Counselors have created and endowed the MIT Center for Real Estate, resolved the dispute between the developer of the World Trade Center and its insurers post-September 11, 2001; led the privatization of U.S. Army Housing; developed a multi-billion-dollar, 10-year master plan for Philadelphia Public Schools, and valued both the Grand Canyon and Yale University.
Counselors practice in 22 countries and U.S. territories, with only 1,000 professionals holding the CRE® credential worldwide. Thought Leadership is a core competency of the CRE organization as exemplified by the peer reviewed journal, Real Estate Issues, and presentation of major real estate symposia in partnership with Harvard and Stanford Universities.
CRE Members. Membership in The Counselors of Real Estate is selective and extended by invitation to commercial real estate practitioners with at least 10 years of proven experience. The stringent membership criteria ensure CRE members possess:
• Recognized records of accomplishment
• Commitment to excellence
• Uncompromising adherence to high standards of professional conduct • Visionary, yet practical approaches, to real estate issues CRE Consulting Corps. The CRE Consulting Corps, a public service program of The Counselors of Real Estate, provides real estate analysis and action plans for municipalities, not-for-profit organizations, educational institutions, and government agencies that address their clients’ real estate dilemmas and often enhance the performance of a property or a portfolio. Each Consulting Corps project is conducted by a small group of volunteer members selected for their experience and skillsets to specifically address the client’s needs. The extensive talent base available within the CRE community ensures that teams can provide expertise on virtually any real estate issue, providing:
▪ Feasible, achievable solutions from experienced professionals. ▪ Non-partisan, objective advice.
▪ Extremely cost-effective service.
▪ Advice and recommendations provided quickly on site.
Finding the Right CRE. Members of The Counselors of Real Estate, awarded the CRE credential, are available to assist with your real estate challenge. Visit the CRE website to find the right CRE at https://cre.org/find-a-cre-search/ or contact CRE staff for assistance in identifying Counselors with the right skill sets and experience to address your need.
609
SPURRING REDEVELOPMENT IN THE MID-TOWN AREA | SOUTH LAKE TAHOE 83 Appendix
Appendix VII - The CRE® Consulting Corps Team
Timothy R. Lowe, CRE - Team Leader
Principal
Waronzof Associates
Los Angeles, California
Timothy Lowe, CRE, is responsible for directing real estate consulting and valuation engagements, analysis of highest and best use, acquisition due diligence, appraisal review, economic feasibility analysis, and market research for project development. Mr. Lowe’s valuation practice includes an emphasis on litigation, investment analysis, and counseling. His experience includes appraisal and consulting engagements across the continental United States, Alaska and Hawaii, Canada, and Argentina, and includes a number of notable properties and projects. He has been accepted as an expert witness in state and federal courts in the areas of real estate and going concern valuation, project feasibility, and plan feasibility.
Jonathan H. Avery, CRE
Founding Principal
Avery Associates
Acton, Massachusetts
Jon Avery, CRE, is involved in a variety of real estate appraisal and consulting activities, including market value estimates, marketability studies, feasibility studies, and general advice and guidance on real estate matters to public, private, and corporate clients. He has more than 30 years of appraisal experience in addition to having served as arbitrator and counselor in a variety of proceedings and negotiations involving real estate. He is a general certified appraiser in Massachusetts and New Hampshire and a licensed Real Estate Broker in Massachusetts. In 1993, he served as an appraisal consultant for the Eastern European Real Property Foundation in Poland. He has been actively engaged in the real estate business since 1967.
Kirsten McGregor, CRE
Principal & Founder
Sagax Associates, LLC
Wilmington, Delaware
Kirsten McGregor, CRE, has held prominent roles as Senior Policy Advisor on President Obama’s Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force, Deputy Director of the Delaware Economic Development Office, and Lead Economic Recovery Coordinator for New Jersey following Hurricane Sandy. She is a Senior Fellow at the University of Delaware Joseph Biden School of Public Policy’s Institute for Public Administration, and she is an advisor for UD’s Island Policy Lab. She is a member of the National Association of Development Organization’s Research Foundation Advisory Committee and serves on NADO’s board of directors. Ms. McGregory was recognized by Forbes magazine on their “Next 1000” list 610
SPURRING REDEVELOPMENT IN THE MID-TOWN AREA | SOUTH LAKE TAHOE 84 Appendix
of small business founders to watch and was also recognized as a “leading woman in business” by Delaware Today Magazine.
Philip Seagraves, Ph.D., CRE
Associate Professor/ Director of Real Estate Studies
Middle Tennessee State University
Murfreesboro, Tennessee
Philip Seagraves, PhD, CRE, directs the real estate studies program at Middle Tennessee State University. His work encompasses a wide range of topics within real estate, including feasibility studies, development, project analysis, and strategic planning. His academic and professional experience equips him with a valuable perspective and skill set. His research interests include commercial mortgage-backed securities, REITs, brokerage, capital structure, corporate real estate, market analysis, investment analysis, and statistical methods. Resulting achievements include numerous publications and academic research presentations. He is deeply familiar with the unique challenges and opportunities regarding workforce housing in resort areas.
Paul Stiplosek, CRE
Vice President
SMBC Manubank
San Jose, California
Paul Stiplosek, CRE, has a career spanning over thirty years financing numerous housing and commercial developments exceeding several billion dollars. His work has provided unique insight into what makes public/private partnerships work. He has worked with non-profit organizations and government agencies, necessitating creative approaches to inducing the private sector to invest in a region or project.
In order to resolve defaulted debt, he has completed entitlements of real estate projects which for various reasons required that he assume the role of developer. He has personally developed several projects where the ground up development necessitated obtaining full entitlements, and required determining market demand, design, architectural concept through to engineering and final elevations and plans. 611
612
613
614
Fall 2024
Lake Tahoe Region
Business Walks
Report
615
2 TahoeProsperityCenter-LakeTahoeBusinessWalkSurveyReport 616
Lake Tahoe Business Walks 2024
Final Report
Tahoe Prosperity Center
Tahoe Prosperity Center (TPC) is an innovative economic and community development nonprofit. In order to make Lake Tahoe truly inclusive and prosperous, we are working to establish attainable workforce housing, improve job and training opportunities, extend reliable and robust internet, and ensure a safe Basin equipped with fire safety cameras - all driven by locally focused, community indicators data.
Our mission is uniting Tahoe’s communities to strengthen regional prosperity.
Collaboration is the foundation of Tahoe Prosperity Center.
Tahoe is made up of two states, five counties, and an incorporated city and we work across jurisdictional lines to ensure positive change happens for all of Lake Tahoe. Each of the Tahoe Prosperity Center’s projects are informed by verified data and community input to ensure accountability and measurability.
Business Walks Background
TPC was asked by the Chambers and Business Associations in the Lake Tahoe region to support a region-wide set of “Business walks” in October 2024. TPC had previously coordinated business walks in the spring of 2016. While business and resident surveys have been conducted online since that time, an in-person survey of businesses had not happened on a regional, coordinated basis since before the pandemic.
Business walks and surveys are a way of understanding a “moment in time” of how things are going in the regional economy. This snapshot of information can be very useful in providing local business associations and chambers of commerce, as well as local government partners data to use that can support ongoing business support efforts. It can also be useful to better understand what is working or not working in the 3 Tahoe Prosperity Center - Lake Tahoe Business Walk Survey Report 617
region, helping elected officials and leaders make informed decisions that impact local small businesses in the region. It is also part of the Tahoe Prosperity Center mission to regularly check in with businesses and residents as part of the Envision Tahoe Prosperity Playbook, so coordinating these business walks aligns with that goal.
Project Partners
Regional Partners included the following organizations and agencies and we greatly appreciate the time and effort they put into ensuring the success of these business walks:
● The Tahoe Prosperity Center
● Tahoe Chamber
● Lake Tahoe Community College
● South Tahoe Chamber
● Lake Tahoe Visitors Authority
● City of South Lake Tahoe
● El Dorado County Economic Development
● North Tahoe Community Alliance
● North Tahoe Chamber
● North Tahoe Business Association
● Tahoe City Downtown Association
● Placer County Economic Development
● Incline Village Crystal Bay Business Association
● Travel North Tahoe Nevada
● Douglas County Economic Vitality
● Destination Stewardship Council
● All 64 of the community volunteers!
4 Tahoe Prosperity Center - Lake Tahoe Business Walk Survey Report 618
Methodology
The business walks included both an in-person survey using the Ecanvasser application pre-loaded with questions. This program, typically used for political canvassing, had everything needed for business to business surveying. With the businesses uploaded into this software accessible via mobile devices and computers, modifiable custom fields for each contact, and an interactive map of the area we were able to coordinate the in-person survey effort of the business walks. Volunteers were organized in teams to walk into businesses and complete the surveys between October 15-17, 2024.
In-person surveys through Ecanvasser were tracked as Not Available, Gave a QR Card, Not Interested, and Answered; 277 businesses answered during the in-person surveys, but over 700 businesses were contacted. Some businesses were unavailable or closed when visited, others were not interested in completing the surveys, others were busy and some were given a QR code card to complete the online survey at a later time.
The same survey questions were included in an online SurveyMonkey to allow businesses that were closed or unavailable to complete it at a later time. QR codes were left behind at those businesses when canvassing in person to allow easy access to the online option. The online survey was open during the same timeframe through October 31, 2024 and 92 businesses completed online surveys. Consistency between the in-person surveys and online surveys was critical in order to merge the data for this final report.
Survey Questions
1. How is business?
○ Increasing
○ Stable
○ Decreasing
2. Do you have the staff and/or
resources you need for your business
to thrive?
Yes/No
○ If not, what is needed? Photo provided by the Tahoe Chamber ○ If you need more staff, what is working in finding them and what isn't? 5 Tahoe Prosperity Center - Lake Tahoe Business Walk Survey Report 619
3. What tools, resources or infrastructure would enable you to grow or maintain your business in the next few years?
○ Employee Housing
○ Affordable Childcare
○ Workforce Development & Training
○ Improved Broadband/cellular service
○ More Parking/Transit
○ Business Loans
○ Other:
4. How do you feel about the future of our Tahoe economy? ○ Very good
○ Good
○ Unsure
○ Concerned
○ Very concerned
5. How can local government and business associations/chambers help your business? ○ Advocacy
○ Marketing/Advertising
○ Streamlined Permitting & Licensing
○ Improved Broadband/cellular service
○ Business Loans
○ Providing local employee housing
○ Consolidated/Discounted Credit Card processing fees
○ Pooling together for discounts for major purchases/procurement or employee health benefit programs
○ Disability access and inclusion policies
○ Customer service training
○ Other:
6. How important is the tourism economy to your business? ○ Very important
○ Somewhat important
○ Neutral
○ Not very important
○ Irrelevant
6 Tahoe Prosperity Center - Lake Tahoe Business Walk Survey Report 620
Photo provided by the Tahoe Prosperity Center
7. In your opinion, how important is sustainability/environmental stewardship to the success of our local economy?
○ Very important
○ Somewhat important
○ Neutral
○ Not very important
○ Irrelevant
8. Do you have any sustainability practices you would like to share with us today? ○ Water conservation efforts
○ Water bottle filling station
○ Compostable takeout packaging
○ Sourcing local products
○ Energy-efficient appliances
○ Visitor education
○ Other:
9. Type of business – list in the app and check. For “Other” allow a text box response. ● Food & Beverage
● Lodging (including real estate industry/vacation rental services) ● Outdoor Recreation
7 Tahoe Prosperity Center - Lake Tahoe Business Walk Survey Report 621
● Healthcare/Fitness/Beauty
● Retail
● Non-profit/Government/Agency
● Professional Services (finance, insurance, accounting, IT) ● Trades
● Other:
Regional Summary
The Lake Tahoe Business Walk survey provides critical insights into the current business environment and community needs in the Tahoe region. Key findings from the survey indicate that while many businesses are stable or growing, there is still a significant need for workforce housing and improved transportation infrastructure. These challenges are echoed in the Prosperity Playbook, which highlights the need for a coordinated regional approach to address these issues and support economic resilience.
The survey also underscores the
importance of tourism to the local
economy, with most businesses
considering it very important. This
aligns with the Playbook's focus on
balancing tourism and leveraging
the region's reputation for health
and wellness to attract new
investment.
Photo provided by: NTCA
Additionally, regional collaboration between local government, business owners and the Chambers/Business Associations has room to improve. There are a lot of misunderstandings about the role of government with business attraction, support and services as well as workforce development, tourism and resident advertising to support local businesses, etc. Infrastructure needs were consistently brought up, but often business owners did not know who to talk to about things such as better broadband or coordinated support for employee training and skills development. 8 Tahoe Prosperity Center - Lake Tahoe Business Walk Survey Report 622
Finally, streamlining regulations, improved transportation and more affordable housing were brought up consistently as major roadblocks to local small businesses. The Tahoe Prosperity Center suggests a few solutions that could help in these areas, some that are already in progress, with others’ ideas to consider in 2025. They include:
● Sharing the status of housing projects in the region in one easy to access website for community members (the TRPA Living Working Group has done much work in this area and maybe that website is the right place for this information). Each jurisdiction has already worked on many housing programs and projects, but the collective effort hasn’t been quantified. The Tahoe Prosperity Center would be happy to host this on our housing website to feature all the regional housing work that has been done, if there is interest.
● A region-wide Elected Officials briefing and discussion meeting to share the common areas and differences between the jurisdictions to further community understanding. The Tahoe Prosperity Center is also willing to coordinate and host this meeting. We could share the results of the Business Walks Survey, update on the status of some of the key socio-economic data points regarding population, jobs, incomes/wages and other indicators, and then allow for our local elected officials to share what is working or challenging in each of their jurisdictions. We believe there is likely more in common with each community than differences.
Photo provided by the Tahoe Chamber
9 Tahoe Prosperity Center - Lake Tahoe Business Walk Survey Report 623
Business Walks Survey - Questions + Answers + Top Insights How is business?
Stable: 179 responses (48.8%)
Increasing: 118 responses (32.2%)
Decreasing: 70 responses (19.1%)
Do you have the staff and/or resources you need for your business to thrive?
Yes: 274 responses (74.3%)
No: 95 responses (25.7%)
If not, what is needed?
1. Housing Affordability: This is the most prominent theme, with many respondents expressing concern about the rising cost of housing and its impact on attracting and retaining employees.
2. Workforce Development: There is a need for training and developing a skilled workforce to meet the demands of the local economy.
3. Economic Challenges: Many businesses are facing economic challenges, including rising costs, decreased revenue, and increased competition.
4. Business Climate: The overall business climate in the area is a concern for many, with factors such as taxes, regulations, and competition impacting businesses.
5. Regulatory Hurdles: Regulatory burdens, such as those imposed by the TRPA, or local governments are hindering business growth and development.
6. Infrastructure Issues: Poor infrastructure, particularly in terms of transportation and snow removal, is impacting businesses and residents.
7. Community Support: Local businesses are seeking more support from the community, including through marketing and advocacy efforts. 10 Tahoe Prosperity Center - Lake Tahoe Business Walk Survey Report 624
8. Seasonal Workforce: The seasonal nature of many businesses in the area creates challenges in staffing and workforce management.
9. Government Support: Businesses are calling for more government support, including funding for affordable housing and infrastructure improvements.
If you need more staff, what is working in finding them and what isn't?
Top 5 Themes: What's Working
1. Word-of-Mouth & Personal Networks: Many businesses find success through recommendations from existing staff and connections within the community. (e.g., Word of mouth, Social media, In person applications, Networking with local groups)
2. Targeted Advertising: Strategies like advertising on location, using local platforms (e.g., Sierra Sun, Craigslist), and social media marketing show some success in attracting local candidates.
3. Competitive Wages & Benefits: Offering competitive wages, full-time hours, and benefits like healthcare and training can attract qualified candidates.
4. J1 Visa Program: Utilizing the J1 visa program allows businesses to access a temporary workforce.
5. Remote Work: For some positions, offering remote work options can expand the applicant pool beyond limitations of local housing availability.
Lake Tahoe
Visitors
Authority
Photo
11 Tahoe Prosperity Center - Lake Tahoe Business Walk Survey Report 625
Top 5 Themes: What's Not Working
1. High Cost of Housing: The primary challenge identified is the high cost of housing in the area, making it difficult for potential employees to afford to live there.
2. National Job Boards: Platforms like Indeed and other major job boards appear to have limited effectiveness in attracting local candidates.
3. Recruiting Challenges: Expenses associated with recruiting, difficulty finding qualified candidates, and low application turnout are ongoing struggles.
4. Seasonal Workforce: The seasonal nature of some businesses makes it difficult to find and retain staff, particularly during peak seasons.
5. Limited Local Workforce: Businesses report a lack of skilled or qualified labor available locally, particularly for specialized positions.
What tools, resources or
infrastructure would enable
you to grow or maintain
your business in the next
few years?
Employee Housing: 143 responses
(37.0%)
More Parking/Transit: 74 responses
(19.1%)
*Other: 170 responses (43.9%)
Themes in the “Other Category” Photo provided by NTCA
● Childcare: Lack of affordable childcare options hinders families and businesses. ● Economy: High cost of living, declining tourism, and struggling businesses. ● Infrastructure: Need for broadband improvement, better signage, and public facilities for tourists.
● Regulations: Concerns about government involvement and high taxes. 12 Tahoe Prosperity Center - Lake Tahoe Business Walk Survey Report 626
How do you feel about the future of our Tahoe economy?
- Very Good: 7 responses (2%)
- Good: 131 responses (43%)
- Unsure: 86 responses (28%)
- Concerned: 74 responses (24%)
- Very Concerned: 8 responses (3%)
How can local government and business associations/chambers help your business?
Marketing/Advertising: 125 responses (24.0%)
Providing local employee housing: 94 responses (18.0%)
Consolidated/Discounted Credit Card processing fees: 40 responses (7.7%) Streamlined Permitting & Licensing: 40 responses (7.7%) Advocacy: 39 responses (7.5%)
Customer service training: 31 responses (6.0%)
Business Loans: 28 responses (5.4%)
Pooling together for discounts for major purchases/procurement or employee health benefit programs: 27 responses (5.2%)
Disability access and inclusion policies: 13 responses (2.5%) *Other: 84 responses (16.1%)
Themes in the “Other Category”
1. Address Housing Crisis:
○ Implement policies to increase affordable housing options more quickly. 13 Tahoe Prosperity Center - Lake Tahoe Business Walk Survey Report 627
○ Encourage the development of workforce housing.
○ Support programs to help employees with housing costs now, while housing projects are being built.
2. Simplify Regulations and Streamline Processes:
○ Reduce bureaucratic red tape and streamline permitting procedures. ○ Advocate for lower taxes and fees for small businesses. ○ Improve communication and collaboration between government agencies and businesses.
3. Enhance Infrastructure and Support Services:
○ Invest in public transportation and parking infrastructure. ○ Improve internet connectivity and broadband access.
○ Provide more support services for small businesses, such as marketing assistance and business counseling.
How important is the tourism economy to your business?
Very important: 251
responses (69.5%)
Somewhat important: 59
responses (16.3%)
Neutral: 27 responses
(7.5%)
Not very important: 15
responses (4.2%)
Irrelevant: 9 responses
(2.5%)
Photo provided by NTCA
In your opinion, how important is sustainability/environmental stewardship to the success of our local economy?
Very important: 251 responses (69.5%)
14 Tahoe Prosperity Center - Lake Tahoe Business Walk Survey Report 628
Somewhat important: 59 responses (16.3%)
Neutral: 27 responses (7.5%)
Not very important: 15 responses (4.2%)
Irrelevant: 9 responses (2.5%)
Do you have any sustainability practices you would like to share with us today?
