City cannot direct TRPA to prepare an EIS. The Project requires separate TRPA approval, and TRPA will conduct its own independent environmental review as required under its regulations. The IS/MND evaluates the Project under CEQA using applicable significance thresholds. The IS/MND is not required to duplicate TRPA’s independent threshold analysis. Section 2.4.10 of the IS/MND explains how TRPA determines allowable changes to land coverage. The Project site’s existing land coverage is 287,252 square feet. With the Project, coverage would be reduced by 1,348 square feet to 285,904 square feet. With respect to the comment’s statements regarding the interpreted increase of 66 boat slips, refer to Response to Section I above. No further response is required.
Response to Section VII: Biological Resources and Sensitive Habitats Comment Summary: The comment asserts the IS/MND fails to adequately address biological resource impacts, including wetland impacts, habitat impacts, and long-term biological effects of redevelopment.
Response: The comment is noted. The Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) is based on reconnaissance surveys conducted in July 2024, May 2025, and October 2025. The Project area is heavily disturbed and developed. No suitable habitat for special-status terrestrial species was identified in the Project area. The marina lagoon is not suitable for special-status aquatic species due to watercraft movement and ongoing maintenance. Riparian habitat and sensitive natural communities are not present in the Project area. The lagoon is a jurisdictional water. In-kind bulkhead and boat launch work requires permits from USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW with conditions addressing water quality, BMPs, and AIS. Impacts are less than significant with mitigation incorporated. The City may expect the agencies issuing these permits to comply with all regulatory requirements for the protection of biological resources and sensitive habitats.
Oakland Heritage Alliance v. City of Oakland (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 884, 906. The commenter does not provide project-specific substantial evidence that the BRA or IS/MND conclusions are inadequate. Refer to Response to Comment S1-2. With respect to the adjacent marsh, the comment speculates that potential fringe effects may occur both during construction and operation. Where appropriate, consideration and mitigation for potential impacts to the marsh are considered, contrary to the statements made in this comment, as evidenced by the biological resources mitigation measures provided in the MND. In addition and consistent with applicable requirements (including NPDES), the Project would be required to limit stormwater runoff such that significant impacts to adjacent uses would not occur. No further response is required. 1566
Responses to Late Comment Letter (TSCAC, June 10, 2026)
Response to Section VIII: Traffic, Circulation, and Vehicle Miles Traveled Comment Summary: The comment asserts the IS/MND fails to adequately analyze transportation impacts, including evacuation demand, peak-season congestion, parking spillover, and cumulative VMT.
Response: The comment repeats concerns addressed in Responses to Comments O3-5, O3-6, and O3-9 of the Final IS/MND. The LSC transportation analysis found the Project would generate approximately 1,839 daily vehicle trips, an increase of 175 daily trips over existing conditions. As explained in Response to Comment 02-7, evening peak-hour trips would increase by 37. Daily VMT is anticipated to increase by 218, which would be below TRPA’s low-VMT screening criterion of 715 daily VMT. Therefore, the Project is considered a low-VMT generating project and transportation impacts are less than significant. The Project includes bicycle racks, kayak racks, a public promenade, pedestrian connectivity improvements, and onsite employee housing to reduce trips. The commenter does not present substantial evidence, such as a traffic study or VMT analysis, demonstrating a significant transportation impact. Refer to Responses to Comments O3-5, O3-6, and O3-9. No further response is required.
Response to Section IX: Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Comment Summary: The comment asserts the IS/MND inadequately analyzes air quality and GHG impacts associated with the Project’s increased intensity and operational emissions.
Response: The comment is noted. The IS/MND air quality and GHG analyses used CalEEMod and applicable EDCAQMD/PCAPCD significance thresholds. Construction and operational emissions are below applicable thresholds. Operational criteria pollutant emissions total 6 lb/day ROG and 2 lb/day NOx, well below the EDCAQMD threshold of 82 lb/day. Construction GHG emissions are a maximum of 388 MTCO2e/year, below the 10,000 MTCO2e/year threshold.
Operational GHG is based on 218 additional daily VMT. The Project is consistent with City Climate Action Plan strategies, and modern code-compliant buildings improve energy efficiency over existing deteriorated facilities. None of the climate issues raised in the comment constitute “changed circumstance” or “new information” requiring supplemental environmental review under CEQA because climate change and its indirect effects were known and considered in the analysis of the IS/MND. The commenter does not identify a specific error in the modeling or present contrary substantial evidence. No further response is required.
Response to Section X: Noise and Light Impacts
Comment Summary: The comment asserts the IS/MND inadequately analyzes noise and light impacts from Project construction and operation, including marine lighting impacts on the adjacent marsh.
Response: The comment is noted. The noise analysis (IS/MND Appendix C) evaluated construction and operational noise. Construction noise would occur during daytime hours.
Predicted increases are below the adopted significance standard. Mitigation applies to any construction outside standard daytime hours. Regarding lighting, exterior lights would be directed downward with cutoff shields and limited lighting intensity to minimize spillover, consistent with applicable standards. The scenic analysis found the Project is not visible from 1567
Responses to Late Comment Letter (TSCAC, June 10, 2026)
designated scenic roadway units or individual roadway scenic resources. The Project improves visual consistency through enclosed storage, native landscaping, and mountain architecture. The commenter does not provide substantial evidence of a significant noise or light impact beyond what is analyzed in the IS/MND. No further response is required.
Response to Section XI: Deficiencies in Monitoring Plan Comment Summary: The comment asserts the MMRP lacks measurable performance criteria, objective success standards, adaptive management triggers, and corrective-action requirements.
Response: The comment is noted. The MMRP has been prepared pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21081.6 and CEQA Guidelines Section 15097. The MMRP identifies each mitigation measure, the responsible party, timing of implementation, and monitoring/reporting requirements. The mitigation measures are specific and enforceable as conditions of project approval. Additional performance standards and monitoring requirements are imposed through separate regulatory permits (e.g., SWPPP, LSAA, 401/404 permits, Marina General Permit) that include their own monitoring, reporting, and adaptive management provisions. The commenter’s preference for additional specificity in the MMRP does not constitute substantial evidence of a significant environmental impact. No further response is required.
Response to Section XII: Archeological Sensitivity
Comment Summary: The comment asserts the IS/MND does not adequately address the site’s archaeological sensitivity, including the need for subsurface testing and a specific Unanticipated Discovery Plan.