Water bottle filling station: 61 responses (13.2%)
Sourcing local products: 60 responses (13.0%)
Compostable takeout packaging: 55 responses (11.9%)
Energy-efficient appliances: 51 responses (11.0%)
Visitor education: 49 responses (10.6%)
Water conservation efforts: 47 responses (10.2%)
Final Thoughts
Overall, the survey highlights the need for a comprehensive approach to address the challenges facing businesses in the region. This includes addressing housing affordability, improving infrastructure, streamlining regulations, and providing more support for workforce development.
Business Outlook:
● Optimism: A significant portion of businesses feel they have the necessary resources to thrive.
● Growth and Stability: A majority of businesses are either stable or increasing. ● Economic Challenges: Despite this optimism, there are concerns about economic challenges, including rising costs, decreased revenue, and increased competition.
15 Tahoe Prosperity Center - Lake Tahoe Business Walk Survey Report 629
Workforce and Housing:
● Staffing Shortages: Businesses are facing challenges in hiring and retaining employees, particularly in seasonal industries, although the majority of businesses noted they currently have the staff they need.
● Housing Affordability: The high cost of housing is a major barrier to attracting and retaining employees.
● Workforce Development: There is a need for more skilled workers, and businesses are seeking solutions to address this gap. This is an area for potential alignment with the Chambers, Business Associations and schools.
Government and Community Support:
● Government Support: Businesses are calling for more government support, particularly in the areas of affordable housing, infrastructure, and regulatory reform.
● Community Collaboration: Local businesses are seeking more support from the business and visitor bureau community, including through marketing and advocacy efforts.
● Chambers/Business Associations: Businesses are looking to business associations and chambers of commerce to provide more resources and support, such as marketing assistance, business counseling, and advocacy.
The Lake Tahoe Business Walk survey serves as one tool for understanding the needs and priorities of local businesses. By aligning with the strategic goals outlined in the Prosperity Playbook, the survey provides a roadmap for fostering economic growth and community resilience in the Tahoe region. The Playbook strategies also closely align with the goals of local government economic development efforts, the Chambers and Business Associations work to support small businesses. Improving the success of small businesses in the Lake Tahoe region helps support local residents and therefore a thriving community, so the synergy of these efforts moving forward is a key goal.
The insights gained from this survey will inform future initiatives and partnerships aimed at addressing challenges such as workforce housing, transportation, and a balanced tourism economy. By working together, the Tahoe community can build a more inclusive and resilient economy that benefits all residents and businesses. 16 Tahoe Prosperity Center - Lake Tahoe Business Walk Survey Report 630
Acknowledgements
Thanks to the Tahoe Prosperity Center Program Manager, Derrick Martin and Office Manager, Evelyn Mejia Ronquillo for coordinating and implementing the Ecanvasser application used to collect data during the in-person business walks. This was a new app and had never been used by the TPC team or any of the Chambers or business associations. Evelyn and Derrick supported the training of the volunteers using the app and consolidating the final data to support preparing this final report.
In addition, TPC would like to acknowledge and thank each of the partners organizations. They quickly coordinated all the volunteers for the business walks, hosted many planning meetings and organized food and beverages for the volunteers, in addition to conducting surveys. Coming together as a region is always inspiring and we appreciate your time and commitment to improving our community and economy.
Photo provided by the Tahoe Chamber
17 Tahoe Prosperity Center - Lake Tahoe Business Walk Survey Report 631
FINAL INITIAL STUDY/
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST/
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
FOR THE MID-TOWN AREA/SPECIFIC PLAN
State Clearinghouse Number 2026070821
Prepared by:
City of South Lake Tahoe
1052 Tata Lane
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
&
Ascent Environmental Inc.
www.ascent.inc
August 20, 2026
632
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan
Final IS/ND
2 Table of Contents
1. Summary and Findings .........................................................................................................3
2. Approval of the IS/ND ...........................................................................................................4 Certification by Those Responsible for Preparation of this Document .........................................4
3. Response to Comments .......................................................................................................4 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)....................................................................4 Kim DeYoung, “my comments for the Mid-Town Area Public Review Draft” ..................................5 Appendix A: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Comment Letter..........................8 Appendix B: Kim DeYoung Comment Letter, “my comments for the Mid-Town Area Public Review Draft” ........................................................................................................................................14 Appendix C: Initial Study/ Initial Environmental Checklist/ Negative Declaration Public Review Draft .................................................................................................................................................18 Appendix D: Redlined Mid-Town Area Plan Draft with Summary of Post Circulation Changes......282 633
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan
Final IS/ND
3 1.Summary and Findings
Project: Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan
Lead Agency: City of South Lake Tahoe
Project Contact:
Anna Kashuba
1052 Tata Lane
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
Phone: (530) 542-7405
Email: [email protected]
Project Description: The proposed project is a new area/specific plan that will replace zoning and land use guidance for approximately 780 acres within the City of South Lake Tahoe. The Mid-Town Area Plan (Area Plan) serves as a mutual plan for the City and TRPA by providing directions for how the area should be regulated to achieve regional environmental and land use objectives. The Area Plan will support the 56-Acres Master Plan by further identifying community goals for the space and incentivizing redevelopment, especially mixed-use projects with residential components to create a vibrant and walkable downtown environment. The Town Center overlay previously included 65 acres, to which the Mid-Town Area Plan proposes a 339-acre expansion consistent with the findings in TRPA Code of Ordinances 13.5.3.G. The major changes proposed by the Mid-Town Area Plan are associated with this expansion, as parcels within the Town Center overlay may have more flexible design standards, including height, coverage, and density. Other special designations that overlay parcels within the plan include a stream restoration plan area and Shorezone Tolerance District 4.
Finding: An Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) has been prepared to assess the project’s potential effects on the environment and the significance of those effects. Based on the IS, it has been determined that the proposed project would not have significant effects on the natural environment. This conclusion is supported by the following findings:
1. The proposed project would have no effects, no impact, or less-than-significant impacts related to aesthetics, biological resources, cultural/archaeological/historical/tribal resources, agricultural and forest resources, mineral and natural resources, energy, air quality, greenhouse gas emissions, hydrology/water quality, hazards/hazardous materials, geology and soils, wildfire, land use and planning, noise, population and housing, public services, recreation, transportation/traffic, utilities/service systems/energy resources and mandatory findings of significance.
2. Compliance with existing local, state, regional and/or federal regulations would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Mitigation is not required to avoid or reduce potentially significant impacts.
634
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan
Final IS/ND
4 2.Approval of the IS/ND
Certification by Those Responsible for Preparation of this Document The City of South Lake Tahoe has been responsible for the preparation of this negative declaration and the incorporated initial study. I believe this document meets the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, is an accurate description of the proposed project, and that the lead agency has the means and commitment to implement the regulatory compliance measures that will assure the project does not have any significant, adverse effects on the environment. I recommend approval of this document.
_________________________________________ ___________________________________________ Anna Kashuba, Senior Planner
City of South Lake Tahoe
Date
3.Response to Comments
The Draft IS was circulated for public review and comment between July 21, 2026, and August 19, 2026. A Notice of Intent to adopt a Negative Declaration was sent to state agencies and persons and organizations expressing interest in the project. Copies of the Draft IS and supporting documents were available online on the City of South Lake Tahoe’s website and in person at two City offices.
The following pages contain comments received from state agencies, persons, or organizations and responses from the lead agency.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
Comment letter provided in Appendix A
Freeway Operations
Comment noted. The extent of improvements will not be identified until funding is secured and further outreach is conducted, including collaboration with Caltrans representatives. Prior to project commencement, all necessary permits will be obtained.
Traffic Safety
The IS found that the Mid-Town Area Plan will not significantly increase the number of vehicles traveling on the state highway system. Individual projects that exceed the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency’s VMT standard of significant will be required to implement project level mitigation measures.
Complete Streets
Comment noted. The extent of improvements will not be identified until funding is secured and further outreach is conducted, including collaboration with Caltrans representatives and 635
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan
Final IS/ND
5 consideration of Design Information Bulletin (DIB) 94. Prior to project commencement, all necessary permits will be obtained.
Aeronautics
Mitigation is not required as all projects proposed under the Mid-Town Area Plan will be reviewed in accordance with Policy 2.3 ALUCP Consistency, Ensure all uses and buildings are consistent with the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). This Mid-Town Area Plan does not re-state such findings and policies. Select uses may be allowed as infill development within Safety Zone 4 so long as outdoor activities are minimal, and construction features are included that reduce interior noise levels to 45 dB. Each project will be reviewed for compatibility with airport operations based on their location, size, bulk, height, density, and intensity of use.
Local Development Review
The extent of improvements will not be identified until funding is secured and further outreach is conducted, including collaboration with Caltrans representatives and consideration of Design Information Bulletin (DIB) 94. Prior to project commencement, all necessary permits will be obtained.
Hydraulics
TRPA requires individual properties and project areas to infiltrate the volume of a 20-year/1 hour storm on their property or meet alternative standards in instances where site Constraints are present, such as high groundwater. Stormwater runoff should not impact Caltrans drainage facilities or State highway right-of-way (ROW). Additionally, the Area Plan does not propose expanding roadways that feed the highway drainage system.
Independently of the Mid-Town Area Plan, the City is undertaking the Drainage Master Plan Update.
This project proposes to amend and add to the 2008 Drainage Master Plan. This project will allow the City to more efficiently treat right of way runoff and may provide the opportunity to treat runoff of adjacent properties, further limiting stormwater discharge into state facilities.
The provided remarks/standard language are noted.
Encroachment Permit
A Caltrans encroachment permit will be obtained for all City-initiated projects or work that are completed along or within the State’s ROW. Likewise, if the City issues a permit that includes work along or within the State’s ROW, obtaining a Caltrans encroachment permit is a standard condition of approval. The City staff will continue to facilitate communication between Caltrans and the project applicant to ensure this condition is met.
Kim DeYoung, “my comments for the Mid-Town Area Public Review Draft”
Comment letter provided in Appendix B
1. The land capability map included in the draft plan as figure 13 and in the IS/ND as figure 5 is for general mapping purposes only. Each parcel is required to obtain a land capability verification from TRPA. The results of the parcel-specific land capability verification are used for project review.
636
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan
Final IS/ND
6 2. The maps on pages 43, 44, and 47 identify zoning designations rather than the current use of the parcel, which is shown in figure 2. Figure 2 accurately indicates APNs 027-010-024 and -029 as vacant, consistent with records of the El Dorado County Assessors Office.
3. This item referenced by this comment is a general statement. It refers to the “Alta Mira” parcels that have been improved by the CTC as well as APNs 027-010-024 and -029 which contain bike paths.
4. Comment noted. Staff is aware of the shape of this parcel and the possible need for an easement to provide direct beach access. Currently no beach access is provided. Potential uses of parcel is unknown at this time and would be subject to future planning efforts.
Additionally, any future use would be subject to the City/CTC land exchange agreement.
5. Supporting infrastructure will be identified at the time of project conception.
6. The heights as indicated in the plan require review prior to approval. The following items are included in the plan to prevent negative scenic impacts:
a. Height and Roof Pitch Standard 1: “All locations may be subject to scenic analysis and rendering review to ensure the proposed height does not detract from scenic viewpoints. Hight limitations may apply if conflicts are present.” b. Height and Roof Pitch Standard 3.B: “TRPA Code of Ordinances 37.7.16 shall apply to buildings of three stories or more.” This requires that the following findings be made prior to project approval.
i. TRPA Code of Ordinances 37.7.1. Finding 1: When viewed from major arterials, scenic turnouts, public recreation areas, or the waters of Lake Tahoe, from a distance of 300 feet, the additional height will not cause a building to extend above the forest canopy, when present, or a ridgeline. For height greater than that set forth in Table 37.4.1-1 for a 5:12 roof pitch, the additional height shall not increase the visual magnitude beyond that permitted for structures in the shoreland as set forth in subsection 66.3.7, Additional Visual Magnitude, or Appendix H, Visual Assessment Tool, of the Design Review Guidelines.
ii. TRPA Code of Ordinances 37.7.1. Finding 3: With respect to that portion of the building that is permitted the additional height, the building has been designed to minimize interference with existing views within the area to the extent practicable.
iii. TRPA Code of Ordinances 37.7.1. Finding 5: The portion of the building that is permitted additional building height is adequately screened, as seen from major arterials, the waters of lakes, and other public areas from which the building is frequently viewed. In determining the adequacy of screening, consideration shall be given to the degree to which a combination of the following features causes the building to blend or merge with the background.
1. The horizontal distance from which the building is viewed;
2. The extent of screening; and
3. Proposed exterior colors and building materials.
7. The General Plan noise standards apply to the Mid-Town Area Plan. Outdoor speakers are included in TABLE HS-1, Exterior Noise Level Performance Standards for New Projects 637
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan
Final IS/ND
7 Affected by or Including Non-Transportation Noise Sources (General Plan, page HS-10).
Special events may have amplified sound during hours as specified in the permit, though not later than 10:00 PM.
638
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan
Final IS/ND
8 Appendix A: California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans) Comment Letter
639
640
641
642
643
644
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan
Final IS/ND
14 Appendix B: Kim DeYoung Comment Letter, “my
comments for the Mid-Town Area Public Review Draft”
645
Outlook
my comments for the Mid-Town Area Public Review Draft
From Kim DeYoung <[email protected]>
Date Wed 8/19/2026 11:19 PM
To Anna Kashuba <[email protected]>
Cc Adam DeYoung <[email protected]>
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. 8/19/26 @ 11:18pm
Dear Anna Kashuba, Senior Planner,
My comments - regarding the public comments for the Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan - are in either red font or bold black font below.
All of my seven comments pertain to:
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration Public Review Draft (PDF)
Thank you,
Kim DeYoung
3371 Lake Tahoe Blvd.
1. Page 25:
My comment: The Land Capability map is incorrect as it does NOT show Class 1b on APN 027-010- 029 at the shoreline. This parcel should be a mix of light green and brown (Class 7)
2. Pages 43, 44, 47:
My comment: The map is incorrect for APN parcels 027-010-024 and -029. They should not be marked "Mixed Use" as they are currently CTC owned and are open, natural space. With a potential land exchange between the CTC and City of South Lake Tahoe, there is currently a proposed (by the CTC) deed restriction that would not fall under this document's definition of Mixed Use.
Why are APN parcels 027-010-024 and -029 not marked as green Open Space?
3. Page 40: "There are four (4) parcels within the plan area owned by CTC, totaling 2.02 acres. CTC removed development on these parcels and has restored them to open space with restoration and recreation enhancements such as stabilization, beach access, and bike paths." My comments:
--> If referring to the "Lake Parcels" - specifically APN 027-010-029 - beach access does NOT exist (though it's been marked on the 56 Acres Master Plan before the 646
building was even built). It does not have lake access as the two properties on either side meet together above the high water line.
--> I also want to make sure that the City of SLT is aware that by marking it in public documents as beach access (though I have called, emailed, and publicly commented in public meetings), this APN property owned by the CTC has an eroding cliff and just yesterday (8/18/26 at approx 12:55pm) a female slipped and tumbled down the CTC's land, the Fire Dept was called, we heard the police boat on the water saying that the Fire Dept was called, I rushed to the fence line and asked if any water/ice was needed, the 2 witnesses explained what happened and I could see the female was wet and very unsteady on her feet.
4. Page 84: "The City of South Lake Tahoe and California Tahoe Conservancy CTC are finalizing an exchange of parcels that would assist each entity in furthering their missions. A number of these parcels are within the Mid-Town area. Three (3) parcels which are being considered for transfer to the City under the exchange (027-010-016, 027-010-024, and 027-010-029) would be maintained by the City for the purpose of maintaining open space along the shores of Lake Tahoe and increasing opportunities for public access and lake visibility, as supported by the following policy: • Policy 5.1 CTC Land Exchange Continue parcel exchange efforts with the California Tahoe Conservancy to increase opportunities for beach access and exploring expansion scenarios for Lakeview Commons." My comments:
--> parcel 027-010-029. It has remained in its natural state (though covered by pine cones and pine needles) as open space. It is one of the very few lakefront parcels that is in its natural setting (with the only exception of the paved bike path that is close to / runs parallel to Hwy50 /Lake Tahoe Blvd. It is nicknamed the "Chimney Parcel" for a reason: the parcel is wider along Lake Tahoe Blvd, and then narrows so that it is out of sight from Lake Tahoe Blvd - there is no lake visbility from Lake Tahoe Blvd. As pointed out above, there is not public access to the lake from this parcel, as the property owners on each side have their properties come down to a narrow adjoining point.
--> It should be noted that the adjacent public beach "Connolley Beach" (3341 Lake Tahoe Blvd) located in the Tourist Core: "This beach is only open to the public from June 1 to Sept 30, sunrise to sunset." (As it pertains to the above document, Page 177 regarding potential opportunites for additional recreation, for example.) --> 027-010-016 is the old "Alta Mira" parcel. The CTC restored it to natural open space (great area to have Lakeview Commons expansion scenario) while there is still no lake visibility from Lake Tahoe Blvd as the CTC created a land "mound."
5. Page 178: "d. Will the proposal result in a decrease or loss of public access to any lake, waterway, or public lands?
The Area Plan supports the California Tahoe Conservancy’s (CTC) Alta Mira Public Access Improvements to create more usable space along the south shore of Lake Tahoe....Two other parcels [APN 027-010-029] considered for exchange within the plan area have also been identified as possible locations for beach access or supporting infrastructure." My comments:
--> See above for beach access response. Please clarify what is the possible "supporting infrastructure" (?) if the 2 lakefront parcels were originally obtained as part of maintaining natural / open space? Page 230 of the document states:
647
"Recreational use of a beach, supported by developed facilities such as sanitation facilities..." or Page 239 "Water-oriented outdoor recreation uses, such as food and beverage facilities..."
6. Page 78: "Additional height up to 46 feet is proposed in the Al Tahoe Center District and up to 56 feet in the Public Service Center District and the Lake Tahoe Community College District. Although the increase in height is permitted per Section 13.5.3 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances (up to 56 feet for Town Center Overlays), it may have the potential to impact existing scenic vistas." My comment:
--> the statement "it may have the potential to impact existing scenic vistas" sounds horrible in theory.
7. Page 35: Noise.
My comment and question:
CNEL noise levels / permissible in Harrison/Sandy Way state 60.
I didn't see it (or perhaps didn't understand it if I read it) but has sound (particularly from amplified music) been tested along the shoreline particularly from the business The Idle Hour (3351 Lake Tahoe Blvd) and Lakeview Commons (special events I think get a "pass" on amplified music?) and the now-removed Tiki Hut at the previously named Beach Retreat and Lodge. I didn't see any hours restrictions placed on amplified music? The Beach Retreat and Lodge - located in Tourist Core- for example would hold summer weddings very often on Friday and Saturday nights with amplified music going sometimes until 11pm or midnight (would not care if a person walked over and asked them to please turn off at 10pm / city noted hours). 648
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan
Final IS/ND
18 Appendix C: Initial Study/ Initial Environmental Checklist/ Negative Declaration Public Review Draft
Circulated from July 21, 2026, to August 19, 2026
649
Public Review Draft 7/21/2026
Prepared by:
City of South Lake Tahoe
1052 Tata Lane
South Lake Tahoe, CA 96150
&
Ascent Environmental Inc.
www.ascent.inc
MID-TOWN AREA/SPECIFIC PLAN
INITIAL STUDY/
INITIAL ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST/
NEGATIVE DECLARATION
650
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 1 Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction ...........................................................................................................................4
1.1 Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist.........................................................................4
1.2 Tiering Process....................................................................................................................5 CEQA ...................................................................................................................................5 TRPA ....................................................................................................................................5
1.3 Background ........................................................................................................................6
1.4 Project Location, Setting and Surrounding Land Uses...........................................................7 Land Uses Within the Plan Area .............................................................................................9 Economic Conditions..........................................................................................................11 Demographics and Housing ................................................................................................12 Transportation and Circulation............................................................................................13 Public/Quasi-Public Facilities and Resources......................................................................20 Natural Resources and Water Quality ..................................................................................21 Art, Cultural, and Historic Resources...................................................................................31 Recreation and Open Space................................................................................................31 Safety and Noise.................................................................................................................33
1.5 Project Objectives/Purpose and Need................................................................................35
1.6 Document Organization ....................................................................................................37
1.7 Public Involvement............................................................................................................37
1.8 Relationship to Land Use Plans, Policies and Regulations...................................................38 Federal - Environmental Protection Agency..........................................................................38 State of California...............................................................................................................39 Regional .............................................................................................................................40 City of South Lake Tahoe .....................................................................................................44
2.0 Project Description...............................................................................................................47 Expansion of Uses...............................................................................................................47 Residential Density .............................................................................................................47 Design Standards................................................................................................................48 Parking ...............................................................................................................................48 Residential Design ..............................................................................................................49 Land Coverage and Development Rights..............................................................................49 Implementation Strategies and Areawide Improvements......................................................50 Mid-Town Area Plan Districts...............................................................................................50 651
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 2
3.0 Baseline...............................................................................................................................55
4.0 Methodology and Assumptions.............................................................................................56
5.0 Environmental Checklist and Impact Analysis .......................................................................58
5.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected........................................................................60
5.2 CEQA Determination.........................................................................................................61
5.3 TRPA Determination..........................................................................................................62
5.4 Initial Study (CEQA) and Initial Environmental (TRPA) Checklist...........................................63
5.5 Explanation of Checklist Responses ..................................................................................74
5.5.1 CEQA.........................................................................................................................74
5.5.2 TRPA ..........................................................................................................................74 Checklist Items...................................................................................................................75 References ..............................................................................................................................205 Appendix A: Permissible Use Changes ......................................................................................210 Appendix B: Mid-Town Area Plan - Transportation Analysis, Technical Memorandum...................239 Tables
Table 1: Existing Land Uses...........................................................................................................9 Table 2: Mapped Land Capability ................................................................................................22 Table 3:Existing Land Coverage and Impervious Surfaces ............................................................22 Table 4: Load Reduction Targets for Tahoe TMDL..........................................................................23 Table 5: CSLT 2026 Load Reduction Requirements ......................................................................26 Table 6: City of South Lake Tahoe Hazard Significance Summary..................................................33 Table 7: Community Noise Equivalent Level ................................................................................34 Table 8: Regional Plan Conceptual Regional Land Uses ...............................................................40 Table 9: General Plan Land Uses .................................................................................................45 Table 10: Initial Study (CEQA) and Initial Environmental (TRPA) Checklist......................................63 Table 11: CEQA Defined Levels of Impact Significance.................................................................74 Table 12: Federal and State Attainment Status for the Lake Tahoe Air Basin ..................................90 Table 13: Open Underground Storage Tanks...............................................................................133 Table 14: Effects of Vibration on People and Buildings ...............................................................159 Table 15:Community Noise Equivalent Level.............................................................................163 Table 16: Net Increase in Allowable Multi-Family Dwelling Units.................................................180 Table 17: Vehicle Miles Traveled Associated with Multi-Family Dwelling Units .............................181 Table 18: Multi-Family Parcel VMT Analysis – Net Impact ...........................................................182 Table 19: Vehicle Miles Traveled Associated with Mixed-Use Commercial Parcels.......................183 Table 20: Mixed-Use Commercial Parcel VMT Analysis – Net Impact...........................................183 Table 21: Mid-Town Area Plan Vehicle Miles Traveled Summary ..................................................184 652
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 3 Figures
Figure 1: Context Map- City of South Lake Tahoe ...........................................................................8 Figure 2: Existing Land Uses .......................................................................................................10 Figure 3: Existing Transportation Facilities...................................................................................16 Figure 4: Proposed Transportation Facilities ................................................................................17 Figure 5: Mapped Land Capability (Bailey)...................................................................................24 Figure 6: Land Coverage .............................................................................................................25 Figure 7: Existing Public Stormwater Infrastructure......................................................................28 Figure 8: Regional Plan Conceptual Land Use and Town Center ...................................................42 Figure 9: Regional Plan Conceptual Land Use and Town Center (amended) ..................................43 Figure 10: General Plan Land Uses..............................................................................................46 Figure 11: Lake Tahoe Airport Overflight Safety Zones ................................................................137 Figure 12: Source Water Protection Zones.................................................................................151 653
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 4
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist
This Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist (IS/IEC) has been prepared to evaluate and address the potential environmental impacts of the City of South Lake Tahoe’s (City’s) Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan (Area Plan). The document serves as an area plan under the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency’s (TRPA) Regional Plan and as a specific plan as defined by California Government Code Section 65450 et seq. The Area Plan will replace the Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan and Sierra Tract Commercial Plan Area Statement (PAS) in their entirety, as well as much of the Bijou Meadows PAS (Bijou Community Park and Golf Course, Bijou Meadow, and parcels owned by the South Tahoe Public Utility District). Several parcels from various PAS have been included for various reasons as are discussed in section 1.3, Background. These planning documents range from 30-40 years old and no longer reflect current City and TRPA policies, best practices, or goals for achieving town center activation, housing availability, and a built environment based on sustainable building techniques and integration with the natural environment. The Area Plan will identify new design standards, density standards, permissible uses, and public improvements to achieve community goals.
Additionally, the Area Plan is an opportunity to implement changes as required by California legislation regarding parking and housing.
An initial study (IS) is a preliminary environmental analysis that is used by the lead agency as a basis for determining whether an Environmental Impact Report (EIR), a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND), or a Negative Declaration (ND) is required for a project under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) guidelines. An IEC is a preliminary environmental analysis that is used for determining whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), a Mitigated Finding of No Significant Effect, or a Finding of No Significant Effect (FONSE) is required for a project under TRPA guidelines. The following details and analyses can be found in this joint IS and the IEC:
• Project description
• Description of environmental setting
• Evaluation of the project’s consistency with existing, applicable land use controls • Identification of environmental effects by checklist or other similar form • Explanation of environmental effects
• Discussion of mitigation for significant environmental effects • The name of person or persons who prepared the study
This IS/ND has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Cal. Pub.
Res. Code §21000 et seq. The CEQA lead agency for this project is the City of South Lake Tahoe (City).
Under TRPA authority, local jurisdictions may adopt area plans that comply with TRPA’s Regional Plan goals and policies. This Mid-Town Area Plan was developed to meet all criteria of the TRPA Code of Ordinances Chapter 13, Area Plans, and serves as a specific plan per California statute.
This document also serves as an IEC prepared pursuant to the requirements of Article VI of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) Rules of Procedure and Chapter 3 of TRPA’s Code of Ordinances (TRPA Code). TRPA serves as the lead agency pursuant to its own regulations. 654
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 5
1.2 Tiering Process
CEQA
The CEQA concept of "tiering" refers to the evaluation of general environmental matters in a broad program-level EIR, with subsequent focused environmental documents for individual projects that implement the program. CEQA Guidelines encourage the use of tiered environmental documents to reduce delays and excessive paperwork in the environmental review process. This is accomplished by eliminating repetitive analyses of issues that were adequately addressed in previous documents and by incorporating those analyses by reference.
Section 15168(d) of the State CEQA Guidelines provides for simplifying the preparation of environmental documents on individual parts of the program by incorporating by reference analyses and discussions that apply to the program as a whole. Where an EIR has been prepared or certified for a program or plan, the environmental review for a later activity consistent with the program or plan should be limited to effects that were not analyzed as significant in the prior EIR or that are susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance (CEQA Guidelines Section 15152(d)).
In accordance with State CEQA Guidelines as referenced above, this IS/IEC is tiered from the following documents:
• City of South Lake Tahoe 2010 General Plan Environmental Impact Report (amendment for
TAP/TCAP)
• TRPA 2012 Regional Plan Update (“RPU”) Environmental Impact Statement 2025 Connection 2050: Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy Initial Environmental Checklist and Mitigated Finding of No Significant Effect This IS/IEC will evaluate the potential environmental impacts of the proposed Mid-Town Area Plan with respect to the documents noted above to determine what level of additional environmental review, if any, is appropriate.
As shown in the Determination in Section 5.2 of this document and based on the analysis contained in this Initial Study, it has been determined that the proposed Mid-Town Area Plan would not have significant effects on the environment that were not adequately addressed in the 2010 General Plan EIR or 2012 RPU; therefore, a Negative Declaration will be prepared.
TRPA
The TRPA concept of "tiering" refers to the coverage of general matters in a broader EIS (Program EIS) and subsequent narrow environmental documents incorporating by reference the general discussions and concentrating solely on the issues specific to the document subsequently prepared.
Therefore, when an EIS has been certified for a project or matter, TRPA should limit the analysis on a later related or consistent project or matter to effects which were not examined as significant effects in the prior EIS, or which are susceptible to substantial reduction or avoidance by revisions in the project or matter through conditions of approval or mitigation. Tiering is limited to situations where a later project or matter is consistent with a program, plan, policy or ordinance for which an EIS was prepared, is consistent with applicable TRPA plans, and a supplemental EIS is not required. 655
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 6 This IECis tiered from the TRPA 2012 Regional Plan Update (“RPU”) Environmental Impact Statement (“EIS”) and 2025 Connection 2050: Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy Initial Environmental Checklist and Mitigated Finding of No Significant Effect in accordance with Section 6.12 of the TRPA Rules of Procedure. The 2012 RPU EIS is a Program EIS that was prepared pursuant to Article VI of TRPA Rules of Procedure and Chapter 3 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances. The Regional Transportation Plan identifies a broad range of projects, programs, and strategies needed to comprehensively improve Tahoe’s transportation system over the next 25 years.
The 2012 RPU is a comprehensive land use plan that guides physical development within the Lake Tahoe Region through 2035. The 2012 RPU EIS analyzes the full implementation of uses and physical development proposed under the 2012 RPU, and it identifies measures to mitigate the significant adverse program-level and cumulative impacts associated with that growth. The proposed project is an element of the growth that was anticipated in the 2012 RPU and evaluated in the 2012 RPU EIS.
By tiering from the 2012 RPU EIS, this Initial Environmental Checklist will rely on the 2012 RPU EIS for the following:
• a discussion of general background and setting information for environmental topic areas; • overall growth-related issues;
• issues that were evaluated in sufficient detail in the 2012 RPU EIS for which there is no significant new information or change in circumstances that would require further analysis; and assessment of cumulative impacts.
TRPA analyses from which this IS/IEC is tiered include:
• TRPA 2012 Regional Plan Update (“RPU”) Environmental Impact Statement • TRPA 2025 Connections 2050: Regional Transportation Plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy Initial Environmental Checklist and Mitigated Finding of No Significant Effect This Initial Environmental Checklist concludes that the potentially significant project impacts are addressed by the measures that have been adopted as part of the approval of the 2012 RPU.
Therefore, those 2012 RPU EIS mitigation measures that may reduce the impacts of this project will be identified in this Initial Environmental Checklist. Since these mitigation measures are already being carried out as part of the implementation of the 2012 RPU, they will not be readopted, but rather are incorporated as part of the project and the impact analysis assumes implementation for purposes of determining the significance of any project impact. The benefits of these mitigation measures will be achieved independently of considering them as specific mitigation measures of this project. Nothing in this Initial Environmental Checklist in any way alters the obligations of TRPA to implement the RPU mitigation measures.
1.3 Background
All land within the Lake Tahoe Basin, both California and Nevada jurisdictions, falls under the jurisdiction of TRPA. The 1987 Regional Plan created over 175 Plan Areas, each with its own Plan Area Statement (PAS) guiding document, that dictates allowable uses, densities, and special policies as applicable. PAS are not regularly amended, though individuals may submit applications to amend standards or boundaries of the PAS. With the 2012 Regional Plan, TRPA encouraged local jurisdictions to adopt area plans that are compliant with Regional Plan goals, policies, and 656
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 7 environmental thresholds, but are responsive to local needs and visions. Chapter 13: Area Plans of the TRPA Code of Ordinances provides implementation steps for the development, consideration, adoption, and amendment of an area plan. Area plans, once adopted by the local jurisdiction and TRPA, will replace PAS or existing community plans, and be considered a component of the Regional Plan.
Most parcels within the Mid-Town Area Plan were previously under the Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan (Community Plan), the Sierra Tract Commercial PAS, or the Bijou Meadows PAS. The Mid-Town Area Plan will entirely replace the Community Plan and Sierra Tract Commercial PAS. Four parcels were added from the Al Tahoe PAS, one from Bijou Pines PAS, and 5 from the Highland Woods PAS.
The parcels incorporated from Highland Woods PAS were previously partially within Sierra Tract Commercial PAS. This change was made to eliminate split zoning of the parcels.
The Community Plan was adopted in October of 1995 and underwent nine (9) minor amendments, the most recent of which occurred in 2020. The plan outlined a “Vision for 2007” for the area to serve as a family-oriented and recreational center, as well as the Town Center for the local community. The Community Plan extended from Takela Drive along US 50, just west of Al Tahoe Boulevard, and included property between Johnson Boulevard and Hwy 50, and property on Al Tahoe Boulevard terminating at the west boundary of Bijou Park and at the east boundary of Lake Tahoe Community College. Much of the Mid-Town Area Plan follows the original boundaries of the Community Plan.
Chapter 12 of TRPA Code sets forth provisions for the development, adoption, and amendment of community plans.
Following multiple City Council discussions on the topic, development of the Mid-Town Area Plan kicked off in early 2024. In April 2024, City staff notified TRPA of the City’s intent to create a new area plan, as is required by TRPA Code Chapter 13. In May 2024, City staff presented an initial timeline and project scope to City Council. With the help of Design Workshop, an outreach strategy was designed, and stakeholder meetings began in early August. Throughout spring of 2025, workshops, stakeholder focus sessions, and open houses were held to ensure that a community vision would be the foundation of the Area Plan.
1.4 Project Location, Setting and Surrounding Land Uses The plan area is located in central South Lake Tahoe, and includes approximately 2,660 feet of Lake Tahoe shoreline and 2.35 miles of US Highway 50/Lake Tahoe Boulevard. US Highway 50/Lake Tahoe Boulevard is the primary travel way through the plan area, City, and the region. It serves those traveling to, through, and from Stateline, Nevada, and the California foothills down to Sacramento. 657
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 8 Figure 1: Context Map- City of South Lake Tahoe
658
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 9 The plan area contains some of the City’s most valued recreation assets, including but not limited to Bijou Community Park and Golf Couse; Lakeview Commons and El Dorado Beach; and the City of South Lake Tahoe Recreation Center and Ice Arena. Many service-based public uses are contained within the plan area, including federal, state, county, and City services.
Land Uses Within the Plan Area
There are a wide variety of existing land uses within the plan area. Table 1 below summarizes existing uses.
Table 1: Existing Land Uses
Land Use Area (acres) Percent of Plan Area
Public service 239 32.3%
Recreation 219 29.6%
Open space 129 17.4%
Commercial 72 9.7%
Vacant 52 7.0%
Single family 17 2.3%
Tourist accommodation 11 1.5%
Multi-family 2 0.3%
Recreation
Recreation is the second largest land use in the plan area. These areas include but are not limited to El Dorado Beach, the City of South Lake Tahoe Campground, Bijou Golf Course, Bijou Community Park, and the South Lake Tahoe Community Playfields.
Public Service
The Mid-Town area is home to the U.S. Postal Office, South Lake Tahoe Community Center, Happy Homestead Cemetery, South Tahoe Middle School, Boys and Girls Club of South Lake Tahoe, and South Lake Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD) facilities. STPUD owns an additional 93.73 acres surrounding the existing facility. This land is not included in the Table 1 public service calculation as it has not yet been developed with public service infrastructure. Additional government services found within the Mid-Town are the El Dorado County court and jail, South Lake Tahoe Department of Motor Vehicles, and El Dorado County Assessor’s Office.
Commercial
The plan area’s commercial and tourist accommodation uses are concentrated along Lake Tahoe Blvd. There are a wide range of commercial uses in the plan area, including grocery stores; restaurants and bars; vehicle repair and tire shops; craft and toy stores; services such as insurance and notary; and many more.
Tourist accommodation establishments include Hotel Azure, Tahoe Pines Lodge, Holly’s Place, Tahoe Mountain Inn, Sky Lake Lodge, and Nickelodeon Motel.
The Mid-Town area contains approximately 500,000 square feet of commercial floor area (CFA). The City of South Lake Tahoe holds 6,150 square feet CFA dedicated to developments within the Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan boundary. Upon the adoption of the Mid-Town Area Plan, this CFA 659
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 10 Figure 2: Existing Land Uses
660
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 11 will be made available to all parcels within the plan boundary. CFA held in undesignated City pools may also be allocated to parcels within the plan area.
Residential
There are approximately 37 single-family residential parcels within the plan area, most of which are air-space condominiums. The remaining residential parcels are found throughout the periphery of the plan area. There are four multi-family housing parcels, including three duplexes and the Skylark Mobile Home Park, which contains 11 homes.
California Tahoe Conservancy Lands
The California Tahoe Conservancy (CTC) was established in 1984 to protect, restore, and enhance the natural environment of Lake Tahoe. The CTC acquires sensitive lands and restores them by removing development, decompacting and stabilizing soils, and revegetating with native species.
The City of South Lake Tahoe and CTC have been in negotiations regarding an exchange of parcels that would assist each entity in furthering their missions. A number of these parcels are within the Mid-Town area. CTC owns four (4) parcels within the plan area totaling 2.02 acres, three (3) of which are being considered for transfer to the City under the exchange. Two (2) City-owned parcels are under consideration for transfer to CTC. These parcels are adjacent to the Truckee Marsh and South Tahoe Bikeway. One is overlaid by the 100-year floodplain, making it unfit for development. These two parcels, among others, were identified by community members as desirable for restoration and open space.
Economic Conditions
The City of South Lake Tahoe's economy and workforce are primarily dependent on tourism, which fluctuates throughout the year. Many businesses rely on income earned in peak tourist seasons to carry them through the less active spring and fall months. Winter tourism is generally substantial but dependent on weather and skiing conditions. Businesses within the Mid-Town plan area receive less overall activity compared to those within the Mid-Town Area Plan and Heavenly Village area; however, year-round patronage of these uses is more consistent as they are more resident-serving.
In recent years, transient occupancy tax has consistently been the City’s largest revenue source, followed by sales tax. This remained true even amid the unique circumstances of the Covid-19 pandemic, through these streams’ growth did slow in the 2023-2024 fiscal year. Transient occupancy tax and sales tax revenue grew by 0.4% and 0.9% respectively, compared to a growth of
5.7% and 33.9% the previous year. The significant growth in sales tax revenue can be attributed to the implementation of Measure S rather than increased spending or tourism (City of South Lake Tahoe Finance Department, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, & 2024).
Charges for services are generally the third-largest revenue stream. Prior to the implementation of Measure S, it was not uncommon for this category to be the City’s second-largest revenue stream.
This category includes parks and recreation program fees and engineering, planning, and building review and permit fees (City of South Lake Tahoe Finance Department, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023, & 2024).
661
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 12 Unemployment
Unemployment rates within the City remain relatively consistent with the State of California, and above the national rate. Annual unemployment rates are an average of the 12 fiscal months (California Employment Development Department, 2023).