Response: The comment is noted. The Cultural Resources Evaluation was completed in 2025 and included a CHRIS records search, a Sacred Lands File Records search, Native American tribal consultation, and a pedestrian survey conducted on February 25 and March 4, 2025. The project area is highly disturbed from decades of marina development and operation. None of the identified resources are eligible for the NRHP/CRHR or for contributing to a historic district. An inadvertent discovery of cultural resources and human remains will be handled in accordance with applicable laws, including CEQA Guidelines section 15064.5 and Public Resources Code section 5097.98. While discovery of cultural resources is possible, the IS/MND explains that the likelihood is considered low given the extensive prior disturbance to the Project site. The commenter’s general assertions regarding archaeological sensitivity do not constitute substantial evidence that significant cultural resources will be affected or that compliance with statutory requirements for the handling of cultural resources and Native American human remains would not mitigate a potential impact. No further response is required.
Response to Section XIII: Cumulative Impacts
Comment Summary: The comment asserts the IS/MND’s cumulative impact analysis is inadequate and fails to consider projects including the CMT program, Upper Truckee Marsh restoration, the dock replacement project, the Green Infrastructure Planning project, and other South Shore development.
Response: The comment repeats concerns addressed in Response O3-7 of the Final IS/MND.
The cumulative impact analysis used reasonably foreseeable past, present, and future projects 1568
Responses to Late Comment Letter (TSCAC, June 10, 2026)
within 1,000 feet of the project area and is considered appropriate under CEQA Guidelines Section 15130. The Upper Truckee Marsh restoration and basin-wide AIS management are existing programs that are part of the environmental baseline. The weed-control (CMT) program is not currently moving forward after an adverse court decision and is not reasonably foreseeable as a concurrent project. The dock replacement project is separate with independent utility and does not alter the number of available slips. The commenter’s assertion that the cumulative analysis should encompass a broader geographic scope or additional projects reflects a preference rather than an identified CEQA deficiency supported by substantial evidence. Refer to Response O3-7. No further response is required.
Response to Section XIV: Alternatives Analysis
Comment Summary: The comment asserts the IS/MND fails to consider reasonable project alternatives, including a rehabilitation alternative, a reduced-intensity alternative, a phased development alternative, and a no-project alternative.
Response: The comment is noted. Under CEQA, a formal alternatives analysis is a requirement of an EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6), not an MND. Because all project impacts are either less than significant or reduced to less than significant with mitigation incorporated, an EIR is not required, and there is no legal obligation to include an alternatives analysis in the IS/MND. See Pub. Res. Code §§ 21064.5, 21080(c)(2). The comment’s request for an alternatives analysis presumes that an EIR is required, a presumption the record evidence does not support. No further response is required.
Response to Section XV: Mitigation Measures: Legally Deficient and Unenforceable
Comment Summary: The comment asserts that multiple mitigation measures in the IS/MND are vague, deferred, and legally unenforceable, and that key issue areas lack mitigation entirely.
Response: The comment repeats concerns addressed in the Final IS/MND responses. The mitigation measures in the IS/MND are specific, enforceable, and tied to defined performance standards or regulatory requirements. Where measures reference compliance with applicable regulations (e.g., SWPPP preparation, Marina General Permit compliance, AIS HACCP requirements), these are existing, independently enforceable regulatory programs with defined standards and not vague future commitments. “[A] condition requiring compliance with regulations is a common and reasonable mitigation measure, and may be proper where it is reasonable to expect compliance.” Oakland Heritage Alliance v. City of Oakland (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 884, 906. The City may expect the regulatory agencies to comply with requirements applicable to the agencies’ jurisdictions. The MMRP ensures implementation through identified responsible parties, timing requirements, and monitoring provisions. Mitigation is adopted as enforceable conditions of project approval. The commenter’s characterization of compliancebased mitigation as “deferred” does not accurately reflect the specificity of the measures as written. Refer to the Final IS/MND responses and the MMRP. No further response is required.
Response to Section XVI: Request for Environmental Impact Report 1569
Responses to Late Comment Letter (TSCAC, June 10, 2026)
Comment Summary: The comment formally requests that the City rescind the IS/MND and prepare a full EIR, identifying multiple alleged CEQA deficiencies and specific EIR content requirements. The comment also invokes the public trust doctrine.
Response: The comment is noted and included in the administrative record. As set forth in the responses above, the IS/MND was prepared in accordance with CEQA and represents the City’s independent judgment and analysis based on substantial evidence in the record. The comments received on the IS/MND, including TSCAC’s prior comment letter, did not identify additional significant effects, any increase in the severity of an impact identified in the Draft IS/MND, or significant new information requiring recirculation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5.
The commenter has not presented substantial evidence that the Project may have a significant effect on the environment that has not been adequately addressed in the IS/MND. The City’s determination that an MND is the appropriate CEQA document is supported by substantial evidence. Recirculation is not required. No further response is required.
Response to Section XVI.A: Summary of CEQA Deficiencies Requiring Preparation of an EIR
Comment Summary: The comment summarizes alleged CEQA deficiencies including failure to apply the fair argument standard, findings not supported by substantial evidence, failure to proceed in the manner required by law, improper segmentation, mitigation and monitoring deficiencies, and questions regarding the no-new-information finding.
Response: The comment restates and consolidates arguments made throughout the letter. Each topic has been addressed in the specific responses above and in the Final IS/MND Responses to Comments cross referenced in the above responses. The City has proceeded in accordance with CEQA, the IS/MND findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record, and the determination that recirculation is not required is consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5. No further response is required.
Response to Section XVII: Conclusion and Reservation of Rights Comment Summary: The comment concludes by reiterating the request that the City reject the IS/MND and require a full EIR. The commenter reserves legal rights.
Response: The comment is noted. The commenter’s opposition to the Project and preference for an EIR are included in the administrative record for decision-maker consideration. The reservation of legal rights is acknowledged. No further response is required.
Responses to Appendix A: Response to Final IS/MND Responses to TSCAC Comments
The following are responses to TSCAC's Appendix A, which critiques the Final IS/MND's responses to TSCAC's June 1, 2026 comment letter.
1570
Responses to Late Comment Letter (TSCAC, June 10, 2026)
Response to Appendix A, Section 1: Response O3-1 Does Not Resolve the Core Fair Argument Issue
Comment Summary: The comment asserts that Response O3-1’s statement that the IS/MND is “appropriate, adequate, and in accordance with CEQA requirements” is conclusory and does not address whether substantial evidence supports a fair argument of significant environmental effects.
Response: Response O3-1 addresses the commenter’s introductory comments and overall contention that an EIR is required. The response is appropriate to the nature of the comment. The City’s determination that an MND is the appropriate CEQA document is not based solely on Response O3-1 but on the entirety of the IS/MND analysis, technical studies, and the whole of the record. The detailed Responses O3-2 through O3-11 address the commenter’s specific technical and analytical concerns. The City’s conclusion that no substantial evidence of a significant unmitigated impact has been presented is supported by the technical analyses in the IS/MND and its appendices. No further response is required.