Unemployment trends throughout the year are inverse to peak and shoulder season tourist trends, with unemployment rates slightly higher in the summer and winter months and lowest around May and September. While many jobs become available in the summer and winter months, they are not always filled by permanent residents.
Commercial Development
This Area Plan is driven by the need to capture the City’s remaining commercial zones that were not previously included in an area or community plan. For this reason, most parcels contain commercial or public service uses. The shape of the plan boundary is telling of the City’s original development patterns. Commercial uses are concentrated along Lake Tahoe Blvd.
As directed by the City’s 2023-2028 Strategic Plan (Action Item 4.1.1), a summary of vacant/underutilized properties was created from which a priority list could be made to work with property owners on redevelopment opportunities. Using the categories below, 40 sites were identified during the winter of 2023, 17 of which are in the Mid-Town plan area. Priority locations within the plan area include the Sunray Hotel at 4139 Lake Tahoe Blvd. (demolished summer 2025) and vacant spaces within the Tahoe Center at Lake Tahoe Blvd. and Al Tahoe Blvd. While many of these sites are now being utilized or are under construction, it is an ongoing effort to reduce the number of vacant commercial spaces, identify a second economy, and support growth of existing businesses.
Vacant A property containing a building or structure that has been vacant for 120 days or more; or a property containing a building in a condition that cannot be legally reoccupied without repair or rehabilitation; or a property that contains an “abandoned building” (SLTCC 4.65.020).
Underused A property with multiple tenant spaces where one or more spaces has been vacant for 120 days or more.
Vacant pending
application
A property meeting the criteria as “Vacant” with a pending or issued planning or building application to reoccupy the building or structure.
Recently
Unoccupied
A property that would meet the criteria for “Vacant” or “Underused” except that status has been for less than 120 days.
Demographics and Housing
Since 2020 the City has experienced a decline in population as those seeking more space during the COVID-19 pandemic leave the area. The population has continued to decline from pre-2020 levels, though at a lesser rate, and is expected to continue. Since 2010 there has been a steady increase in the number of senior residents, and more recently, an increase in non-white minorities, both of which are federally protected classes. The number of working-age persons (20–65 years old) has decreased (Matthews, Fuentes, Smith, & Wildemuth, 2024). 662
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 13 Despite the decrease in population, housing availability has not increased. Many homes purchased during the COVID-19 pandemic spend much of the year vacant. From 2020 to 2023, housing supply shifted slightly from renter-occupied units to owner-occupied units. Overall, both renters and homeowners are spending more than 30% of their income on housing costs. It is suspected that housing cost burden is the primary cause of the City’s declining population (Matthews, Fuentes, Smith, & Wildemuth, 2025).
While the plan area is largely surrounded by residential uses, there are minimal residential developments within the boundary. Much of the plan area fronts Lake Tahoe Blvd., which generates transportation-related noise and air pollution.
As of 2025, there are ten (10) parcels within primary residential uses (not including individual condominium air space parcels), multifamily, single-family, and mobile home units. A limited number of commercial uses contain a single dwelling unit. In 2025, Lake Tahoe Community College’s first on-campus student housing opened. It provides 100 beds to low-income, full-time students who are California residents.
Several hotel/motel establishments within the plan area participate in the City’s Single Room Occupancy (SRO) program, providing month-to-month housing in some or all units. These units are primarily tourist accommodation uses, and participation in the SRO program is intermittent.
Transportation and Circulation
Roadways
Lake Tahoe Blvd (US Highway 50) spans the length of South Lake Tahoe, approximately 2.35 miles of which is within the Mid-Town plan area. This interstate highway also serves as the City’s main arterial road. It has two travel lanes in each direction, as well as a turning lane that serves as temporary snow storage during heavy snowstorm events. Secondary streets include Al Tahoe Blvd., Johnson Blvd., Lyons Ave., and Rufus Allen Blvd.
Highway 50 Road Safety Audit (RSA)
In early 2018, the US Highway 50 Road Safety Audit (RSA), South Tahoe “Y” to Trout Creek final report was released by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), which summarized safety conditions and recommendations for the referenced stretch of US Highway 50, approximately half of which is within the plan area. It was identified as a highrisk roadway for vulnerable users such as pedestrians and bicyclists (California Department of Transportation, 2018). The high-speed limit along US Highway 50 is incompatible with the roadway’s use as a main street throughout town with high pedestrian and bike traffic.
Recommendations addressed safety data, intersection design, lighting, transit stops, pavement marking durability, speed management, and snow removal activities. Many of these recommendations are echoed in the goals and policies of this Area Plan.
In 2023, Caltrans conducted an additional RSA along US Highway 50 and State Route 89 in response to community concerns related to raising the speed limit along specific segments of the roadways. The roadways were analyzed in three segments to identify safety and mobility deficiencies and generated a list of improvements specific to each segment.
Segment 2 as part of this RSA consists of the Sierra Tahoe Business District. Several 663
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 14 corridor-wide improvements were outlined, including short-, medium- and long-term improvement projects, some of which are currently underway. These improvements are focused on increasing safety and connectivity along and across US Highway 50 for pedestrians and bicyclists and built upon the recommendations of the 2018 RSA.
South Lake Tahoe Multimodal Mainstreet Corridor Plan
The City was awarded Caltrans’ Sustainable Transportation Planning grant in 2024 to develop the Multi-modal Mainstreet Corridor Plan. The project will identify, analyze, and propose enhancements to US Highway 50 and State Route 89 to improve safety and access for walking and bicycling, facilitate modal shifts away from vehicles through a more efficient transit system, and provide solutions that improve the quality of life for community members and regional visitors alike. The eventual implementation of the design concepts identified in the study will align with State, regional, and local efforts to reduce vehicle miles traveled, address climate change goals, and create connections between South Lake Tahoe and its neighboring communities.
Level of Service/Vehicles Miles Traveled
TRPA’s Regional Plan Goals and Policies and Regional Transportation Plan include a vehicle “level of service (LOS) criterion to aid local agencies in determining more localized impacts.
The City’s General Plan also has standards for LOS. LOS is a qualitative measure that describes the operating performance of transportation facilities. For roadways, LOS is an indicator of traffic flow from the perspective of motorists based on factors such as speed, travel time, delay, freedom to maneuver, volume, and capacity. It is defined on a scale from LOS A (the least congested operating conditions) to LOS F (the most congested operating conditions).
The TRPA Regional Plan and City General Plan intend that peak period traffic flows not exceed LOS D for major roadways (arterials and collector routes), and signalized intersections be at LOS D. LOS E may be acceptable during peak periods, not to exceed 4 hours per day when provisions for multi-modal amenities and/or services (such as transit, bicycling, and walking facilities) are adequate to provide mobility for users at a level that is proportional to the project-generated traffic in relation to overall traffic conditions on affected roadways (Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 2012) (City of South Lake Tahoe, 2011).
While several roadways currently operate at LOS D or E, the key intersections connecting those facilities generally operate at LOS C or better. This is because many of those intersections have been designed with additional travel lanes, channelized “free” right-turn movements, and other operational capacity enhancements for this segment.
In 2020, California Senate Bill 743 required local jurisdictions switch from LOS to vehicle miles traveled (VMT) for analyzing the transportation impacts of projects subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The City operates under TRPA’s existing project-level VMT thresholds, which apply to all projects, regardless of CEQA requirements.
Mitigation is required for all new VMT through a fee per vehicle mile traveled that supports multi-modal transportation and bicycle infrastructure. Projects that generate significant VMT per TRPA Code Section 65.2.3(E) require mitigation measures to reduce them to a less664 Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 15 than-significant level. Each project is analyzed individually for VMT based its location and intensity of the use.
665
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 16 Figure 3: Existing Transportation Facilities
666
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 17 Figure 4: Proposed Transportation Facilities
667
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 18 Curbs and Gutter
Curbs and gutters are important for safety, water quality, and aesthetics. They provide a physical barrier between roadways and pedestrian sidewalks, guiding vehicles and preventing encroachment in pedestrian spaces. Curbs and gutters play a vital role in stormwater management by collecting and conveying sediment from highly polluted surfaces to treatment facilities.
Few streets within the plan area have complete curb-and-gutter improvements. Many businesses have parking along the parcel’s street frontage rather than in a traditional parking lot at the rear or side of the parcel as directed by current standards. This creates a situation where it is infeasible to impossible to add right-of-way improvements without significant collaboration with private property owners.
In areas such as the Sierra Tahoe Business District, where commercial uses line Lake Tahoe Boulevard, which is improved with curbs and gutters, frequent curb cuts affect all users’ experiences. The Area Plan implements standards to reduce and strategically place driveway curb cuts to enhance safety.
The lengths of Lake Tahoe Blvd., Al Tahoe Blvd., and Johnson Blvd. through the plan area have been updated to include curbs and gutters, though sections of Johnson Blvd. experience seasonal flooding. The south side of Lyons Ave.; the north side of Fairway Dr.; and portions of Rufus Allen Blvd., Fremont Ave., Treehaven Dr., and Takela Dr. have curb and gutter.
In 2014, the City completed the Harrison Avenue Streetscape Improvement project. It installed curb, gutter, and stormwater infrastructure along Harrison Ave. from Lakeview Ave. to Modesto Ave., as well as three blocks into the Al Tahoe neighborhood from Alameda Ave. to Modesto Ave. This project is a notable area-wide treatment project in that it brought together private property owners and the City to achieve a lake clarifying project, earn property owners their best management practices for stormwater treatment certificates, and install a Class 1 bike trail, drastically increasing the quality of the scenic corridor.
Parking Facilities
The plan area contains three (3) public parking lots. There are 36 parking stalls at 977 Modesto Ave.
Two parking lots serve Lakeview Commons and El Dorado Beach. One is open to all, while the other is reserved for boat trailers per a condition of the funding used to construct the boat ramp. The City installed free street parking along Harrison Ave., San Jose Ave., Alameda Ave., San Francisco Ave., and Tallac Ave. as part of the Harrison Avenue Streetscape Improvement project, resulting in approximately 80 spaces.
All new construction and redevelopment projects are required to provide onsite parking for patrons and staff consistent with the Area Plan standards. In many cases, existing uses do not contain the required number of parking spaces. For a new use to occupy an existing tenant space, parking spaces consistent with the Area Plan standards must be present or added. Transit Services There are fixed-route and on-demand transportation services within Mid-Town. Tahoe Transportation District (TTD) has two (2) routes through the area: Route 50 on US 50 with 30 minute headways and hourly service provided by route 50 via local streets. Though there is no fee, ridership 668
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 19 is quite low due to the irregular service schedule. TTD maintains the bus stops, though they are generally located on easements owned by the City with City-owned infrastructure.
On-demand services include the South Shore Transportation Management Association’s (SSTMA) contracted Lake Link, numerous independent taxi operations, and private shuttles serving large condo and tourist accommodation properties. There are ongoing conversations regarding better integration of bus routes and Lake Link.
In October 2024, the City of South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County formed the Tahoe South Shore Transit Joint Powers Authority (JPA). The JPA is comprised of three Board of Directors members, and one non-voting ex officio member from each of the current transit operators within the Tahoe portion of El Dorado County (TTD and SSTMA). Though in its early stages, the JPA provides the City and County an opportunity to play a greater role in developing and implementing transit solutions, while continuing to support existing services and regional goals.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Facilities
Pedestrian and bike facilities are classified by Caltrans per the specifications below. The City has not yet implemented Class 4 trails, as snow removal operations would be made difficult by the configuration of this type of bicycle facility. Planning for Class 4 trails will require coordination with the Streets Division to ensure snow removal operations aren’t negatively impacted along these routes. Figures 3 and 4 show current and proposed pedestrian facilities. Even where these are provided, it is common for pedestrians and bicyclists to use the shoulder of Lake Tahoe Blvd.
Bicycle and pedestrian facilities in South Lake Tahoe are frequently used by both locals and tourists, especially near commercial and recreation areas. Providing separated facilities improves safety for all users, preventing conflicts and collisions and improving user comfort. The table below shows the range of speeds for various user types.
Use Average Speed
Walking (Child) 0.7 mph
Walking (Adult) 3 mph
Jogging 4–6 mph
Quadricycle
(often seen at Lakeview Commons)
6–10 mph
Biking (Leisurely) 8–10 mph
Class 1 Provide a completely separated right-of-way designated for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with crossflows by motorists minimized.
Class 2 Provide a restricted right-of-way designated for the exclusive or semi-exclusive use of bicycles with through travel by motor vehicles or pedestrians prohibited, but with vehicle parking and crossflows by pedestrians and motorists permitted.
Class 3 Provide a right-of-way, on-street, or off-street, designated by signs or permanent markings and shared with pedestrians and motorists.
Class 4 Promote active transportation and provide a right-of-way designated exclusively for bicycle travel adjacent to a roadway and which are separated from vehicular traffic.
Types of separation include, but are not limited to, grade separation, flexible posts, inflexible physical barriers, or on-street parking.
669
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 20 Biking (Commuter) 10–12 mph
Electric Scooter 20 mph
E-bike 20–28 mph
Vehicles on Highway 50 40 mph
The 2024 TRPA Active Transportation Plan includes Bicycle Levels of Traffic Stress (BLTS) and the Pedestrian Experience Index (PEI) analyses. These quantify users’ stress levels throughout the network, considering the overall network as well as infrastructure unique to bicycles and pedestrians (Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 2025). Over time, these analyses can inform TRPA and local jurisdictions of the effectiveness of transportation improvements.
Public/Quasi-Public Facilities and Resources
The Mid-Town area is a hub for public services and recreational facilities; however, there is much room for improvement and concentration of City services. Many of the existing City and El Dorado County facilities below are near or within the 56-Acres Master Plan, which provides initial direction for fulfillment of recreational and civic needs.
Utilities and Public Services
Liberty Utilities provides electrical services to the plan area. Most transmission lines are overhead, though those along scenic corridors such as Lake Tahoe Blvd. are underground.
Southwest Gas has provided natural gas to the South Lake Tahoe area since 1963 and continues to do so.
Cellular and telephone services are provided to the area by AT&T, Verizon, and T-Mobile. Charter Communications (Spectrum) is the primary provider of cable television, phone, and internet services.
Water and sewer services are provided by the South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD). The STPUD wastewater treatment facility is located at the southernmost point of the plan area.
The City has an exclusive franchise agreement with South Tahoe Refuse which provides solid waste, recycling, and organics services.
The Lake Tahoe Unified School District (LTUSD) oversees public schools within the City. The administrative offices are located within the area plan’s boundary, as is South Tahoe Middle School.
Lake Tahoe Community College (LTCC) opened in 1975 and has been in its current location within the plan area since 1988. In addition to classes, the facility hosts sports across multiple playing fields and contains a cross-country ski course.
The plan area includes the City’s only operational cemetery, Happy Homestead Cemetery, at 1261 Johnson Blvd. It was established in 1952.
Federal Facilities
There are two United States Postal Service offices within the City, one of which is located within the Mid-Town Area Plan boundary at 1046 Al Tahoe Blvd.
670
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 21 The Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit of the United States Forest Service (USFS) is at 35 College Dr.
State Facilities
The California Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) has an office at 3344 Lake Tahoe Blvd.
The offices of the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board are located within the Sierra Tahoe Business District of the plan area at 2501 Lake Tahoe Blvd.
El Dorado County Facilities
At the corner of Al Tahoe Blvd. and Johnson Blvd. is the El Dorado County, South Lake Tahoe Government Center. Facilities here include the El Dorado County Sheriff’s office, jail, juvenile treatment facility, Superior Court, and the public defender’s office.
The El Dorado County Library, South Lake Tahoe Branch, is located within the plan area. Just down the street from the library is the County’s Vector Control District. Both facilities are within the 56- Acres Master Plan site. Also, within the plan area, though not in the 56-acre site, is the County Health and Human Services office.
City of South Lake Tahoe Facilities
The City’s most prominent recreation assets are within the Mid-Town plan area: South Tahoe Ice Arena, South Lake Tahoe Recreation and Swim Complex, Campground by the Lake, Bijou Community Park, and Bijou Golf Course. In addition to a swimming pool, weight rooms, basketball courts, and meeting rooms, the Recreation and Swim Complex contains offices of the Parks and Recreation Department staff. Nearby is the corporation yard of the Public Works Department’s Street Division. The corporation yard, ice arena, recreation and swim complex, and Campground by the Lake are within the 56-Acres Master Plan site.
In 2023, construction began on the City’s new Recreation & Aquatics Center and was officially opened in 2026., and replaces the current recreation and swim complex, providing room for additional programs and services. The existing facility is slated to be demolished due to the age of the structure, at which time the property will revert to El Dorado County ownership.
The South Lake Tahoe Police Department is located within the plan area, off Johnson Blvd, adjacent to the El Dorado County Sheriff’s offices.
South Lake Tahoe Fire Rescue’s Fire Station 2 is located at2951 Lake Tahoe Boulevard.
Natural Resources and Water Quality
The plan area contains approximately 224 acres of stream environment zone (SEZ), 2,660 feet of Lake Tahoe shoreline, and over 6 miles of drainage improvements to protect and aid in the functioning of these resources.
Land Capability and Stream Environment Zones
TRPA regulates the ability to cover land with impervious surfaces within the Lake Tahoe Basin. Land capability is a classification system based on soils, hydrology, geomorphology, and vegetation that determines the amount of development a site can support without experiencing soil or water 671
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 22 degradation. Coverage limitations differ by land capability, location, and historic levels of development/disturbance.
The TRPA Code of Ordinances uses land capability districts ranging from Class 1 to Class 7, each corresponding to a percentage of allowable land coverage. Classes 1-3 represent sensitive land with very limited development potential, while Classes 4-7 are developable with higher percentages of allowable land coverage. Mid-Town is comprised mostly of high-capability Class 7 land, which is well-suited for redevelopment and infill.
Table 2: Mapped Land Capability
Land Classification Base Allowable
Coverage (%) Area (acres)
Estimated Base
Allowed Coverage*
(acres)
Class IBM 1% 224 2.24
Class 6 30% 24 7.06
Class 7 30% 532 159.64
Water Bodies N/A 5 NA
Estimated total coverage allowed within plan area: 168.94 acres *These numbers are estimates based on TRPA’s general land capability mapping. Potential coverage is verified by TRPA on a parcel-by-parcel basis.
Stream Environment Zones
The plan area contains 224 acres of Class 1B, stream environment zone (SEZ). The largest SEZ within the plan area is found within Bijou Meadow on the eastern side of the Mid-Town area. There are additional pockets of Class 1B land on the periphery of the Mid-Town area in association with the Trout Creek and Upper Truckee Stream Environment Zones.
There has been significant encroachment by official and unofficial recreation activities, much of which occurred before the creation of TRPA and the associated land management system. The City’s 9-hole golf course is entirely contained within the SEZ. While much of the golf course is a grass monoculture, there are areas with seasonal standing water where functioning SEZ remains. Other encroachments include compacted dirt from social walking trails and compaction around disc golf holes.
TRPA grants exceptions to land coverage requirements in SEZs for public outdoor recreation when all criteria of TRPA Code 30.5.2(B) are met.
Land Coverage
Analysis of impervious coverage data estimates that approximately 26.5% of the Mid-Town plan area is covered by impervious surfaces. “Other” surfaces, which include parking lots and driveways, make up more than 51% of the land and are the most common type of impervious coverage in the Mid-Town plan area (not including public streets and other right of way improvements).
Table 3:Existing Land Coverage and Impervious Surfaces
Coverage Type Area (acres) Percent of Coverage
Driveway (hard) 62 30.8%
672
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 23 Road (hard) 44 21.9%
Building (hard) 35 17.2%
Other (hard) 32 16.1%
Trail (hard) 10 4.9%
Driveway (soft) 9 4.3%
Trail (soft) 5 2.6%
Other (soft) 4 2.2%
Total hard coverage 183 90.9%
Total soft coverage 18 9.1%
Total coverage within plan area 202 27.3%
Water Quality
Water quality and clarity are the heart of Lake Tahoe’s identity and appeal. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) designated Lake Tahoe as an Outstanding National Resource Water, meaning it receives the highest level of protection under the Clean Water Act.
Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act lists Lake Tahoe as an impaired water due to excessive levels of nitrogen, phosphorus, and fine sediments. This designation requires the state to develop a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) plan to determine necessary pollutant load reductions to accomplish California’s Lake Tahoe transparency standard of roughly 97 feet over an estimated 65-year implementation period. In 2011, Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (Lahontan) established load reduction targets to be reevaluated every five years to assess each jurisdiction’s progress towards meeting these goals. Each jurisdiction holding a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required to reduce the baseline pollutant load within their jurisdiction by the amounts shown in Table 5.
Table 4: Load Reduction Targets for Tahoe TMDL
Pollutant
5-Year
Milestone
(2016)
10-Year
Milestone
(2021)
15-Year
Milestone (2026)
Transparency
Standards (~65
years)
Fine Sediment Particle 10% 21% 34% 71%
Total Phosphorous 7% 14% 21% 50%
Total Nitrogen 8% 14% 19% 46%
Source: Lake Tahoe Total Maximum Daily Load (November 2010) 673
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 24 Figure 5: Mapped Land Capability (Bailey)
674
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 25 Figure 6: Land Coverage
675
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 26 In 2016, the City submitted to Lahontan the City’s Lake Tahoe TMDL Baseline Pollutant Load Update Report, which was subsequently incorporated into the City’s NPDES permit. The City’s load-reduction requirement under the NPDES permit through 2026 is shown in Table
5. Table 5: CSLT 2026 Load Reduction Requirements
Parameter Baseline Load
(lbs./year)
Required Load
Reduction
(percent)
Required Load
Reduction
(lbs./year)
Allowable Load
(lbs./year)
Fine Sediment
Particles (mass)
476,677 34% 162,070 314,606
Fine sediment
Particles (count)
2.38E+19 34% 1.58E+19 1. 57E+19
Total Phosphorous 2,020 21% 424 1,596
Total Nitrogen 8,034 19% 1,526 6,508
Source: Lahontan Lake Tahoe Municipal NPDEs Permit, Board Order R6T-2022-0046, NPCESA NO.
CAG616001
The City completed development of a Pollutant Load Reduction Plan (PLRP), defining a pathway to compliance with the requirements to reduce pollutant loading to Lake Tahoe from urban stormwater runoff. The PLRP identifies feasible and cost-effective actions to meet anticipated targets. In September 2021, the City Council received a draft of the 2021 City of South Lake Tahoe PLRP, which documents the City’s proposed approach and timeline for meeting the 2026 load reduction targets as outlined in the City’s NPDES permit.
The PLRP was submitted to Lahontan in October 2021 and updated in September 2023 as required by the NPDES permit. The City is currently on track to reach the required credits.
Public Stormwater Infrastructure
Caltrans completed the Trout Creek to Ski Run Boulevard (2014) and “Y" to Trout Creek (2022) water quality improvement projects that equipped the length of Lake Tahoe Blvd. with stormwater conveyance treatment, treatment, and outlets. The Trout Creek to Ski Run Boulevard conveys stormwater runoff to an underground Delaware sand filter near River Dr., where it is treated and released into the Upper Truckee River. A second segment utilized open basins for collection and infiltration, with overflows discharging into Trout Creek and El Dorado Beach.
It is the City’s responsibility to treat runoff from all other streets per the TMDL requirements listed above. Catch basins along Palmira Ave. connect to the “Y" to Trout Creek infrastructure and empty into the Upper Truckee River. The Harrison Avenue Streetscape Improvement project, as discussed in Chapter 7 achieved public and private stormwater improvements for Harrison Ave., Alameda Ave., Tallac Ave., San Francisco Ave., and Modesto Ave.
The City's parking facilities at 977 Modesto Ave. and the boat ramp parking lot both have best management practice (BMP) certifications from TRPA. No BMP certificates have been issued to parcels within the 56-acre site; however, BMPs shall be installed alongside the Recreation & Aquatics Center.
676
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 27 Best Management Practices: Private Stormwater Infrastructure In addition to public stormwater infrastructure, TRPA requires individual properties and project areas within the Tahoe Basin to install BMPs to minimize erosion and infiltrate runoff from rainwater/snowmelt. BMP requirements are outlined in TRPA Code of Ordinances Chapter 60, which requires property owners to infiltrate the volume of a 20-year/1 hour storm on their property or meet alternative standards in instances where site constraints are present, such as high groundwater. TRPA’s Best Management Practices Handbook details methods and installation details.
Best Management Practices: Area-wide Stormwater Infrastructure Adoption of the 2012 Regional Plan allowed private parcels to participate in area-wide stormwater treatments in lieu of onsite infiltration and treatment. These treatments may be proposed as part of an area plan and are generally constructed through private/public partnerships and are designed to accommodate private parcel runoff as well as rights-ofway. Such systems must demonstrate a greater-or-equal water quality benefit compared to parcel BMPs and meet other requirements outlined in Chapter 13 of TRPA’s Code of Ordinances.
In 2014, the Harrison Ave area-wide system was completed, treating approximately 40 acres of both private and public land in the Al Tahoe area. Approximately 21.9 acres in the northeastern region of the plan area is treated in the Bijou Erosion Control Project. In 2023, TRPA adopted a set of changes to the Code of Ordinances known as the Phase 2 Housing Amendments. This amendment package allows affordable, moderate, and achievable housing developments to utilize coverage above 70%; however, runoff from the project area must be collected and treated by a stormwater system that is permitted by Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board and monitored for TMDL pollutant load reduction. See TRPA Code of Ordinances 30.4.2(B)(5).
Each new construction, redevelopment, or major remodel project requires BMP installation or maintenance where treatments exist. Property owners may opt to install BMPs independently of a permitted project through TRPA’s retrofit program. There are 132 parcels (36.5%) within the plan area that have earned a BMP certificate by installing and maintaining BMPs; however, it should be assumed that not all these parcels have fully functioning BMPs. Many treatments, particularly underground galleries, are not regularly maintained.
Underground Sources of Potential Water Quality Concerns There are 19 Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Sites within the plan area that have undergone remediation and been closed, and one open case. The open case (T10000021479) concerns potential diesel contamination of soil at the South Tahoe Public Utility District’s main operation plant. The case was opened in November of 2023, and it is under investigation for site characterization, risk evaluation, and remediation considerations (State Water Resources Control Board, 2025). Such sites are regulated pursuant to Title 23 of the California Code of Regulations, Chapter 16, Article 11. 677
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 28 Figure 7: Existing Public Stormwater Infrastructure
678
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 29 The South Tahoe Public Utility District’s (STPUD) plant, pumps, and pipes pose a risk to water quality should human error, natural disaster, or worn infrastructure led to a spill or leak. STPUD is creating an infrastructure replacement program to identify and prioritize sections of system infrastructure for replacement. The identification of this program included it in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) budget (South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD), 2020).
The majority (88.8%) of the 241 sewer laterals within the plan area were installed in 1959. In 1950, 5 were installed; 13 in 1970; and 1 in 2011. There are 8 laterals for which the installation date is unknown. The lifespan of these improvements can range from 50 to 100 years, though many factors play a role, including material, root intrusion, external pressure, soil stability, soil chemical composition, corrosion, and water table fluctuation.
Source Water Considerations
There are fourteen (14) TRPA-designated “source water protection zones” that overlay the Mid Town area. Protection zones consist of a fixed 600-foot radius circle around wells that provide drinking water with five or more service connections. Possible contaminating activities may not be approved within these zones unless all findings of TRPA Code of Ordinances 60.3.3(D) are made.
Possible contaminating activities are defined in TRPA Code 60.3.3.B. and include the following uses.
Residential Domestic animal raising
Commercial Service stations, auto repair and service, business support services, laundries and dry-cleaning plant, repair services, batch plants, fuel and ice dealers, industrial services, recycling and scrap, storage yards, vehicle storage and parking, vehicle and freight terminals
Public Service Airfields, landing strips, and heliports; collection stations, hospitals, local public health and safety facilities; regional public health and safety facilities; power generating, public utility centers, schools, transit stations and terminals Recreation Beach recreation, boat launching facilities, developed campgrounds, golf courses, marinas, recreational vehicle parks, rural sports Resource
Management
Timber stand improvement, grazing, range pasture management, runoff control Shore zone Construction equipment storage, seaplane operations, tour boat operations, water-oriented outdoor recreation concessions
Scenic Resources
Every four (4) years, TRPA assesses roadway and shoreline units for the quality of the travel experience and the quality of specific scenic resources viewed from those units. Factors that contribute to low ratings are dilapidated or abandoned buildings, excessive street parking, and a lack of vegetation that would lessen the visual impacts of large structures and the aforementioned features. Public and private investments can substantially improve a scenic unit’s rating. Scenic resources within the plan area, as identified by TRPA, are discussed below, with comments from the 2023 Threshold Evaluation incorporated (Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 2025). 679
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 30 Scenic Roadway Units
El Dorado Beach: Unit 34
Scenic Roadway Unit 34 has been in attainment since 1982. Improvements over the past 10 years include the installation of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks; redevelopment of older buildings consistent with design standards (including Tahoe Wellness Center and Hotel Azure); and improvements at Lakeview Commons (creation of Champions Plaza, reconstruction of parking areas, and relocation of restrooms). Specific Environmental Improvement Program (EIP) Projects that contributed include:
03.01.02.0006 - Lakeview Commons Phase 2 - El Dorado Beach Improvements
01.01.01.0098 - U.S. Highway 50 Water Quality Improvement Project - Trout Creek to Ski Run Blvd.
03.02.02.0008 - Harrison Avenue Streetscape Improvement & Bike Trail Al Tahoe: Unit 35
While Unit 35 remains in non-attainment, TRPA’s Threshold Evaluation reports have noted incremental improvements since 2011. These including curbs, gutters, and sidewalks; new road pavement; façade improvements; and redevelopment. Evaluations note the lack of screening for parking lots as an area of concern. EIP Project 01.01.01.0005, U.S. Highway 50 Water Quality Improvement Project - "Y" to Trout Creek, contributed positively to air quality, scenic resources, soil conservation, and water quality threshold categories.
Scenic Shoreline Units
Bijou: Unit 31
The Bijou scenic shoreline is in attainment and has been since threshold evaluations began in 1982. The only comment included in threshold evaluations relating specifically to the portion of Unit 31 within the Mid-Town plan area is regarding strong articulation of a singlefamily dwelling.
Al Tahoe: Unit 32
The Al Tahoe scenic shoreline is in attainment and has been since threshold evaluations began. The most recent evaluation (2023) reports satisfaction with revegetation at El Dorado Beach; however, screening of kayak storage is lacking. In 2011, Lakeview Commons Phase 2 - El Dorado Beach Improvements (EIP 03.01.02.0006) increased the overall rating.
Shorezone Tolerance Districts
To avoid foreshore and nearshore structures from conflicting with scenic threshold attainment, TRPA’s 1973 Shorezone Plan identified shorezone tolerance districts around Lake Tahoe, Fallen Leaf Lake, and Cascade Lake. Each district was analyzed for topography, erosion concerns, and the capacity of structures.
The Mid-Town Area Plan contains approximately half of Shorezone Tolerance District 4, the nature of which is described in TRPA Code 83.9.1A. Additional development standards are included for parcels in Tolerance District 4.
680
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 31 Art, Cultural, and Historic Resources
Built Environment
The California Office of Historic Preservation tracks structures that have possible historic significance through the Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD). BERD identifies five (5) structures within the plan area that have been nominated to the National Register of Historic Places, though none were accepted. These include Sno-Flake Drive-In, Lake Forest Wedding Chapel, campground caretaker’s cabin and garage, and the water tower at 1100 Rufus Allen Blvd (California Office of Historic Preservation). These locations have not yet been evaluated for the California Register or local listings.
While BERD provides information based on the Office of Historic Preservation’s (OHP) inventory, it is not a complete list of historically significant resources. A resource’s failure to be identified in BERD does not mean it is not significant.
Tribal Cultural Resources
Nearly all plant and animal species native to the Tahoe Basin, the greater Sierra Nevada Mountain Range, and surrounding foothills are of significance to the people of the Washoe Tribe. These resources were integral to supporting early ways of life by providing basic needs such as shelter, sustenance, and medicine (Makley, 2018). While lifestyles have changed, native plants and animals remain important in Washoe culture, enabling the preservation and transmission of traditional knowledge and skills.
Recreation and Open Space
The Mid-Town Area Plan contains many of the City’s best recreation assets. There are further opportunities for seasonal and year-round activities to promote community connectivity and mental and physical health.
Bijou Community Park
Bijou Community Park is the largest municipal park in the City, containing a disc golf course, mountain bike/BMX park, dog park, dog agility course, playground, sand volleyball courts, skatepark, two gazebos with barbecue pits, a historic railroad exhibit, and restrooms. All park facilities are free to use; however, the restrooms are closed during the winter months when park use significantly decreases. The park was constructed in 1992 and has continuously undergone improvements. The bike park was added in 2015 through a partnership between the City of South Lake Tahoe, Tahoe Area Mountain Biking Association (TAMBA), and South Lake Tahoe BMX. The bike park is largely maintained by TAMBA staff and community volunteers at their “Tune-Up Tuesday” gatherings. In the summer of 2025, the street section of the skate park was resurfaced with new features and connected to the transition section.
Bijou Park is highly utilized by individuals and for City and private events. Both gazebos are available to rent for group gatherings. The disc golf course hosts annual tournaments. The South Tahoe Disc Golf Association maintains and promotes the course for such events. The bike park and skate park may also be rented for single- or multiday events. The City hosts a summer movie series at Bijou as well as the annual Multicultural Celebration to celebrate diversity through art, music, food, and entertainment.
681
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 32 Bijou Golf Course
The golf course was opened in 1920 as a private course. In November 1983, the City purchased the Bijou Meadow and Golf Course. The 9-hole course maintains its original configuration. The City rents a neighboring parcel containing the clubhouse and parking lot. The clubhouse contains a pro shop, rental equipment, and a snack bar, but lacks permanent restrooms. The course is generally open from mid-May through the first snowfall, with limited hours after Labor Day. A fee is required to play.
Campground by the Lake
The campground opened on June 26, 1979, and was reconfigured to accommodate the City’s Recreation & Aquatics Center. Amenities include campfire rings, picnic tables, shared water spigots, coin-operated showers, a dump station, and WIFI service. Weekends in the summer months are regularly fully booked, as are most weekdays.
Lakeview Commons and El Dorado Beach
El Dorado Beach at Lakeview Commons was dedicated on June 20, 2012. This project was a partnership between the City of South Lake Tahoe, El Dorado County, and the California Tahoe Conservancy, largely funded by the 2006 Parks and Water Bond Act. Amenities include a bike trail; an ADA beach access path; a boat launch and floating dock; kayak concessions; picnic area with tables and barbecues; turf area; restrooms; food concessions; and a swim area protected by ropes and buoys. Parking is available to the public, as well as one lot specifically for vehicles with boat trailers.
The area is extremely popular among picnickers, slackliners, kayakers and paddleboarders, and swimmers. Thursday nights throughout the summer are especially busy when the Live at Lakeview Summer Music Series occurs.
Recreation & Aquatics Center
In 2023, construction of the City’s new Recreation & Aquatics Center began. in the project was completed in 2026, provide the greater south shore with a plethora of arts, fitness, and community programs.
Lake Tahoe Community College Nordic Center
Lake Tahoe Community College features over 4 miles of Nordic cross-country ski trails. In the nonwinter months, the track is utilized by hikers. Spanning the campus and City property are the Community Play Fields, made possible by Lake Tahoe Community College District and the City of through the Community Play Consortium (CPC) Joint Power Authority. One synthetic turf field and two grass fields are available for youth programs, youth leagues, LTCC students, and tournaments, training camps, special events, and fundraisers.
South Tahoe Middle School
South Tahoe Middle School contains tennis courts, baseball fields, a track, and a football field.
Facilities are used for both school and community activities. 682
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 33 Safety and Noise
Citywide hazard identification and risk assessment was completed in the City of South Lake Tahoe Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2022 Update. The significance summary from this assessment is included below.
Table 6: City of South Lake Tahoe Hazard Significance Summary (Table 4-2 of LHMP)
Hazard Geographic
Extent
Probability of
Future
Occurrences
Magnitude/
Severity
Overall
Significance
Avalanche Extensive Highly Likely Limited Low
Dam Incident Limited Unlikely Negligible Low
Drought Significant Likely Limited Medium
Earthquake Significant Likely Catastrophic High
Flood Significant Likely Limited Medium
Landslide and Debris Flows: Soil
Hazards
Limited Highly Likely Limited Medium
Severe Weather: Heavy
Rain/Thunderstorms/Hail/
Lightning/ High Winds
Extensive Highly Likely Limited Medium
Severe Weather: Heavy
Snow/Winter Storms
Extensive Highly Likely Critical High
Wildfires Extensive Highly Likely Catastrophic High
Public Health Hazards:
Epidemics/Pandemics
Extensive Occasional Critical High
Energy Shortages and Energy
Resiliency
Extensive Highly Likely Limited High
Geographic Extent
Limited: Less than 10% of planning area
Significant: 10-50% of planning area
Extensive: 50-100% of planning area
Magnitude/Severity
Catastrophic: More than 50 percent of property
severely damaged; shutdown of facilities for more
than 30 days; and/or multiple deaths
Overall Significance
Low: minimal potential impact
Medium: moderate potential impact
High: widespread potential impact
Critical: 25-50 percent of property severely
damaged; shutdown of facilities for at least two
weeks; and/or injuries and/or illnesses result in
permanent disability
Limited: 10-25 percent of property severely
damaged; shutdown of facilities for more than a
week; and/or injuries/illnesses treatable do not
result in permanent disability
Probability of Future Occurrences
Highly Likely: Near 100% chance of occurrence in
next year or happens every year.
Likely: Between 10 and 100% chance of occurrence
in next year, or a recurrence interval of 10 years or
less.
Occasional: Between 1 and 10% chance of
occurrence in the next year or has a recurrence
interval of 11 to 100 years.
Unlikely: Less than 1% chance of occurrence in
next 100 years or has a recurrence interval of
greater than every 100 years.
683
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 34 Negligible: Less than 10 percent of property
severely damaged, shutdown of facilities and
services for less than 24 hours; and/or
injuries/illnesses treatable with first aid
Noise
As more mixed-use developments are built, noise conflicts between commercial and residential uses may occur more frequently. Much of the plan area is along Lake Tahoe Blvd., where residential developments may be affected by transportation-related noise pollution.
Portions of the plan area are overlaid by noise contour bands as identified in the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). Certain uses within these overlays are prohibited or require additional conditions of approval to mitigate noise interference and ensure safety and quality of life. These requirements are discussed further in Chapter 4, Land Use and Community Design, and Table 4-1, Noise Compatibility Criteria, of the ALUCP.
Special events with amplified sound are reviewed individually or as an event series according to SLTCC 6.55.230 or against specific permit conditions when within a special event area. Events are reviewed to ensure that amplified sound hours do not cause significant disturbances to neighboring uses. In some cases, mitigation measures are placed on an event to lessen noise impacts.
Maximum community noise equivalent levels (CNEL) for the plan area are included in Table 7. TRPA Code Chapter 68 and the South Lake Tahoe General Plan Health and Safety Element provide further information regarding measuring levels for specific noise sources.