Response to Appendix A, Section 2: Response O3-2 Does Not Adequately Address the Impaired Baseline
Comment Summary: The comment asserts that Response O3-2 does not adequately address the existing impaired environmental baseline, including AIS infestation, hydrologic connectivity, shallow groundwater, and potential legacy contamination.
Response: The IS/MND describes existing conditions consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15125, including existing AIS conditions and hydrologic setting. The BRA documents existing AIS conditions in the lagoon. The Phase I ESA did not identify recognized environmental conditions, and Lahontan RWQCB issued a No Further Action determination for the entire site.
MM HAZ-1 is included out of caution for potential discovery of impacted soils or groundwater during construction. The Project is designed to improve existing conditions by installing stormwater BMPs that exceed current requirements and assisting in AIS control. The commenter's characterization of the baseline as “impaired” does not demonstrate that the IS/MND’s baseline description is inaccurate or that the Project would worsen baseline conditions. No further response is required.
Response to Appendix A, Section 3: Response O3-3 Relies on Future Permitting and Regulatory Compliance Rather Than Present CEQA Analysis Comment Summary: The comment asserts that Response O3-3’s references to future RWQCB review, SWPPP preparation, and regulatory compliance are impermissible deferred mitigation rather than a present CEQA analysis of stormwater feasibility.
Response: The IS/MND provides a present analysis of hydrology and water quality impacts based on the proposed stormwater design, which includes specific infiltration facility capacities (2,800 cf, 4,600 cf, 900 cf), design standards (20-year, 1-inch-per-hour storm), and compliance with TRPA Code Section 60.4 groundwater separation requirements. Reference to regulatory 1571
Responses to Late Comment Letter (TSCAC, June 10, 2026)
permits (SWPPP, Marina General Permit, 401 certification) is not deferred mitigation but rather identification of existing, independently enforceable regulatory programs that apply regardless of the IS/MND. These programs have defined, enforceable standards. “[A] condition requiring compliance with regulations is a common and reasonable mitigation measure, and may be proper where it is reasonable to expect compliance.” Oakland Heritage Alliance v. City of Oakland (2011) 195 Cal.App.4th 884, 906. The Lahontan RWQCB itself reviewed the IS/MND and confirmed that water-quality impacts would be mitigated through compliance with applicable permits. No further response is required.
Response to Appendix A, Section 4: Response O3-4 Does Not Adequately Address Construction-Phase AIS Fragmentation and Spread Risk Comment Summary: The comment asserts that Response O3-4 does not adequately address the risk of AIS fragmentation during bulkhead replacement and in-water construction, and that the response relies on generalized mitigation rather than project-specific analysis.
Response: MM BIO-4 and MM BIO-2 include specific, enforceable requirements for AIS inspection, decontamination, secure disposal of attached organisms, and prevention of AIScontaminated water flow back to the lagoon. These measures are not generalized; they identify specific actions, timing, and responsible parties. In-water work also requires a CDFW LSAA, an USACE 404 permit, and Lahontan 401 certification, which will impose additional projectspecific conditions including an AIS HACCP plan as confirmed by Lahontan. The BRA identifies the AIS Management Plan submitted to TRPA with measures to prevent establishment, control/eradicate, reduce spread, and provide early detection. The commenter's preference for additional specificity does not demonstrate that existing mitigation is inadequate to reduce impacts below significance. No further response is required.
Response to Appendix A, Section 5: Response O3-5 Does Not Adequately Address Transportation, VMT, Scenic, and Cumulative Impact Concerns Comment Summary: The comment asserts that Response O3-5 is conclusory and does not address specific concerns regarding peak-season traffic, parking demand, visual massing of the boat storage building, and the narrow cumulative impact framework.
Response: The LSC transportation analysis quantifies project trip generation (1,839 daily trips, increase of 175 over existing) and VMT (increase of 218 daily VMT, below TRPA low-VMT screening criterion of 715). These findings are based on substantial evidence in the form of a professional transportation study. Response to Comment O2-8 explains that the Project would not be visible from eligible scenic highways or Shoreline Unit 1. The renderings presented on pages 14 and 15 of the Draft IS/MND are visual simulations of the Project, as they place the proposed structures among the existing marina facilities, Tahoe Keys development, and existing landscaping. The Project improves visual consistency through enclosed storage, native landscaping, and mountain architecture. Response to Comment 01-7 explains that the cumulative impact analysis considered reasonably foreseeable projects within 1,000 feet, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15130. The commenter does not present a contrary traffic study, VMT 1572
Responses to Late Comment Letter (TSCAC, June 10, 2026)
analysis, or scenic impact assessment constituting substantial evidence. No further response is required.
Response to Appendix A, Section 6: Response O3-6 / O3-9 Does Not Resolve the Evacuation Demand Issue
Comment Summary: The comment asserts that Responses to Comments O3-6 and O3-9 do not answer the central concern that the Project increases evacuation demand within a constrained roadway system, and that the existence of an evacuation map and CodeRED does not demonstrate adequate capacity.
Response: The IS/MND’s analysis is based on the following: (1) the Project does not physically modify existing evacuation routes; (2) Tahoe Keys Boulevard remains accessible as an evacuation route; (3) the Project would participate in CodeRED; (4) an adopted evacuation map exists; (5) the transportation analysis shows only a modest increase in daily trips (175) and no change in morning peak-hour trips; and (6) the Project does not change the number of boat slips or charter vendors, and no increase in boat-related activities is anticipated. The CEQA Appendix G wildfire checklist asks whether a project would “substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan,” which the Project does not. The commenter’s assertion that increased occupancy could affect evacuation is speculative and not supported by project-specific evidence demonstrating a significant impact. No further response is required.
Response to Appendix A, Section 7: The Responses Improperly Recast Substantial Evidence as “Supposition” or “Opinion”
Comment Summary: The comment asserts that the Final IS/MND improperly characterized TSCAC’s wildfire and evacuation concerns as “supposition” or “opinion” rather than substantial evidence.
Response: The Final IS/MND responses distinguish between the commenter’s general concerns and opinions about potential impacts and substantial evidence in the form of facts, reasonable assumptions predicated on facts, or expert opinion supported by facts as required by CEQA Guidelines section 15384. General references to regional wildfire risk, basin-wide evacuation challenges, and academic literature, without project-specific nexus demonstrating that this Project would cause or contribute to a significant impact, do not constitute substantial evidence requiring preparation of an EIR. The IS/MND’s technical analyses provide the project-specific evidence supporting the less-than-significant determinations. No further response is required.