Table 7: Community Noise Equivalent Level
District/
Overlay
Sierra
Tahoe
Business
Harrison/
Sandy
Al Tahoe
Center
Public
Service LTCC Bijou Rec.
US Hwy
50 (overlay)
Shorezone
(overlay)
CNEL 60 60 60 55 55 55 65* 55
*This standard overrides the district CNEL levels for areas within 300 feet of US Hwy 50. 684
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 35
1.5 Project Objectives/Purpose and Need
The purpose of the Mid-Town Area Plan is to create a cohesive guiding document for the City’s central services and commercial zones that are not already within an area plan. As discussed previously, the existing Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan and PAS are nearly 40 years old and do not reflect the community’s current priorities. The City of South Lake Tahoe, TRPA, and State of California have developed new goals, policies, and legislation that Community Plan and PAS are not in alignment with. The Mid-Town Area Plan is being developed to comply with California law, TRPA Regional Plan and Code of Ordinances, the City’s General Plan Housing Element, and City strategic goals.
The goal of the Mid-Town Area Plan is to foster a more defined sense of place in central South Lake Tahoe to improve the lives of residents and the experiences of visitors. The abundance of recreation opportunities is a major draw for people to visit and reside in the Tahoe Basin. The Area Plan will leverage the recently completed 56-Acres Master Plan and existing and proposed infrastructure to provide year-round recreation opportunities for people of all ages, incomes, and abilities.
In addition to the current recreation hubs within the plan area, there are three (3) TRPA-designated Town Centers which contain shopping, dining, and resident-serving uses, such as gyms, postal offices, healthcare providers, and government offices. However, the area currently lacks the interconnectedness of a true Town Center, where higher residential densities complement the mix of commercial uses. The Area Plan will expand the Town Center boundary to include already developed areas to encourage mixed-income housing and redevelopment. Town Center services and facilities will be supported not only by surrounding residential neighborhoods, but also by the introduction of mixed-use development.
The expanded Town Center will include the Lake Tahoe Community College (LTCC) project area.
Though not incorporated until now, this area has consistently been recognized as having the qualities of a formal Town Center. One of the City’s largest transit hubs is located at LTCC, and it is recognized by the City’s General Plan as a citywide social center. The area hosts numerous events throughout the year, such as fundraisers, community events, and sports tournaments. Some of LTCC’s most in-demand courses serve the community at large rather than only degree-seeking students. Under the Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan, LTCC was allowed an exception for additional height.
A significant portion of the Town Center expansion consists of the Tahoe Sierra Business District, which is currently under the Sierra Tract Commercial PAS. This area is heavily developed, with most parcels containing legal nonconforming excess coverage. The incorporation of this area is anticipated to drive redevelopment, creating opportunities to mitigate excess coverage and install water quality treatments. New developments are generally the largest contributors to increasing scenic ratings. The Mid-Town Area Plan and its redevelopment incentives are anticipated to further the quality of both the built and natural environments.
Development of the Mid-Town Area Plan provides an opportunity to bring the 56-Acre Master Plan back into the public eye for fine-tuning and further visioning of the area surrounding the Recreation & Aquatics Center. The City began construction of the Recreation & Aquatics Center in 2023, the 685
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 36 year before development of the Mid-Town Area Plan began. The community vision for the Recreation & Aquatics Center was the driving force behind the 56-Acre Master Plan, which identified a preferred concept for the parcels within the site. The Master Plan drove the adjustment of parcel lines within the site to accommodate further City development, the designation of a right-of-way easement for a main street, and an agreement between the City of South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County outlining timeframes and development authority. The future uses of this site are key in envisioning how the surrounding area should be guided.
At a public hearing on September 10, 2024, the South Lake Tahoe City Council identified the following priority topics for the Area Plan to address. • Incorporate an arts district; emphasize the area as an arts and culture center • Implement policy and design standards that support all housing types • Consider the unique needs of the many public service agencies within the plan area and how to concentrate services for efficiency
• Identify enhancements and gaps to work towards a safe and interconnected active transportation network
• Explore community demand/desire for enhancements to recreation assets • Develop an implementation chapter that provides incentives and pathways for both private and public entities to achieve the plan goals
Objectives of the Area Plan are captured in the following Guiding Principles, meant to ensure the MidTown Area Plan Vision Statement is considered and consistent with all policies and standards contained within the plan.
Recreation and Open Space
Enhance existing recreation uses to support the health and well-being of individuals and the community by providing safe and well-maintained parks, day-use areas, event venues, and open spaces.
Curate recreation spaces that accommodate those of differing abilities and ages.
Built Environment
Ensure that new developments recognize the importance of third places and that mixed-use developments anticipate the needs of future tenants.
Create a built environment that complements and preserves open space, natural resources, and natural features through sustainable building practices and water quality treatments.
Transportation
Address gaps in creating a safe and interconnected active transportation network, with an emphasis to increase safety for students and youth traveling between South Tahoe Middle School, Boys and Girls Club, playing fields, Bijou Park, and residences.
Continue to explore mitigation measures for congested areas and bike/scooter/pedestrian conflicts.
686
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 37 Arts and Culture
Appreciate and recognize all aspects and individuals of our community through art that inspires critical thinking, creativity, connection, and community.
Land Use
Encourage greater residential densities and mixed-use developments that in turn support affordable housing, local business growth, walkability, and community cohesion.
Maintain the area’s small-town charm while encouraging redevelopment of vacant and underused sites.
Allow for a range of complementary uses and help reduce commercial vacancy.
1.6 Document Organization
This IS/IEC follows the standard content for environmental documents under CEQA and the TRPA Code of Ordinances and Rules of Procedure. An EIR/EIS was determined to be unnecessary because there are no potentially significant environmental effects associated with the proposed Area Plan.
This IS/IEC is a full disclosure document, describing the plan and its environmental effects in sufficient detail to aid decision-making Chapter 5 contains a summary of the environmental effects.
No areas of necessary mitigation measures are identified; however, mitigation measures included in broader project documents (CSLT General Plan and TRPA Regional Plan Update) are applicable and incorporated as part of the project. They will not be readopted.
1.7 Public Involvement
The first phase of outreach was conducted from August through November 2024, with staff collecting feedback to identify the community’s top concerns and desires for the area. In September, City staff attended four (4) community events (Lake Tahoe Collaborative; Lake Tahoe Community College Coyote Kickoff and Fall Orientation; Multicultural Celebration; and State of the City). At these events staff discussed the importance and purpose of area plans; answered questions about the plan; and signed up community members for notifications of participation opportunities or public hearings related to the plan. Also in September, the City Council held high-level discussions to identify overarching priorities to inform staff and consultants in leading outreach efforts. Other public hearings included presentations to the Parks and Recreation Commission (August 21, 2024) on Bijou Community Park and Golf Couse programming and to the Arts, Culture, and Tourism Commission (November 12, 2024) regarding topics and goals for an arts district. City staff and project consultants held a total of approximately 15 focus group meetings with transportation advocates, business owners, property owners, government and quasi-government partners, community organizations, and developers. These meetings reached approximately 80 individuals and included two multi-day work sessions where participants engaged in hands-on activities to explore different development patterns for specific areas. On average, 57% of those invited to these meetings participated.
Four (4) open houses were held: September 25, October 2, November 13, and December 10 of 2024.
The first two open houses were to provide the public with a baseline understanding of what area plans are, share information on the existing conditions such as zoning and usage, and to collect feedback on concerns and priorities that staff could use to begin building a community vision of what the Mid687 Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 38 town area should become. All materials and presentations for the October open house were in Spanish. The November 13 open house focused on goals, strategies, and implementation tools. This was participants’ opportunity to let staff and consultants know if the feedback shared at previous open houses and meetings were accurately received and represented. Participants indicated if they supported, opposed, or were neutral on the proposed goals and strategies.
The City also participated in two adjacent efforts (not led by City staff or consultants) that brought further insight. This included participation in the Tahoe Chamber's South Shore Business Walk where City staff and other Tahoe Chamber representatives conducted door-to-door outreach to local businesses. Survey questions were presented and discussed to gauge the health and needs of businesses and business owners. The City also participated in the National Association of Realtors' Transforming Neighborhoods Program. The South Tahoe Association of Realtors was awarded this professional assistance and chose to focus the process on the Mid-Town efforts. The Counselors of Real Estate Consulting Corps conducted an onsite assessment of the area and met with stakeholders independently of the City's outreach process. A report of analysis and recommendations for economic development and redevelopment strategies was provided to the City following this process.
Phase two outreach occurred in the summer of 2025, with draft concepts presented at a community open house (April 8, 2025) as well as to the City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency’s Regional Plan Committee, and the South Lake Tahoe City Council.
The public will have 30 days, beginning on July 20, 2026, to review and provide comments on the draft IS/ND. Further comments may be made on August 20, 2026, at the Planning Commission public hearing when the Mid-Town Area Plan will be considered for recommendation to the City Council.
1.8 Relationship to Land Use Plans, Policies and Regulations The Mid-Town Area Plan falls under the jurisdiction of the City of South Lake Tahoe and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). Federal and State agencies exercise varying levels of control concerning specific parcels or resources. In some cases, TRPA and State regulations conflict. In such cases, the City must first adhere to TRPA regulations. This section identifies each agency’s responsibility relative to the proposed Area Plan. Also identified are the plans and policies with which the Area Plan must comply.
Federal - Environmental Protection Agency
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has designated Lake Tahoe an Outstanding National Resource Water (ONRW). ONRWs are provided the highest level of protection under EPA’s Antidegradation Policy. This allows limited activities that result in temporary and short-term changes to water quality, but such changes should not adversely affect existing uses or alter the essential character or special uses for which the water was designated on ONRW. Although the Area Plan does not require approval from EPA, the incentives related to coverage are dependent upon EPA certifying TRPA’s updated Water Quality Management Plan for the Tahoe Region (208 Plan). The Updated 208 Plan was certified on June 19, 2013.
688
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 39 State of California
California Government Code Section 65450 et seq. allows local jurisdictions with compliant general plans to prepare specific plans when directed to do so by the legislative body. The specific plan itself does not require State approval; however, several State agencies play a role in development decisions within the City of South Lake Tahoe and greater Tahoe Basin. Staff from such agencies review the proposed Area Plan for consistency with their goals and policies.
California Tahoe Conservancy
The California Tahoe Conservancy (CTC) was established in 1984 to protect, restore, and enhance the natural environment of Lake Tahoe. The CTC acquires sensitive lands that have been developed and restores them through removal of development, soil decompaction, soil stabilization, and revegetation of native species. Parcels are maintained to reduce wildfire risk and adapt to changing climate conditions. Select CTC parcels provide public access to beaches, hiking areas, and other recreation opportunities throughout the Basin. Acquisition of sensitive lands allows the CTC to play a role in private development through a land bank of development rights, coverage, and restoration credits obtained through restoration of the parcels. The CTC has provided funding for multiple City transportation and stormwater improvements.
CTC has developed and initiated implementation of several programs involving acquisitions, site improvements, and land management activities, and involving direct activities as well as grants, which require capital funding. Program areas include:
• Water Quality and Watersheds
• Forest Habitat Enhancement
• Recreation and Public Access
• Land Management and Acquisition
• Coverage and Marketable Rights
• Climate Change and Sustainability
There are four (4) parcels within the plan area owned by CTC, totaling 2.02 acres. CTC removed development on these parcels and has restored them to open space with restoration and recreation enhancements such as stabilization, beach access, and bike paths.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
Caltrans is responsible for planning, designing, constructing, and maintaining all state highways. The jurisdictional interest of Caltrans extends to improvements to roadways on the state highway system (including roadways designated as U.S. highways). Any federally funded transportation improvements would be subject to review by Caltrans staff and the California Transportation Commission, either on or off of the state highway system.
South Lake Tahoe’s primary arterial rode is U.S. Highway 50, also known as Lake Tahoe Boulevard. All maintenance, snow removal, and other activities to U.S. Highway 50/ Lake Tahoe Boulevard are the responsibility of Caltrans.
689
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 40 Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board
Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (Lahontan) is responsible for managing water quality and related activities of local jurisdictions on the California-side of the Lake Tahoe Basin. Lahontan establishes water quality standards, subject to the approval of the State Water Quality Control Board.
Water quality standards are met through the issuance of waste discharge permits and through monitoring by local jurisdictions to demonstrate compliance. Among other activities, Lahontan actively enforces attainment of standards and has broader enforcement power than TRPA.
Any party responsible for construction activity over one acre must obtain a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Permit (NPDES Permit) from Lahontan to eliminate or reduce pollutants in stormwater discharged to surface waters, which include riparian zones, from areas of construction activity.
Lahontan is also responsible for incorporating the Lake Tahoe Daily Maximum (TMDL) pollutant load reduction targets into the NPDES permit for California municipalities in the Tahoe Basin. This permit regulates stormwater discharge from the City’s stormwater management infrastructure and Federal rules require the City to implement programs to control pollutant runoff.
California Trustee Agencies
State agencies with trustee responsibility in the Mid-Town region include California Division of Forestry (tree removal and forest resource concerns), State Office of Historic Preservation (cultural resources), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (wildlife resources), and State Lands Commission with regard to state-owned “sovereign” lands such as the bed of Lake Tahoe.
Regional
The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) is the Tahoe Basin’s bi-state environmental planning agency. The organization’s purpose is to establish Environmental Threshold Carrying Capacities (threshold standards) and develop attainment methods to maintain Lake Tahoe’s clarity and guide orderly growth and development in the Tahoe Basin. TRPA’s primary guiding document is the Regional Plan, executed through the TRPA Code of Ordinances. TRPA also serves as the Tahoe region’s federally designated metropolitan planning organization (MPO), tasked with carrying out transportation planning.
TRPA’s Regional Plan was adopted in 1986. The plan guides development in the Tahoe Basin in a manner to achieve and maintain its established threshold standards. In addition to goals and policies, the plan directs land use in the basin through plan area statements, as referenced throughout this document. Plan area statements and districts within community plans or area plans are associated with a land use classification. The Mid-Town region is comprised primarily of the mixed-use and recreation land uses designations (Table 9).
Table 8: Regional Plan Conceptual Regional Land Uses
Regional Plan Conceptual Land Use Area (acres) Percent of Plan Area Mixed-Use 384 51.8%
Recreation 299 40.3%
Conservation 56 7.5%
Residential 3 0.4%
690
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 41 Backcountry 0 0%
Resort Recreation 0 0%
Wilderness 0 0%
Tourist 0 0%
The Regional Plan’s Conceptual Regional Land Use map identifies three locales within Mid-Town as Town Center districts. Upon adoption of this Plan, the Town Center shall be expanded to include all eligible parcels not identified as stream restoration areas. The parcels consisting of Bijou Community Park, Bijou Golf Course, and Meadow are Recreation. Several parcels bordering Trout Creek are identified as priority areas for stream restoration. These classifications, as defined in the Regional Plan, are included below.
Town Center Town Centers contain most of the Region’s non-residential services and have been identified as a significant source of sediments and other contaminants that continue to enter Lake Tahoe. Town Centers are targeted for redevelopment in a manner that improves environmental conditions, creates a more sustainable and less auto-dependent development pattern, and provides economic opportunities in the Region.
Mixed-Use Mixed-use areas are urban areas that have been designated to provide a mix of commercial, public services, light industrial, office, and residential uses to the Region or have the potential to provide future commercial, public service, light industrial, office, and residential uses. The purpose of this classification is to concentrate higher intensity land uses for public convenience, and enhanced sustainability.
Recreation Recreation areas are non-urban areas with good potential for developed outdoor recreation, park use, or concentrated recreation. Lands which this plan identified as recreation areas include (1) areas of existing private and public recreation use, (2) designated local, state, and federal recreation areas, (3) areas without overriding environmental constraints on resource management or recreational purposes, and (4) areas with unique recreational resources which may service public needs, such as beaches and ski areas.
Stream
Restoration
Stream Restoration Plan Areas are Stream Environment Zones along major waterways that have been substantially degraded by prior or existing development. Individual Restoration Plans should be developed for each Stream Restoration Plan Area in coordination with the applicable local government and property owners in the plan area. Restoration Plans may be developed as a component of an Area Plan or as a separate document and should identify feasible opportunities for environmental restoration.
Includes APNs 025-010-069, 026-221-029, 031-103-002, 031-103-013, 026- 231-011, 026-231-012, and 026-231-017.
The 2012 update of TRPA’s Regional Plan allows and encourages local jurisdictions to adopt area plans to replace dated guiding documents and realize the community’s current goals and visions.
Chapter 13 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances identifies the relationship between adopted area plans, the Regional Plan, and the TRPA Code. An area plan may propose alternative standards to the TRPA Code, so long as they comply with the Regional Plan's goals and policies to meet and maintain environmental thresholds. Once adopted, an area plan is considered a component of the Regional Plan.
691
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 42 Figure 8: Regional Plan Conceptual Land Use and Town Center 692
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 43 Figure 9: Regional Plan Conceptual Land Use and Town Center (amended) 693
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 44 In December 2012, the TRPA Governing Board adopted an updated Regional Plan. Priorities of the updated Regional Plan that apply to this Area Plan include:
• Accelerating water quality restoration and other threshold gains by supporting environmental redevelopment opportunities, restoration of disturbed lands and Environmental Improvement Program (EIP) investments.
• Transitioning to more permitting by local governments to create one-stop-shopping for homeowner improvements in order to return TRPA to the more regional role the Compact originally intended.
• Creating walkable communities and increasing alternative transportation options.
Important policies addressed in the Regional Plan include:
• Retaining the established regional growth control system. Under this system, rampant overdevelopment was stopped and open spaces preserved. Most of the policies from the 1987 Regional Plan stayed in place.
• Creating a more efficient planning system that integrates TRPA requirements into the plans and permits of other government agencies.
• Encouraging property owners to transfer development rights from sensitive or outlying areas to Town Centers with the goal of restoring these lands. • Eliminating regulatory barriers to the environmental redevelopment of rundown buildings. • Simplifying burdensome regulations for homeowners while achieving threshold gain. • Integrating with the Regional Transportation Plan to support sidewalk and bike trail projects that reduce automobile dependency and increase walkability and safety. • Continuing to deliver restoration projects under the EIP that achieve erosion control on roadways and restore forests and wetlands.
City of South Lake Tahoe
The City of South Lake Tahoe is the only incorporated city within the Lake Tahoe Region. The City implements its regulatory authority through the General Plan and City Code. The City’s 1999 General Plan adopted TRPA’s Plan Area Statements (PAS) to replace its previous local zoning. In the City’s 2011 General Plan update, the City adopted new land use designations for PASs located within the City’s jurisdiction but retained the PASs and Community Plans as its zoning system. PASs remain in effect until superseded by an Area Plan.
The City of South Lake Tahoe’s 2011 General Plan identifies four (4) different land use categories within Mid-Town. These various categories reflect the areas’ variability and ability to support the surrounding residential uses. It is the goal of this Plan to create and enhance the identifying characteristics of these areas, while maintaining a cohesive, community-oriented atmosphere.
The General Plan identifies three (3) citywide social centers (Lake Tahoe Community College; social service and public safety offices of the City of South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County at the intersection of Johnson Blvd. and Al Tahoe Blvd; and the 56-Acres project area) and one neighborhood gathering place (Lakeview Commons and El Dorado Beach) within the plan area. 694
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 45 Table 9: General Plan Land Uses
Land Use Designation Area (acres) Percent of Plan Area
Recreation 352 47.5%
Special District 214 28.9%
Conservation 56 7.5%
Town Center 55 7.5%
Neighborhood Center 53 7.2%
High Density Residential 6 0.9%
Mixed-Use 3 0.5%
Low Density Residential 1 0.1%
Tourist 0 0.0%
Neighborhood
Center
This designation provides for commercial, and tourist uses supported by high‐ density residential. This use supports horizontal and vertical mixed‐use developments. This designation is applied to areas that are currently developed with commercial and/or tourist uses, areas of existing excess land coverage, and areas that are near commercial, employment, transit, and public services.