Response to Appendix A, Section 8: The Final IS/MND's No-New-Information Finding Is Unsupported
Comment Summary: The comment asserts that the Final IS/MND’s conclusion that no significant new information was identified during the public review period is unsupported, and that TSCAC’s comments identified information regarding wildfire evacuation, AIS, stormwater, and cumulative impacts that was not analyzed in the Draft IS/MND. 1573
Responses to Late Comment Letter (TSCAC, June 10, 2026)
Response: The Final IS/MND reviewed all comments received during the public review period and determined that the comments did not identify additional significant effects, any increase in the severity of an impact identified in the Draft IS/MND, or significant new information requiring recirculation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15073.5. The comments raised concerns that were considered and addressed; the City’s conclusion that the concerns do not rise to the level of substantial evidence of new significant impacts is supported by the technical record.
Recirculation is not required. No further response is required.
Response to Appendix A, Section 9: Conclusion
Comment Summary: The comment concludes that the Final IS/MND responses do not eliminate the fair argument that the Project may result in significant environmental effects and reiterates that the City should prepare an EIR.
Response: The comment restates the commenter’s overall position. The City has considered all comments, including those of TSCAC, and has determined based on substantial evidence in the record that the IS/MND is the appropriate CEQA document for the Project. The commenter’s disagreement with the City's conclusions is noted and included in the administrative record for decision-maker consideration. No further response is required. 1574
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM SIERRA CLUB
TAHOE AREA GROUP
DATED JUNE 10, 2026
1575
From: Tobi Tyler
To: PublicComment
Cc: John Hitchcock; Julie Regan; Graham St. Michel TRPA; Roll, Stuart@Tahoe Subject: Sierra Club Comments on Agenda Item 3, Tahoe Keys Marina Date: Wednesday, June 10, 2026 2:29:21 PM
Attachments: Tahoe Keys Marina Planning Comm letter 6.10.26.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.
Dear Chair and Members of the SLT Planning Commission,
Please accept the attached comment letter and supporting documentation submitted on behalf of the Sierra Club Tahoe Area Group regarding Agenda Item 3, the proposed Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project Design Review and Special Use Permit, APNs: 022 210-032, 022-2510-040 & 022-210-041, File #DR25-007, scheduled for consideration at the June 11, 2026 Planning Commission meeting.
Given the scale of the proposed expansion and the project's location within one of the most environmentally sensitive areas of the Lake Tahoe Basin, Sierra Club Tahoe Area Group urges the Planning Commission to carefully review the information and evidence presented in the attached materials before considering approval of the project.
We respectfully request that this letter and all accompanying attachments be included in the administrative record for the Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project.
Thank you for ensuring a thorough review of the environmental issues regarding this project.
Tobi Tyler
Vice Chair, Sierra Club's Tahoe Area Group
1576
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM TAHOE KEYS
PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION
DATED JUNE 10, 2026
1577
From: Birkey, Scott B.
To: Gavin Feiger; Julia Lucksinger; Steven Imhoff; Douglas Williams; Erika Gonzalez; PublicComment; John Hitchcock Cc: Heather Stroud; Cohn, Eric J.
Subject: Tahoe Keys Property Owners Association Comments on Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project Date: Wednesday, June 10, 2026 3:34:53 PM
Attachments: TKPOA Letter to City of South Lake Tahoe re Marina Project.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 City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Commissioners and Mr. John Hitchcock:
On behalf of the Tahoe Keys Property Owners Association, attached please find TKPOA’s comments on the Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project and the Project’s Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.
Best regards,
Scott
Scott B. Birkey
Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
50 California Street | Suite 3200 | San Francisco, CA 94111 direct:415.262.5162
main:415.262.5100
[email protected] | vcard | bio | website
This communication is intended only for the exclusive use of the addressee and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the addressee, or someone responsible for delivering this document to the addressee, you may not read, copy or distribute it. Any unauthorized dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please call us promptly and securely dispose of it. Thank you. 1578
www.coxcastle.com 108447\19521297v1 Los Angeles | Orange County | San Francisco Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
50 California Street, Suite 3200
San Francisco, California 94111-4710
P: 415.262.5100 F: 415.262.5199
Scott B. Birkey
415.262.5162
[email protected]
June 10, 2026
VIA E-MAIL
City of South Lake Tahoe
Planning Commission
1901 Lisa Maloff Way
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Mr. John Hitchcock
Planning Manager
City of South Lake Tahoe
1052 Tata Lane
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Re: Comments on Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project Dear Planning Commissioners and Mr. Hitchcock:
On behalf of the Tahoe Keys Property Owners Association (“TKPOA”), we have reviewed the City of South Lake Tahoe’s (“City”) Planning Commission staff report and related materials pertaining to the Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project (“Project”), identified as Item #3 on the Planning Commission’s agenda for June 11, 2026. We have also reviewed the draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS/MND”) for the Project. This letter serves as TKPOA’s comments on both the Planning Commission’s action as to Item #3 and as to the IS/MND.
As discussed below, the City should be made aware of the fact that TKPOA is currently in contract with Tahoe Keys SMI, LLC (“TKSMI”) to acquire a portion of the property that is included within the TKSMI’s Project area. (For ease of reference, TKPOA and TKSMI will be referred to herein as the “Parties.”) The Parties entered into this contractual arrangement with the mutual understanding that this property, which is located within the lot designated as APN 022-210-040, is ultimately intended for TKPOA’s use as a corporation yard after TKPOA acquires the property. Neither the Planning Commission materials nor the IS/MND for the Project make this clear.
We write to inform the Planning Commission of this important detail, and to explain why this is of critical relevance to the Planning Commission’s decision on the Project. 1579
June 10, 2026
108447\19521297v1
TKSMI and TKPOA Are Parties to a Purchase Agreement for Property Within the Project Area Intended for TKPOA’s Use as a Corporation Yard The Parties began negotiating a Vacant Land Purchase Agreement (“Agreement”) in 2023 for TKPOA’s purchase of an approximately 32,000 square foot portion of the lot designated as APN 022-210-040. The Agreement refers to this portion as the “TKSMI Land.” The Parties signed the agreement in 2025. Because the 32,000 square foot portion of this property is not yet a legal parcel for conveyance, TKSMI agreed to “expeditiously complete, at TKSMI’s sole cost and expense, whatever Subdivision Map Act or lot line adjustment process will be the most efficient for creating the TKSMI Land as a legal parcel to be conveyed to TKPOA.” The Agreement also reflects TKSMI’s representation that TKSMI “has no reason to believe the TKSMI Land cannot be legally subdivided or lot line adjusted.” As both Parties are aware, the Agreement references a separate “Settlement Agreement” between the Parties dated April 19, 2023, that references TKPOA’s need for certain property to use as a maintenance facility, storage, and other similar uses, as well as for drying of the aquatic weeds TKPOA removes from the canals in the Tahoe Keys. Further, the Parties acknowledged in this separate “Settlement Agreement” that the TKSMI Land could serve as the site for these uses. In light of this understanding, the Parties entered into the Agreement and its subsequent amendments committing TKSMI to ensure the TKSMI Land would be created as a legal lot for conveyance to TKPOA.
This important background, i.e., the lengthy negotiations and mutual understandings of both Parties as to TKSMI’s obligation to establish a legal parcel for conveyance to TKPOA and TKPOA’s desire to obtain such a parcel for use as a maintenance yard and weed drying facility, is completely absent from the materials provided to the Planning Commission for its June 11 consideration of whether to approve the Marina Project.
Even then, materials that have been provided to the Planning Commission are incomplete and misleading. For example, below is a snippet of Figure 5 from the IS/MND. The TKSMI Land corresponds to the portion of property located above the structure labeled “Water Tank & Storage Facility,” and above a dashed line incorrectly identified as a “Property Line.” No such Property Line exists because TKSMI has not yet taken the steps necessary to establish a property line in that location.
1580
June 10, 2026
108447\19521297v1
This inaccuracy compounds the confusion created by the omissions in the City’s Staff Report and other Planning Commission materials and in the IS/MND. One obvious concern related to these omissions is that, put simply, the Planning Commission does not have all the facts to make an informed decision as to the development potential for the Project area.
Moreover, the IS/MND does not address the potential for TKPOA’s development of a corporation yard on this property, and any environmental impacts associated with that development. The IS/MND simply states: “Approximately 32,000 square feet of land within the western edge of the Project area (APN 022-210-040) would not be developed as part of the Project. Ownership of this area may be transferred to the [TKPOA] at a later date and separate from the Project.” (IS/MND at p. 9.)
Curiously, the set of drawings included in the package of materials for the Planning Commission meeting now show what appear to be water tanks and other facilities (presumably related to the Project, not to TKPOA’s proposed use of the property) on the 32,000 square foot portion of the property. (See, for example, Sheet L0.1A titled “Site Illustrative Plan.”) This is, of course, inconsistent with what was shown and analyzed in the IS/MND. Perhaps most troubling to TKPOA is the fact that it was not consulted by either the City or TKSMI as to this development now shown on the 32,000 square foot, and that the “property line” previously shown on figures depicting this property is now absent. 1581
June 10, 2026
108447\19521297v1
The Staff Report to the Planning Commission and the IS/MND Ignore Issues Related to Coverage Requirements for the Project Area Pursuant to TRPA’s Code.
TKPOA is also troubled by the fact that the Project description’s “coverage” analysis ignores certain factors that when properly accounted for may require a modification of the Marina Project’s footprint, layout, and/or design.
For example, while the IS/MND describes the Project’s “coverage” feature in relation to certain land use frameworks, it omits any discussion of coverage in relation to the “Dillingham Settlement Agreement.” The Project site consists of three parcels with one of those parcels— “Parcel 022-210-041”—being part of the “State Portion of Parcel 3” of the Dillingham Settlement Agreement project area. According to the Dillingham Settlement Agreement, no coverage was allocated to the “State Portion of Parcel 3” (APN 022-210-041). The IS/MND does not take this into account when discussing coverage.
In addition, TKPOA believes the Project as proposed may not allow for a boundary line adjustment pursuant to TRPA Code Standards. In moving the boundary line of parcel APN 022- 210-040 to create a 32,000 square foot parcel for conveyance to TKPOA, TKPOA’s consultants have calculated that the percent coverage of the Marina’s Project area increases from 77% covered up to 80% covered, resulting in the Project area becoming more non-conforming. As you know, TRPA would not authorize such a result. Moreover, to create a 32,000 square foot lot, the Marina would also be required to merge the parcels in their Project area so that the lot line adjustment would not increase development potential by creating a greater number of parcels than the number of parcels that currently exist. However, neither the City nor the Marina address this or any of the other concerns related to a boundary line or lot line adjustment for creation of the 32,000 square foot parcel. The Staff Report and the IS/MND merely gloss over these important ramifications associated with TKSMI’s obligation to create a 32,000 square foot lot for conveyance to TKPOA.
TKSMI Should Not Show or Accede to Showing Development on the TKSMI Land that Differs from the Parties’ Mutual Understanding
As discussed above, the plan sets included in the Planning Commission materials for the June 11 meeting now depict development on the 32,000 square foot portion of APN 022-210- 040. See below for a snippet, which is an example taken from Sheet L0.1A titled “Site Illustrative Plan.”
1582
June 10, 2026
108447\19521297v1
When compared against the depiction of this property in the IS/MND, one can clearly see that the 32,000 square foot area is now shown with development, presumably water tanks and other facilities based on the circular and rectangular lines drawn into what was previously delineated as a blank square in the prior depictions. (See above.) Noticeably absent is the “Property Line” that was drawn onto the figure included in the IS/MND.
In light of the background we provide above, TKPOA is justifiably concerned that this alternative development shown in this figure, as well as the now eliminated “Property Line” from this figure, indicate TKSMI may not have disclosed to the City the existence of the Agreement between the Parties, or the fact that this Agreement contemplates TKSMI will “endeavor to expeditiously complete” a lot line adjustment to create the 32,000 square foot parcel for TKPOA’s use as a corporation yard.
We express this concern to you so that you have the benefit of understanding these important background details as you consider whether to approve the Marina Project. * * *
Thank you for your consideration of TKPOA’s comments on the Planning Commission materials and the IS/MND for the Project. Feel free to contact me should you have questions regarding any of the above.
1583
June 10, 2026
108447\19521297v1
Sincerely,
Cox, Castle & Nicholson LLP
Scott B. Birkey
Ccs: Heather Stroud, City Attorney
1584
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
South Lake Tahoe, California
June 2026
1585
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
South Lake Tahoe, California
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Prepared for:
Development Services Department
1052 Tata Lane
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
[email protected]
Prepared by:
P.O. Box 1760
Zephyr Cove, NV 89448
(775) 588-2505
Contact:
Chris Mundhenk
Principal
(916) 388-5655
[email protected]
1586
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Reporting South Lake Tahoe, California June 2026
1 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code [PRC] Section 21000 et seq.), the City of South Lake Tahoe (City) prepared an initial study/mitigated negative declaration (IS/MND) (State Clearinghouse No. 2026040227) for the proposed Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project (Project) that identified significant but mitigable impacts related to: Biological Resources; Hazards and Hazardous Materials; and Noise and Vibration.
CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines (PRC Section 21081.6 and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15091[d] and 15097) require public agencies “to adopt a reporting and monitoring program for changes to the project which it has adopted or made a condition of project approval to mitigate or avoid significant effects on the environment.” A mitigation monitoring and reporting plan (MMRP) has been prepared for the Project because the IS/MND identifies significant impacts related to Project implementation, and mitigation measures have been identified to reduce those impacts. Adoption of the MMRP would occur along with adoption of the IS/MND.
PURPOSE OF MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM
The MMRP has been prepared to ensure that all required mitigation measures are implemented and completed in a satisfactory manner before and during Project construction and operation, as applicable.
The MMRP table provided herein has been prepared to assist the responsible parties in implementing the mitigation measures. The table identifies the impact, individual mitigation measures, monitoring responsibility, and mitigation timing. The table also provides space to confirm implementation of the mitigation measures after Project approval. The numbering of mitigation measures follows the numbering sequence found in the IS/MND.
Mitigation measures that are referenced more than once in the IS/MND are not duplicated in the MMRP table.
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
Unless otherwise specified herein, the City is responsible for taking all actions necessary to implement the mitigation measures under its jurisdiction according to the specifications provided for each measure and for demonstrating that the action has been successfully completed. The City, at its discretion, may delegate implementation responsibility or portions thereof to a licensed contractor or other designated agent.
PRC Section 21081.6 requires the lead agency to identify the “custodian of documents and other material” which constitutes the “record of proceedings” upon which the action on the Project was based. The City, or designee, is the custodian of such documents for the Project. Inquiries should be directed to:
John Hitchcock, Planning Manager
City of South Lake Tahoe
[email protected]
The location of this information is:
City of South Lake Tahoe
Development Services Department
1052 Tata Lane
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
The City is responsible for overall administration of the MMRP and for verifying that staff, the construction contractor, or other designated party has completed the necessary actions for each measure. The party 1587
Tahoe Keys Marina Redevelopment Project
Mitigation Measures and Monitoring Reporting South Lake Tahoe, California June 2026
2 responsible for implementing each item will identify the staff members responsible for coordinating with the Trustees on the MMRP.
REPORTING
The City shall require the contractor(s) to maintain records documenting compliance of the activity with the required mitigation measures. Information regarding inspections and other requirements shall be compiled and explained in monthly reports. The reports shall be designed to simply and clearly identify whether mitigation measures have been adequately implemented. At a minimum, each report shall identify the mitigation measures or conditions to be monitored for implementation, whether compliance with the mitigation measures or conditions has occurred, the procedures used to assess compliance, and whether further action is required.
MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PLAN TABLE
The categories identified in the attached MMRP table are described below. • Mitigation Measure – This column denotes the coding for each mitigation measure and correlates to the IS/MND.
• Mitigation Activity – This column provides the verbatim text of the adopted mitigation measure. • Implemented By – This column identifies the party responsible for ensuring implementation of the mitigation measure.
• Monitored By – This column identifies the party responsible for verifying compliance. • Timing and Frequency – This column identifies the time frame within which the mitigation will be implemented, as well as the frequency that it must be conducted. • Verification – This column is to be dated and signed by the monitoring party. 1588
June 2026
3 Table 1. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Mitigation
Measure Mitigation Activity Implemented By Monitored By Timing and Frequency Verification
BIO-1
Project activities that could result in nesting migratory bird and raptor take, such as removal of vegetation or man-made structures and conducting activities that may cause excessive noise, vibrations, or otherwise have potential to cause nest abandonment (e.g., piling), will be performed outside the migratory bird and raptor nesting season (typically February 15th through September 15th). September 16th through February 14th is a suitable timeframe for completing such activities that pose a risk to nesting birds and raptors. If these activities are to occur during the nesting season, the Project proponent will require that a qualified biologist conduct a nesting bird and raptor survey no more than 14 days prior to the beginning of those activities within a recommended minimum 500-foot buffer of the Project area. The survey results shall be submitted to CDFW prior to the start of construction activities. If no active nest is found, no further action will be required. If an active nest is found and avoidance is not feasible, construction or other disturbance activity will initially be prohibited within 500 feet of a raptor nest and 250 feet of a non-raptor nest to minimize disturbance until the nest is no longer active.
A qualified biologist will monitor the nest during Project activities, to determine whether the exclusionary buffer is appropriately sized to minimize impacts to the nest during the start of disturbance activities. The qualified biologist will have the authority to stop work if Project activities cause the nesting birds to vocalize, make defensive flights, displace from a brooding position, or fly off the nest. The buffer may be increased or decreased depending on the birds’ level of tolerance to the disturbance.
The results of the monitoring efforts and the professional judgment of the qualified biologist will be used to determine whether the exclusionary buffer can be modified or if other performance-based modifications are necessary. Other performance-based modifications may include visual or noise screens between the nest and Project activities. The exclusionary buffer and/or other performance-based modifications will remain in place until the chicks have fledged or the nest is no longer active, as determined by a qualified biologist.
Contractor;
Contractorprovided
qualified
biologist (if
construction is
initiated during
nesting season)
City of South
Lake Tahoe
Prior to and
during
construction, as
needed
1589
June 2026
4 Mitigation
Measure Mitigation Activity Implemented By Monitored By Timing and Frequency Verification
BIO-2
A preconstruction survey for special status plants and wildlife, including Tahoe yellow cress, SNYLF, LCT, and other species identified in the BRA/LSAA, shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 3 days prior to the onset of construction activities. If any special status species (or sign of presence) are identified, the Project proponent shall consult with TRPA, USFWS, and/or CDFW, as appropriate depending on species status, to determine and implement appropriate measures to achieve no net loss of occupied habitat or individuals. Additional measures may include, but are not limited to, preserving and enhancing existing populations, creating offsite populations through seed collection or transplantation, and/or restoring or creating suitable habitat in sufficient quantities to achieve no net loss of occupied habitat and/or individuals. Potential mitigation sites could include suitable locations outside of the Project area but within Cove East/Upper Truckee Marsh.
Contractorprovided
qualified
biologist
City of South
Lake Tahoe
Prior to
construction,
once
BIO-3
A qualified biologist shall conduct environmental awareness training for all construction personnel. The training shall include basic visual identification of special status species, required preconstruction measures, general measures that are being implemented to conserve the species as they relate to the Project, penalties for non-compliance, and the boundaries of the Project area and of the permitted disturbance zones.