Town Center This designation provides for a mixture of uses including tourist accommodation, commercial, intensive recreation, high‐density residential, and mixed‐use residential. This designation is applied to areas that are currently developed as commercial/visitor centers, have excess land coverage, where vertical mixed‐use projects are appropriate, and are near commercial, employment, transit, and public services.
Special District This designation provides for unique land uses that require flexibility or special considerations. This includes public facilities, industrial uses, and transportation uses (i.e., airport).
Special districts within the Mid-Town plan area include the Lake Tahoe Community College campus, South Tahoe Middle School and Lake Tahoe Unified School District offices, South Tahoe Public Utility District, Happy Homestead Cemetery, and social service and public safety offices of the City of South Lake Tahoe and El Dorado County.
Recreation This designation provides for outdoor recreation areas, active and passive recreational uses, habitat protection, and public/quasi‐public uses. This designation is applied to areas with existing or proposed outdoor recreation and areas without overriding environmental constraints.
695
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 46 Figure 10: General Plan Land Uses
696
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 47
2.0 Project Description
The proposed project is a new area plan that will replace the Bijou Al Tahoe Community Plan and the Sierra Tract Commercial Plan Area Statement (PAS) in their entirety. A significant portion of the Bijou Meadows PAS will be replaced by the Mid-Town Area Plan. Additionally, selected parcels from the Al Tahoe PAS and Highland Woods PAS have been incorporated to eliminate split zoning and incorporate public service uses within the plan area. The Mid-Town Area Plan (Area Plan) serves as a mutual plan for the City and TRPA by providing directions for how the area should be regulated to achieve regional environmental and land use objectives. The Area Plan will support the 56-Acres Master Plan by further identifying community goals for the space and incentivizing redevelopment, especially mixed-use projects with residential components to create a vibrant and walkable downtown environment.
The Area Plan will include approximately 780 acres on the south shore of Lake Tahoe, in central South Lake Tahoe. The Town Center overlay previously included 65 acres, to which the Mid-Town Area Plan proposes a 339-acre expansion consistent with the findings in TRPA Code of Ordinances 13.5.3.G.
The major changes proposed by the Mid-Town Area Plan are associated with this expansion, as parcels within the Town Center overlay may have more flexible design standards, including height, coverage, and density. Other special designations that overlay parcels within the plan include a stream restoration plan area and Shorezone Tolerance District 4.
The Area Plan establishes goals, policies, and design standards to transform the Mid-Town area into a recreation, arts, and culture hub. Key elements include expansion of the Town Cener as discussed above and implementation strategies or “next steps” to guide the City in achieving goals in a timely manner. Specific policy and design standards changes are summarized below, including district specific tables that include standards for locations inside and out of the Town Center.
Expansion of Uses
The Mid-Town Area Plan expands allowed uses in both commercial and residential categories throughout the area; however, tourist accommodations remain allowed only where they were allowed under previous planning documents. The most significant change is allowing multifamily dwellings by right in all districts except the Bijou Recreation District where a special use permit (SUP) will be required. Nursing and personal care and residential care facilities are allowed in all commercial districts. To promote the construction of residential uses, new single-family dwellings are required to be part of a condominium development that complies with the density requirements of multifamily dwellings.
A full list of changes to permissible uses can be found in Appendix A.
Residential Density
On all parcels within the Town Center, the maximum density for multifamily residential uses, including single-family condominium developments, is 65 units per acre. This number is the density adopted by the City of South Lake Tahoe, which only applies to the extent it is lower than the maximum densities as set by the TRPA Code of Ordinances Table 13.5.3-1. Maximum densities as set by TRPA Code of Ordinances Table 13.5.3-1 supersede those listed here. The maximum density per 697
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 48 TRPA Code of Ordinances Table 13.5.3-1 shall be applied, including subsequent amendments to increase density. Currently, TRPA’s maximum multifamily density for parcels within Town Centers is 25 units per acre. A minimum density of 2 units per acre is proposed for districts where such developments are most likely to be built by a public agency or institution, such as student or employee housing (Public Service Center and Lake Tahoe Community College). The minimum residential density for commercial districts is either 6 or 8 units, depending on the average parcel size and the maximum allowed height within the district. Under previous planning documents, the maximum density for multifamily dwellings was 15 units per acre, limited to select locations.
The maximum density for parcels not within the Town Center overlay shall be as stated in TRPA Code of Ordinances Table 31.3.2-1, Maximum Densities, and as subsequently amended for all districts, except for the Bijou Recreation District, for which lower densities are allowed for unique conditions.
Density in the Bijou Recreation District is limited due to the current capacity of the wastewater infrastructure. Upon replacement of this system, the standards in the TRPA Code of Ordinances Table 31.3.2-1 shall apply. Multifamily dwellings are allowed at 2-4 units per acre. Nursing and personal care and residential care facilities are allowed at 2-10 units per acre.
Design Standards
The Area Plan proposes site and building design standards to maximize functionality, accessibility, aesthetics, and sustainability. Overall, the design standards implemented by the Mid-Town Area Plan are consistent with Citywide design standards as previously contemplated by the City and TRPA. The standards are based on community input and the desire to maintain a mountain town in harmony with its natural surroundings. Colors and materials are required to be earth tones consistent with TRPA Design Review Guidelines and Colors of the Lake Tahoe Landscape. A variety of materials shall be used to visually separate a building’s base, middle, and top and provide interest through differing textures, especially at a pedestrian level.
Building heights in all parcels within the plan area were previously dictated by the TRPA Code of Ordinances Table 37.4.1-1. The Mid-Town Area Plan proposes a range of heights to increase development potential while maintaining compatibility with neighboring uses. The proposed heights for each district are included below under Mid-Town Area Plan Districts. Increased height is paired with a shallower roof pitch requirement to facilitate accessible roof areas (patios, dining, etc.); rooftop utilities/mechanical equipment and covered parking structures; to reduce the conditioned space and energy/construction costs of large structures, and maximize livable space within height restrictions.
To avoid large or imposing structures, massing standards are included to guide building form with identifiable base, middle, and top sections, so as not to appear a box-like, or overbearing. Where at a street corner, adjacent to a residential district, or adjacent to an open space/recreation use, any height above 3 stories for residential uses and 2 stories for all other uses shall be located out of a 45° angle as measured from the applicable height at the setback line.
Parking
A recent California law prohibits local governments from enforcing minimum parking requirements for residential and commercial projects within one-half mile of a major transit stop. While the City of 698
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 49 South Lake Tahoe does not have major transit stops as defined by the California Public Resources Code Section 21064.3, in anticipation of improved transit services, parking standards have been adjusted to be aligned with the intention of this state law. All uses may implement an optional 30% reduction in the number of required parking spaces. The entirety of commercial and residential parcels within the plan area are within ½ mile from a transit stop.
The plan offers flexibility for an applicant to provide a parking demand analysis, for review and approval by the review authority, to build more or fewer parking spaces than otherwise required. In addition to a parking demand analysis, applicant may implement alternative transportation methods such as shuttles for staff/patrons; incentives for nearby accommodation; car/bike share; or other means that reduce reliance on individual vehicles; enter a formal shared parking agreement with a secondary parcel; or provide significant contributions to the active transportation network or other public transportation improvements, beyond those required by code in order to justify a different parking demand.
As a pilot program, there is no minimum parking requirement for the following select uses: Nursing and personal care, Group facilities, Residential care, Outdoor recreation concessions, Outdoor amusements, Participant sports facilities, Colleges, Recreation centers, Transit stations and terminals, Boat launching facilities, Beach recreation, Amusement, recreation, & entertainment facilities. Project applicants shall propose parking in a manner that is supported by the uses’ capacity, existing nearby public parking, commute methods, nature of service, and unique project characteristics. Approval of the alternate parking is required by the review authority.
Long- and short-term bicycle storage and parking are required for all developments and major remodels. Throughout the Mid-Town Area Plan development and design standards aim to better integrate bicycle infrastructure with developments, facilitating travel to and from residential uses and increasing visibility of and interactions with commercial businesses.
Residential Design
The Area Plan includes changes necessary to implement to the TRPA Phase 2 Affordable and Workforce Housing Code Amendments adopted in December 2023 for the areas within and outside of the Town Center – these amendments are included in the proposed changes to density, height and land coverage limits applicable to deed restricted affordable housing as documented in Appendix A.
The Area Plan clarifies permitting processes for purely residential developments, allowing ministerial review for projects that meet standards in SLTCC 6.85 (Residential Development and Design Standards). These standards were adopted in compliance with California SB 35 and SB 330 and allow residential developments to deviate from area plan standards that are tailored towards commercial and mixed-use projects.
Land Coverage and Development Rights
The Mid-Town Area Plan largely maintains land capability and coverage systems as set forth in TRPA Code of Ordinances. In coordination with the City and TRPA, coverage management systems may be developed as alternatives to the parcel-level coverage requirements outlined in TRPA Code 30.4.1 and 30.4.2, provided that the alternative system complies with the provisions of TRPA Code 13.5.3B.1 and is adopted as part of an area plan. One alternative coverage system is proposed that applies only 699
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 50 to public service uses on parcels or project areas greater than one-third acre. Additional requests for alternative coverage systems shall be submitted as area plan amendments and reviewed accordingly.
The proposed alternative comprehensive coverage management system which applies only to public service uses on parcels or project areas greater than one-third allows such projects to choose this system as an alternative to TRPA Code 30.4.1.C.3.c. The proposal allows all base allowable land coverage attributed to Land Capability Districts 1 through 3 may be placed within any Land Capability District 4 through 7. All base allowable land coverage attributed to Land Capability Districts 4 and 5 may be placed within any higher land capability district. Base allowable land coverage attributed to Land Capability Districts 6 and 7 may be used interchangeably. TRPA Code 30.4.1.C.3.c requires that the alternative system reduce the amount of base allowed coverage within the project area or parcel.
This is proposed to be fulfilled through a one-time retirement of coverage when a project area or parcel opts into the alternative system. Applicants may choose to retire 750 square feet of Class 1b land coverage, 1000 square feet of sensitive land coverage other than 1b, or 1250 square feet of high capability land coverage (Class 4-7). This approach reduces the overall onsite coverage, while encouraging that coverage be used on higher capability lands. Just as coverage is encouraged to be concentrated in Town Centers and already developed area, this coverage system allows larger project areas to follow the same guidance for efficient planning and stormwater treatment.
To reduce barriers associated with establishing outdoor dining, 20 outdoor dining seats will be allowed for eating and drinking uses, without the need to obtain additional commercial floor area (CFA). The 20 seats of outdoor dining were selected based on a determination by the South Tahoe Public Utility District that restaurants may have up to 20 outdoor dining seats without an increase to the business’ usage fee. TRPA Code (Section 50.6.1.B.2) also allows for additions to, or expansions of, legally existing CFA of up to 500 square feet which supports the proposed provision to allow outdoor dining up to 20 seats, equivalent to 300 square feet. Outdoor dining and seating create more active streetscapes and do not have the same impacts as indoor seating due to their seasonal nature.
Implementation Strategies and Areawide Improvements
The Mid-Town Area Plan includes an implementation chapter as a jumping off point for future incentives and strategies to revitalize the region. The presence of a strategy in the chapter does not constitute a commitment by the City of South Lake Tahoe to implement it; therefore, the incentives are conceptual and do not have the potential to cause environmental changes. Implementation of such strategies would be part of a unique action taken by the City Council, including feasibility analyses, policy development, approval action, and environmental review.
Mid-Town Area Plan Districts
The density numbers below represent the range of densities allowed within the specific district, measured in units per acre. Exceptions to the minimum and maximum densities are detailed at the end of the table (Notes applicable to all districts).
Al Tahoe Center
700
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 51 Parcels at the corner of Highway 50/Lake Tahoe Blvd. and Al Tahoe Blvd. have significant existing coverage, BMP certificates, and are in a Town Center, all of which provide ample redevelopment opportunity. The proximity of these parcels to major employers such as the Al Tahoe Post Office, Lake Tahoe Community College, Lake Tahoe Unified School District, South Tahoe Public Utility District, and South Lake Tahoe Government Center make them ideal for high density, mixed-use developments. Development standards for this area consider maximizing views of Trout Creek and the surrounding open space. Redevelopment must emphasize community gathering areas appropriate for the scale of the uses. Mixed-use developments are encouraged to consider commercial occupancy throughout the design process to ensure that the space properly suits the needs of potential tenants.
Development Standard Existing Proposed (units/acre)
Density*
Manufactured/Mobile home
dwelling
- -
Multiple family dwelling - 8-65 (A)
Multi-person dwelling - 2-62 (A)
Nursing and personal care - 2-62 (A)
Residential care - 2-62 (A)
Single family dwelling - 8-65 (A1 – condos only)
Height and Roof Pitch
TRPA Code of
Ordinances Table
37.4.1-1
46 feet maximum with 3:12
dominant roof pitch
Use
See Appendix A for a full list of permissible use changes.
Tahoe Sierra Business District
Stakeholders feel the Tahoe Sierra area should maintain a strong commercial presence, while incorporating modest residential uses. Many parcels are small and near residential uses. This has been considered in identifying permissible uses and design standards to avoid noise and parking conflicts.
While there is much open space surrounding the neighborhoods adjacent to the district, stakeholders identified multiple parcels they felt appropriate for restoration and open space. Three of these parcels are identified by TRPA as a Stream Restoration Plan Area. The City is in the process of transferring two community identified parcels to the CTC to be maintained as open space.
Automobile infrastructure dominates the area, creating an unpleasant and sometimes unsafe experience for pedestrians and bicyclists. It is not uncommon for driveways to take up most of a parcel’s frontage.
Development Standard Existing Proposed (units/acre)
Density*
Manufactured/Mobile home
dwelling
8 units per acre (S) 1-8
Multiple family dwelling 15 units per acre (S) 6-65 (A) Multi-person dwelling - 2-62 (A)
Nursing and personal care 25 people per acre (S) 2-62 (A) Residential care 25 people per acre (S) 2-62 (A)
Single family dwelling 1 unit per parcel (S) 6-65 (A1 – condos only) 701
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 52 Height and Roof Pitch TRPA Code of
Ordinances Table
37.4.1-1
34-46 feet maximum based
on location, with 3:12
dominant roof pitch (see
image below)
Use
See Appendix A for a full list of permissible use changes.
Public Service Center
Mid-Town contains many of the City and region’s core services that facilitate and enrich residents’ lives. This includes but is not limited to the South Tahoe Public Utility District; El Dorado County Library; South Tahoe Middle School; South Lake Tahoe Police Department; the South Lake Tahoe Branch of the El Dorado County Superior Court of California; and the Recreation & Aquatics Center.
Several of the facilities listed above are also within the 56-Acres Master Plan site (Master Plan). The Master Plan was adopted in 2022 to elevate the recreation and community experience near the existing hubs of Lakeview Commons and El Dorado Beach. The Master Plan also proposes a civic center within the site, where all City departments are centrally located.
Development Standard Existing Proposed (units/acre)
Density*
Manufactured/Mobile home
dwelling
- -
Multiple family dwelling 15 units per acre (A) 2-65 (A) Multi-person dwelling - 2-62 (A)
Nursing and personal care - 2-62 (A)
Residential care 25 people per acre (A) 2-62 (A)
Single family dwelling - -
Height and Roof Pitch
TRPA Code of
Ordinances Table
37.4.1-1
56 feet maximum with 3:12
dominant roof pitch
Use
See Appendix A for a full list of permissible use changes.
Harrison/Sandy District
702
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 53 Stakeholders view this area of Mid-Town as a “locals’ downtown,” though noted shortcomings in navigating the area. The Sandy Way area suffers from a lack of pedestrian friendly infrastructure, accessibility features, and stormwater improvements. Parking is limited and many spaces require that vehicles back into roadways, creating unsafe conditions for all users. A complete street plan like that of Harrison Ave. should be explored. Street parking would provide room for sidewalk improvements, while preserving the shared parking structure as exists today. Shared improvements have great potential to spur private redevelopment. Enhanced walkability would further the smalltown charm of the area that community members emphasized should be preserved. This area should be supported by resident and tourist serving commercial uses as well as multifamily residential uses.
The Harrison Ave. area is well established, with strong pedestrian, bike, social, and economic activity.
There have been many façade improvements and remodels spurred by the Harrison Ave. Streetscape Improvement Project. While the area is largely built out, there are community identified priorities to decrease congestion, solve parking conflicts, and reduce conflicts between pedestrians and bikes/scooters. Business owners along Harrison Ave. emphasized the importance of community events to the success of their businesses and supported development of more community spaces for year-round events in the neighboring 56-acres site.
Development Standard Existing Proposed (units/acre)
Density*
Manufactured/Mobile home
dwelling
- -
Multiple family dwelling 15 units per acre (S) 6-65 (A) Multi-person dwelling 25 people per acre (S/-) 2-62 (A) Nursing and personal care - 2-62 (A)
Residential care - 2-62 (A)
Single family dwelling 1 unit per parcel (S) 6-65 (A1 – condos only) Height and Roof Pitch
TRPA Code of
Ordinances Table
37.4.1-1
42 feet maximum with 5:12
dominant roof pitch or 34
feet maximum with 3:12
dominant roof pitch
Uss
See Appendix A for a full list of permissible use changes.
Lake Tahoe Community College
Lake Tahoe Community College (LTCC) is ever-growing to accommodate needs of both students and the greater community. There are many unique considerations in drafting of the permissible uses and design standards for LTCC parcels. Larger colleges regularly house restaurants and convenience stores. These uses should be considered accessory to the “college” use category when built at an appropriate scale to support student life and events regularly hosted at the college, such as sporting events.
LTCC’s first on-campus housing opened in 2025, though tenancy is limited to California residents as a condition of the funding source. There are additional housing needs for out of state students, exchange students, as well as California-based students who cannot secure housing in the new development. Future on-campus housing options may consider faculty and staff housing, as well as housing for those not associated with the college in order to make funding more accessible.
Development Standard Existing Proposed (units/acre)
Density*
Manufactured/Mobile home
dwelling
- -
Multiple family dwelling 15 units per acre (A) 2-65 (A) 703
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 54 Bijou Recreation District
Bijou Community Park is a South Lake Tahoe hub where one can participate in several recreation activities or gather with family and friends. While the space is a favorite for many residents, deficient accessibility and parking prevent optimal use of the space.
Design standards provide flexibility in enhancing Bijou Community Park and Golf Course to meet the needs of present and future users. Standards are intentionally broad, as each element of the park should undergo an individual outreach process. Design concepts are shown for the district. These are not proposals, but rather demonstrations of alternative ways the space can be activated to meet greater community needs and desires.
Development Standard Existing Proposed (units/acre)
Density
Manufactured/Mobile home
dwelling
- -
Multiple family dwelling - 2-4 (S)
Multi-person dwelling - 2-10 (S)
Nursing and personal care - 2-10 (S)
Residential care - 2-10 (S)
Single-family dwelling 1 unit per parcel (S) No change
Height and Roof Pitch
TRPA Code of
Ordinances Table
37.4.1-1
No change
Use
See Appendix A for a full list of permissible use changes.
Multi-person dwelling - 2-62 (A)
Nursing and personal care - -
Residential care 25 people per acre (A) -
Single family dwelling - -
Height and Roof Pitch
TRPA Code of
Ordinances Table
37.4.1-1
56 feet maximum with 3:12
dominant roof pitch
Use
See Appendix A for a full list of permissible use changes.