Supporting materials containing training information shall be prepared and distributed. Upon completion of training, all construction personnel shall sign a form stating that they have attended the training and understand the protection measures and consequences of permit/take violations. Proof of this instruction shall be kept on file with the Project proponent. The Project proponent or designated biologist shall provide CDFW with a copy of the training materials and copies of the signed forms indicating that training has been completed. If new construction personnel are added to the site, the crew foreman shall ensure that the personnel receive the mandatory training from the qualified or designated biologist before starting work.
Contractorprovided
qualified
biologist
City of South
Lake Tahoe
Prior to
construction,
once
1590
June 2026
5 Mitigation
Measure Mitigation Activity Implemented By Monitored By Timing and Frequency Verification
BIO-4
To prevent the spread of AIS, any construction equipment and materials that enter or leave the lagoon will be inspected for AIS, and if needed, decontaminated prior to the start of the Project. Decontamination protocol will be implemented in a manner consistent with TRPA’s Aquatic Invasive Species Management Program. Equipment and materials will be cleaned, free of dirt, vegetation material, and other debris prior to entering the lagoon. Re-inspection and decontamination of equipment and materials at the end of the Project will also be conducted to avoid spreading AIS from TKM to other locations. As the bulkhead is being removed, visual inspections will be conducted, and any attached plants or invertebrates will be removed and disposed of in a secure manner (e.g., dumpster). Floating plant fragments resulting from the Project work will be collected by hand or skim and disposed of in a secure manner.
Bulkhead sections will be placed on pavement to dry for 1 week. If a rain event occurs during this drying time, the drying time will need to be restarted. If temperatures reach below freezing for 6 continuous hours during this drying time, this will count as a sufficient freeze period to kill AIS, and the drying period can be suspended. Any drainage inlets near where materials are placed for drying will be temporarily modified to prevent the flow of AIS contaminated water from flowing back into the lagoon.
Contractor City of South
Lake Tahoe
During
construction, as
needed
BIO-5
Biological monitoring by a qualified biologist will be conducted weekly, or at an interval otherwise specified in permits acquired as part of the Project, to perform nest checks, search for bald eagles, and monitor for special status species including LCT, SNYLF, and other special status species with potential to occur. The monitoring is to ensure no take of special status species occurs during Project implementation and to ensure all permit conditions are followed. The biologist will have authority to stop any Project activity that may impact special status species in the Project area. Monitoring reports will be provided to the Project proponent weekly, or as otherwise required by the permits for the Project.
Contractorprovided
qualified
biologist
City of South
Lake Tahoe
During
construction,
weekly
1591
June 2026
6 Mitigation
Measure Mitigation Activity Implemented By Monitored By Timing and Frequency Verification
HAZ-1
During construction (i.e., demolition, grading, or excavation) and if stained soil, hydrocarbon odor, or other indicators of contamination are encountered during excavation, the construction contractor shall halt all on-site activities until a qualified environmental professional can assess the potentially impacted soil. Impacted soil or groundwater shall be handled and disposed of in accordance with Lahontan RWQCB and Department of Toxic Substances Control requirements.
Contractor City of South
Lake Tahoe
During
construction, as
needed
NOI-1
The following measures would be implemented by the contractor during construction:
• 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, is 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 area.
• 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 noisesensitive receptors nearest the Project area during all Project construction.
Contractor City of South
Lake Tahoe
During
construction,
daily
1592
Memorandum
To: Eric Metz, Suntex Marinas
From: Rob Brueck
Date: December 10, 2025
Subject: Scenic Quality Evaluation of Tahoe Keys Marina Development
This memorandum provides an evaluation of scenic quality associated with potential development of the Tahoe Keys Marina (TKM) as depicted in the Cathexes plan set dated October 9, 2025 and the proposed amendment to TRPA Code Chapter 37.5.2. The evaluation focuses on how proposed increases to maximum building height and subsequent redevelopment of the site may affect scenic quality for nearby scenic resources (e.g., roadway and shoreline travel route ratings, specific scenic resources, recreational resources) – beneficially or adversely.
TKM DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL
Suntex Marinas proposes the complete redevelopment of the existing Tahoe Keys Marina located within the City of South Lake Tahoe, with the objective of replacing the existing marina facilities and accessory uses (boat rental, restaurant spaces, marina supplies) with new structures, parking, boat storage, boat ramp, and landscaping. The TKM Property is located within Special Area #1 of Plan Area 102 (Tahoe Keys). Plan Area 102 has a residential land use classification, but includes Special Area #1 for the TKM where Marinas are an allowed use. Figure 1 shows the location of the TKM project area in relation to Venice Drive East (vehicle access), Lake Tahoe and adjacent development including the Tahoe Keys Property Owners Association residential condos (left side of the figure) to the west and California Tahoe Conservancy Upper Truckee Marsh and trail to Cove East Beach to the east (right side of the figure).
TKM occupies approximately 8 acres of land and 13.5 acres of water at South Lake Tahoe, California. The water area was created by dredging on private land with a channel connecting the water area to the waters of Lake Tahoe. The channel is shared with the Tahoe Keys Property Owners Association (TKPOA) and Tahoe Keys Beach and Harbor Association (TKBHA). The TKM is accessed from Venice Drive East following its intersection with Tahoe Keys Boulevard.
Existing development at TKM consists of three large wood frame buildings and several small sheds.
The existing buildings contain eight commercial spaces and three residential units. Building 1 (Marina Services) is a 2-story building with approximately 12,600 square feet (sf) of commercial floor area currently used as a boat maintenance and repair shop for the marina. Building 2 (Marina Administration) is a 2-story building with approximately 22,200 sf of commercial floor area with offices and storage on the first floor, and three units of multi-family housing on the second. Building 3 (Marina Restaurant) is a 2-story building with approximately 15,000 sf configured for use as a restaurant and formerly operated under the name “Fresh Ketch.” Other site improvements include a two lane boat launching ramp, 3-ton boat hoist, two fuel storage tanks, six fuel dispensing facilities, three waste pump-out disposal facilities, paved parking and driveway areas, unpaved boat storage areas, boat docking facilities, 305 boat slips, and landscaped areas. In addition to the on1593
site improvements, TKM owns and maintains an off-premise sign at the intersection of Venice Drive East and Tahoe Keys Blvd.
Figure 1: Project Location
The TKM development (Figure 2) proposes to replace the three existing buildings located at the north end of the marina with four structures comprised of marina accessory retail/concession, marina support facilities, offices, indoor and outdoor dining, restrooms/common areas, a central courtyard (“The Basin Plaza”) and a public waterfront promenade adjacent to the marina waters.
Two other structures (water/boat storage and dockmaster/boat showroom) would be developed at the south end of the TKM property where surface parking and vertical boat rack storage is currently located. Finally, the boat launch would be relocated south next to the boat showroom structure and 1594
adjacent to the boat storage facility, and a trash facility/public restroom would be accessible from the end of Venice Drive East and in close proximity to a proposed Promenade Park and trailhead to the California Tahoe Conservancy (CTC) Cove East Beach.
Figure 2: Site Plan
The four two-story commercial/marina accessory buildings include approximately 75,000 square feet of floor area for retail/concession, food and beverage, marina support, office, and common areas. The water and boat storage facility includes approximately 52,000 square feet to house three indoor water tanks and boat storage. The two-story dockmaster building/boat showroom provides approximately 24,000 square feet of floor area for marina operations staff/functions, marina management, marina storage (i.e., lines, electrical gear, fenders, etc.), ship store (bait, tackle, ice, etc.), boat showroom, and three residential units (2nd floor). Lastly, a one-story combined trash facility/public restroom building includes 1,300 square feet accessible from Venice Drive for trash/recycling storage and public restrooms for guests of the marina and CTC Cove East trail and beach. The four commercial/marina accessory buildings propose maximum building heights ranging from 32’11” to 34’5”. Building heights for the other structures include: dockmaster building at 36’6”; boat storage building at 42’0”, and trash/public restroom facility at 17’3”. Figure 3 documents how the proposed Tahoe Keys Marina buildings, site access and marina amenities would line up with the existing built environment consisting of buildings, access driveways and parking lots (the outline of proposed buildings is overlaid on top of existing aerial imagery). 1595
Figure 3: Proposed Site Plan Overlaid on Existing Conditions
PROPOSED TRPA CODE AMENDMENTS
A TRPA Code of Ordinance amendment is proposed to Section 37.5.2 to increase allowable building height for inland marinas and facilitate the TKM site redevelopment outlined above. The proposed amendment would add “inland marinas” to the list of “current recreational uses” that qualify for building heights greater than those set forth in Code Section 37.4. The list of “certain recreational uses” that currently qualify for additional building height include: downhill ski facilities, cross country skiing facilities, or recreation uses whose primary recreation use is participant sports facilities, recreation centers, or sport assembly. If amended, this Code Section
37.5.2.A.3 would allow inland marinas to increase building heights specified in Table 37.4.1-1 by up to four feet, but not to exceed a maximum height of 38 feet, provided that TRPA makes Code Section 37.7 findings 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7. Further, if amended, Code Section 37.5.2.C would allow the maximum building heights specified in Table 37.4.1-1 to be increased by up to an additional eight feet, but not to exceed a maximum height of 42 feet, if the building will not be visible from Lake Tahoe and the building is not located within a TRPA-designated scenic highway corridor, provided TRPA makes the same Code Section 37.7 findings listed above. Finally, if amended, Code Section 37.5.2.C would allow an additional four feet to be earned, not to exceed a maximum of 42 feet, if the building meets the criteria and findings set forth above and is not visible from a TRPA-designed scenic highway corridor pursuant to Section 66.2.
A TRPA Code amendment is also proposed to remove Venice Boulevard from the definition of Major Arterial in Section 90.2. A road named Venice Boulevard does not exist in the Tahoe Basin, and Venice Drive does not satisfy the requirements for a major arterial, generally defined as a major through road that carries a large amount of traffic from collector streets to highways. Venice Drive has one lane in each direction and has no outlet at its eastern cul-de-sac terminus. 1596
TRPA SCENIC RESOURCE THRESHOLDS
The TRPA established a baseline inventory of the scenic resources in the Lake Tahoe Basin (Wagstaff and Brady 1983, TRPA 1993). The Basin was divided up into separate roadway, shoreline, and recreation area scenic units, and each unit was given a scenic resource rating and threshold. Scenic resource thresholds were developed using an inventory of subcomponents for specific types of scenic resources within each roadway, shoreline, and certain recreation area units.
The TRPA prepared a Scenic Quality Improvement Program for the Lake Tahoe Basin (SQIP) to maintain or upgrade the scenic quality of recreation areas, roadway views, and Lake Tahoe (TRPA 1989). For purposes of this report, the scenic quality standards of the TRPA Code of Ordinances are defined as follows:
66.1.3. Roadway and Shoreline Unit Scenic Quality: The project shall not cause a decrease in the numerical ratings assigned to roadway or shoreline units, including the scenic quality rating of the individual resources within each unit, as recorded in the 1982 Scenic Resources Inventory and shown in Tables 13-3, 13-5, 13-8, and 13-9 of the Study Report for the Establishment of Environmental Threshold Carrying Capacities, October 1982. The criteria for rating scenic quality as identified in the referenced study report shall be used to determine if a project will cause a decrease in the numerical rating.
The TKM development is not visible from any scenic roadway units or individual roadway scenic resources and therefore the scenic standards for roadways do not apply. The TKM development is potentially visible from Shoreline Units 1 (Tahoe Keys) and 33 (Truckee Marsh) and therefore these scenic resources will be addressed in the analysis below.
66.1.4. Roadway and Shoreline Unit Travel Routes: The project shall not cause a decrease in the 1982 roadway or shoreline travel route ratings as shown in Tables 13-6 and 13-7, respectively, of the Study Report for the Establishment of Environmental Threshold Carrying Capacities, October 1982. The criteria for rating travel routes as identified in the referenced study report and as further explained in the report entitled A Scenic Analysis of Principle Travel Routes In The Lake Tahoe Region, 1970, shall be used to determine if a project will cause a decrease in the numerical rating.
For projects in the shoreland (300 feet from Lake Tahoe high water line), Section 66.3 shall be used to determine if it will contribute to a decrease in the numerical rating for a shoreline travel route rating.
The TKM development is not visible from any scenic roadway unit travel routes and therefore the scenic standards for roadway travel routes do not apply. The TKM development is not located within the shoreland (300 feet from Lake Tahoe high water line) and therefore Code Section 66.3 standards for scenic impacts to the shoreland do not apply.
66.1.5. Public Recreation Areas and Bicycle Trails: The project shall not cause a decrease in any numerical subcomponent threshold rating or total threshold rating assigned to a scenic resource identified in the 1993 Lake Tahoe Basin Scenic Resource Evaluation. Prior to approving a project that may potentially affect an identified scenic resource, TRPA shall find that the project is consistent with applicable recommendations for preserving scenic quality of the affected recreation area or bicycle trail found in the 1993 Lake Tahoe Basin Scenic Resource Evaluation.
The TKM development is not visible from any TRPA designated public recreation areas or bicycle trails identified in the 1993 Lake Tahoe Basin Scenic Resources Evaluation. Therefore, the scenic standards for public recreation areas and bicycle trails do not apply. 1597