Notes
* The maximum density for parcels not within the Town Center overlay shall be as stated in TRPA Code of Ordinances Table 31.3.2-1, Maximum Densities, and as subsequently amended.
704
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 55
3.0 Baseline
The existing baseline conditions for this IS/IEC reflect current 2024-2026 environmental conditions (the time of developing the Mid-Town Area Plan and writing this IS/IEC) with the updated Regional Plan, TRPA Code, City 2030 General Plan and current Code, the existing plan area statements, Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan; and existing maps, and ordinances also in effect.
As specified in Section 13.3.1 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances, all plans, policies, and regulations in the Regional Plan and the TRPA Code shall remain in effect unless superseded by the provisions of an area plan.
The Mid-Town Area Plan has an approximate 20-year planning horizon. 705
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 56
4.0 Methodology and Assumptions
This IS/IEC has been prepared to assess the potential environmental effects of the Mid-Town Area Plan in accordance with CEQA and TRPA requirements, using checklist responses and supporting narrative. The analysis tiers are incorporated by referencing specific analyses contained in the following environmental review documents, as appropriate:
• TRPA, Regional Plan Update EIS, certified by the TRPA Governing Board on December 12, 2012 (RPU EIS).
• TRPA/Rincon Consultants, Inc., 2025 Connections 2050 Regional Transportation Plan & Sustainable Communities Strategy IS/ND/IEC/FONSE, June 2025. • CSLT, General Plan Update EIR, certified by the City Council on May 17, 2011 (CSLT EIR). • City of South Lake Tahoe, Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan EIR/EIS, prepared February 1996.
These program-level environmental documents include a regional scale analysis and a framework of mitigation measures that provide a foundation for subsequent environmental review at an area plan level. These documents serve as first-tier documents for the TRPA and City review of the proposed Mid-Town Area Plan. To the extent that the Mid-Town Area Plan is consistent with the City General Plan, the TRPA Regional Plan and the RTP, for which the program documents were prepared, the MidTown Area Plan could be found to be “within the scope” of the program documents.
This is a program level document, and no specific developments or projects are analyzed herein. All future projects proposed within the Mid-Town plan area will require individual permitting and environmental review. This will be done by the City, TRPA, or, in some cases, the California Division of State Architects (DSA). City or TRPA review will be determined by criteria such as gross floor area and project location as detailed in the existing memorandum of understanding (MOU). Projects on public lands such as Lake Tahoe Community College and Lake Tahoe Unified School District parcels are reviewed by DSA for compliance with the California building code. While this sometimes exempts them from City review, under the Area Plan, the City may act as TRPA under the MOU and issue TRPA permits.
Permissible use changes have been tracked to adequately assess environmental impacts. These tables are included in Appendix A. This includes all permissible use changes from the current PASs and Community Plan districts. These tables help demonstrate what changes are occurring and consider whether land use changes resulting from the adoption of amendments would lead to new uses that could result in potential environmental impacts not previously contemplated by the community plans, PASs, and Regional Plan.
While it may appear that fewer uses are allowed, this is not the case. Use definitions as included in TRPA Code of Ordinances table 21.4-A have been updated for simplicity and consistency. The definitions, as amended by the Mid-Town Area Plan, are included in Appendix A. One (1) new use has been proposed; some name changes have occurred; and some uses have been consolidated under new names. Several uses have been removed from the table because they are not applicable in the plan area and do not appear on any of the districts’ permissible uses lists. 706
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 57 The analysis herein focuses on the unique characteristics of the allowed uses within the context of new district designations and the potential environmental impacts associated with their implementation (e.g., land use compatibility, water quality, scenic resources, and traffic). The checklist responses include cross-referencing to other checklist items to reduce redundancy, where appropriate.
To ensure major components of the plan have are sufficiently analyzed, the City has contracted technical experts to assist in the development of this document in the following areas:
• CEQA Programmatic Environmental Impact Analysis: Biological Resources • TRPA IEC Programmatic Environmental Impact Analysis: Vegetation • TRPA IEC Programmatic Environmental Impact Analysis: Wildlife • CEQA Programmatic Environmental Impact Analysis: Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Transportation
• TRPA Programmatic IEC Environmental Impact Analysis: Transportation 707
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 58
5.0 Environmental Checklist and Impact Analysis
1. PROJECT TITLE: Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan
2. LEAD AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS: The City of South Lake Tahoe is the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lead agency responsible for preparing an Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND), and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA) will serve as the lead agency for the Initial Environmental Checklist (IEC) under the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact.
City of South Lake Tahoe
1052 Tata Lane
South Lake Tahoe, California 96150
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
P.O. Box 5310
Stateline, Nevada 89449
3. CONTACT PERSON AND PHONE NUMBER:
City of South Lake Tahoe: Anna Kashuba, Senior Planner, 530-542-7405 Tahoe Regional Planning Agency: Michelle Brown, Long Range Planner, 775-589-5226
4. PROJECT LOCATION: The Mid-Town Area Plan consists of approximately 784 acres in central South Lake Tahoe (Figure 1).
5. PROJECT SPONSOR’S NAME AND ADDRESS:
City of South Lake Tahoe
1052 Tata Lane
South Lake Tahoe, California 96150
6. GENERAL PLAN AND REGIONAL PLAN DESIGNATION: The City of South Lake Tahoe 2030 General Plan identifies four (4) land use designations within the Mid-Town plan area:
neighborhood center, recreation, town center, and special district. The area is also overlaid by TRPA’s Regional Plan zoning designations, which identify mixed-use and recreation zones.
7. ZONING: Most of the plan area is zoned commercial/public service, followed by vacant and recreation land.
8. DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The proposed project is a new area plan that will replace the Bijou Al Tahoe Community Plan and the Sierra Tract Commercial Plan Area Statement (PAS) in their entirety. The Mid-Town Area Plan will replace a significant portion of the Bijou Meadows PAS. Additionally, select parcels from the Al Tahoe PAS and Highland Woods PAS have been incorporated to eliminate split zoning and incorporate public service uses within 708
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 59 the plan area. The Mid-Town Area Plan (Area Plan) serves as a joint plan for the City and TRPA, providing guidance on how the area should be regulated to achieve regional environmental and land-use objectives. The Area Plan will support the 56-Acres Master Plan by further defining community goals for the space and incentivizing redevelopment, especially mixed-use projects with residential components, to create a vibrant, walkable downtown environment.
The Area Plan will include approximately 780 acres on the south shore of Lake Tahoe, in central South Lake Tahoe. The Town Center overlay previously included 65 acres, and the Mid-Town Area Plan proposes a 339-acre expansion consistent with the findings in TRPA Code of Ordinances 13.5.3.G. The major changes proposed by the Mid-Town Area Plan are associated with this expansion, as parcels within the Town Center overlay may have more flexible design standards, including height, coverage, and density. Other special designations that overlay parcels within the plan include a stream restoration plan area and Shorezone Tolerance District 4.
The Area Plan establishes goals, policies, and design standards to transform the Mid-Town area into hub for recreation, arts, and culture . Key elements include expanding the Town Center as discussed above and implementation strategies or “next steps” to guide the City in achieving goals in a timely manner. An area plan’s ability to implement standards that deviate from TRPA Code of Ordinances are largely dependent on the Town Center overlay.
Specific policy and design standards changes are summarized below, including districtspecific tables with standards for locations inside and outside the Town Center. See section
2.0 for full description.
9. SURROUNDING LAND USES AND SETTING: The plan area is centrally located within the City. Much of the plan area is adjacent to residential zones. The Al Tahoe and Highland Woods neighborhoods are to the northwest of the plan area, Tahoe Sierra (Sierra Tract) to the southwest, Bijou to the east, and Bijou Pines in the center of (but not included in) the plan area. The Trout Creek Stream Environment Zone passes between the northern and southern portions of the Mid-Town plan area. The northernmost portion of the boundary ends at the high-water line of Lake Tahoe, where the City’s jurisdiction ends. A small portion of the plan area boundary, about 1/3 mile in the northeast corner, meets the Tourist zoning designation of the Mid-Town Area Plan.
10. OTHER PUBLIC AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED: Adoption of the Mid-Town Area Plan is required by the City of South Lake Tahoe City Council and the TRPA Governing Board; however, any projects that may move forward as a result of the implementation of this Area Plan may also require approval by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, State Water Resources Control Board, El Dorado County Air Pollution Control District, California State Lands Commission, the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), and/or local utility agencies. 709
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 60
11. HAVE CALIFORNIA NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES TRADITIONALLY AND CULTURALLY
AFFILIATED WITH THE PROJECT AREA REQUESTED CONSULTATION PURSUANT TO PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 21080.3.1? IF SO, IS THERE A PLAN FOR THE
CONSULTATION THAT INCLUDES, FOR EXAMPLE, THE DETERMINATION OF
SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS TO TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES, PROCEDURES REGARDING CONFIDENTIALITY, ETC.?
Four (4) Native American tribes were contacted in January of 2025, and consultation meetings were offered to provide input regarding the development of the Mid-Town Area Plan. No responses were received. City staff followed up with several officials of the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California. Brief discussions were held, though no member had the capacity to fully participate in the area plan process. Policies have been included to facilitate further cooperation as implementation of the plan progresses.
5.1 Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
Below are the environmental factors analyzed as required by CEQA, followed by the corresponding TRPA IEC item or items.
• Aesthetics (CEQA)
• Light and glare (TRPA)
• Scenic resources and
community design
(TRPA)
• Agriculture and forestry
resources (CEQA)
• Air quality (CEQA)
• Air quality (TRPA)
• Biological resources
(CEQA)
• Vegetation (TRPA)
• Wildlife (TRPA)
• Cultural resources
(CEQA)
• Tribal cultural resources
(CEQA)
• Archaeological/historical
resources (TRPA)
• Energy (CEQA)
• Energy (TRPA)
• Geology/soils (CEQA)
• Land (TRPA)
• Greenhouse gas
emissions (CEQA)
• Hazards & hazardous
materials (CEQA)
• Risk of upset (TRPA)
• Human health (TRPA)
• Hydrology/water
quality (CEQA)
• Water quality (TRPA)
• Land use/planning
(CEQA)
• Land use (TRPA)
• Mineral resources
(CEQA)
• Natural resources
(TRPA)
• Noise (CEQA)
• Noise (TRPA)
• Population/housing
(CEQA)
• Housing (TRPA)
• Population (TRPA)
• Public services (CEQA)
• Public services (TRPA)
• Recreation (CEQA)
• Recreation (TRPA)
• Transportation (CEQA)
• Transportation and
circulation (TRPA)
• Utilities/service
systems (CEQA)
• Utilities (TRPA)
• Wildfire (CEQA) • Mandatory findings of
significance (CEQA)
• Findings of significance
(TRPA)
710
711
712
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 63
5.4 Initial Study (CEQA) and Initial Environmental (TRPA) Checklist Table 11 identifies the level of impact for each item in the CEQA Initial Study checklist and the TRPA Initial Environmental Checklist. Explanations of all decisions are included in Section 5.5.
Table 10: Initial Study (CEQA) and Initial Environmental (TRPA) Checklist I. AESTHETICS: Would the project: CEQA Determination
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? Less than a significant impact.
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
Less than a significant
impact.
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality? Less than a significant
impact.
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Less than a significant
impact.
7. LIGHT AND GLARE: Will the proposal: TRPA Determination a. Include new or modified sources of exterior lighting? Yes, less than significant.
b. Create new illumination which is more substantial than other lighting, if any, within the surrounding area?
Yes, less than
significant.
c. Cause light from exterior sources to be cast off -site or onto public lands?
Yes, less than
significant.
d. Create new sources of glare through the siting of the improvements or through the use of reflective materials?
Yes, less than
significant.
18. SCENIC RESOURCES/COMMUNITY DESIGN: Will the proposal: TRPA Determination a. Be visible from any state or federal highway, Pioneer Trail or from Lake Tahoe?
Yes, less than
significant.
b. Be visible from any public recreation area or TRPA designated bicycle trail?
Yes, less than
significant.
c. Block or modify an existing view of Lake Tahoe or other scenic vista seen from a public road or other public area?
No.
d. Be inconsistent with the height and design standards required by the applicable ordinance, Community Plan, or Area Plan?
No.
e. Be inconsistent with the TRPA Scenic Quality Improvement Program (SQIP) or Design Review Guidelines?
No.
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES: Would the project: CEQA Determination a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
No impact.
713
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 64 b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
No impact.
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No impact.
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
No impact.
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to nonagricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No impact.
III. AIR QUALITY: Would the project: CEQA Determination a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
No impact.
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
Less than a significant
impact.
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than a significant impact.
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
Less than a significant
impact.
2. AIR QUALITY: Will the proposal result in: TRPA Determination a. Substantial air pollutant emissions? No.
b. Deterioration of ambient (existing) air quality? No impact. c. The creation of objectionable odors? Yes, less than
significant.
d. Alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally?
Yes, no further
mitigation required.
e. Increased use of diesel fuel? Yes, less than
significant.
IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: CEQA Determination a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? No impact.
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No impact.
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? No impact.
714
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 65 d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
No impact.
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No impact.
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
No impact.
4. VEGETATION: Will the proposal result in: TRPA Determination a. Removal of native vegetation in excess of the area utilized for the actual development permitted by the land capability/IPES system? No impact.
b. Removal of riparian vegetation or other vegetation associated with critical wildlife habitat, either through direct removal or indirect lowering of the groundwater table?
No impact.
c. Introduction of new vegetation that will require excessive fertilizer or water, or will provide a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species?
No impact.
d. Change in the diversity or distribution of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, micro flora, and aquatic plants)?
No impact.
e. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants?
No impact.
f. Removal of stream bank and/or backshore vegetation, including woody vegetation such as willows?
No impact.
g. Removal of any native live, dead or dying trees 30 inches or greater in diameter at breast height (dbh) within TRPA's Conservation or Recreation land use classifications?
No impact.
h. A change in the natural functioning of an old growth ecosystem? No impact.
5. WILDLIFE: Will the proposal result in: TRPA Determination a. Change in the diversity or distribution of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects, mammals, amphibians or microfauna)? No impact.
b. Reduction of the number of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals?
No impact.
c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals?
No impact.
d. Deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat quantity or quality? No impact.
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: CEQA Determination a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to in §15064.5?
Less than significant
impact.
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
Less than significant
impact.
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
Less than significant
impact.
715
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 66 XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
CEQA Determination
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
Less than significant
impact.
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
Less than significant
impact.
20. ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL: Will the proposal result in: TRPA Determination a. An alteration of or adverse physical or aesthetic effect to a significant archaeological or historical site, structure, object or building? Yes, less than
significant.
b. Is the proposed project located on a property with any known cultural, historical, and/or archaeological resources, including resources on TRPA or other regulatory official maps or records?
Yes, less than
significant.
c. Is the property associated with any historically significant events and/or sites or persons?
Yes, less than
significant.
d. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
Yes, less than
significant.
e. Will the proposal restrict historic or pre-historic religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area?
Yes, less than
significant.
VI. ENERGY: Would the project: CEQA Determination
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
Less than significant
impact.
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
Less than significant
impact.
15.ENERGY: Will the proposal result in: TRPA Determination a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? No.
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy?
No.
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: CEQA Determination a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
Less than significant
impact.
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less than significant impact.
716
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 67 iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Less than significant impact.
iv) Landslides? Less than significant
impact.
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than significant impact.
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Less than significant
impact.
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
Less than significant
impact.
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water?
No impact.
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
Less than significant
impact.
1. LAND: Will the proposal result in: TRPA Determination a. Compaction or covering of the soil beyond the limits allowed in the land capability or Individual Parcel Evaluation System (IPES)? No.
b. A change in the topography or ground surface relief features of site inconsistent with the natural surrounding conditions?
No.
c. Unstable soil conditions during or after completion of the proposal? No. d. Changes in the undisturbed soil or native geologic substructures or grading in excess of 5 feet?
No.
e. The continuation of or increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site?
No.
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sand, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion, including natural littoral processes, which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of a lake? No.
g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, backshore erosion, avalanches, mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
No.
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project: CEQA Determination a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Less than significant
impact.
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
Less than significant
impact.
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: CEQA Determination a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? Less than significant
impact.
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
Less than significant
impact.
717
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 68 c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
Less than significant
impact.
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? No impact.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
Less than significant
impact.
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
No.
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? No.
10. RISK OF UPSET: Will the proposal: TRPA Determination a. Involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation in the event of an accident or upset conditions?
Yes, less than
significant.
b. Involve possible interference with an emergency evacuation plan? Yes, less than significant.
17. HUMAN HEALTH: Will the proposal result in: TRPA Determination a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)?
No.
b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? No.
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: CEQA Determination a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality? Less than significant
impact.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
Less than significant
impact.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
Less than significant
impact.
(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; (ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
Less than significant
impact.
(iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
Less than significant
impact.
(iv) impede or redirect flood flows? Less than significant impact.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Less than significant
impact.
718
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 69 e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
Less than significant
impact.
3. WATER QUALITY: Will the proposal result in: TRPA Determination a. Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? No. b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff so that a 20 yr. 1 hr. storm runoff (approximately 1 inch per hour) cannot be contained on the site?
No.
c. Alterations to the course or flow of 100-yearflood waters? No. d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? Yes, less than significant.
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
Yes, less than
significant.
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground water? No. g. Change in the quantity of groundwater, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? No.
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies?
No.
i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding and/or wave action from 100-year storm occurrence or seiches? No.
j. The potential discharge of contaminants to the groundwater or any alteration of groundwater quality?
Yes, less than
significant.
k. Is the project located within 600 feet of a drinking water source? Yes, less than significant.
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: CEQA Determination a) Physically divide an established community? No.
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Less than significant
impact.
8. LAND USE: Will the proposal: TRPA Determination
a. Include uses which are not listed as permissible uses in the applicable Area Plan, Plan Area Statement, adopted Community Plan, or Master Plan?
Yes, less than
significant.
b. Expand or intensify an existing non-conforming use? Yes, less than significant.
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: CEQA Determination a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
No.
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan?
No.
9. NATURAL RESOURCES: Will the proposal result in: TRPA Determination a. A substantial increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? No. b. Substantial depletion of any non-renewable natural resource? No. 719
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 70 XIII. NOISE: Would the project result in: CEQA Determination a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
Less than significant
impact.
b) Generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?
Less than significant
impact.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Less than significant
impact.
6. NOISE: Will the proposal result in: TRPA Determination a. Increases in existing Community Noise Equivalency Levels (CNEL) beyond those permitted in the applicable Area Plan, Plan Area Statement, Community Plan or Master Plan?
Yes, less than
significant.
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? Yes, less than significant.
c. Single event noise levels greater than those set forth in the TRPA Noise Environmental Threshold?
Yes, less than
significant.
d. The placement of residential or tourist accommodation uses in areas where the existing CNEL exceeds 60 dBA or is otherwise incompatible? Yes, less than
significant.
e. The placement of uses that would generate an incompatible noise level in close proximity to existing residential or tourist accommodation uses? Yes, less than
significant.
f. Exposure of existing structures to levels of ground vibration that could result in structural damage?
Yes, less than
significant.
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: CEQA Determination a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? Less than significant
impact.
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Less than significant
impact.
12. HOUSING: Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing?
TRPA Determination
1. Will the proposal decrease the amount of housing in the Tahoe Region? No.
2. Will the proposal decrease the amount of housing in the Tahoe Region historically or currently being rented at rates affordable by lower and verylow-income households? No.
11. POPULATION: Will the proposal: TRPA Determination
a. Alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population planned for the Region?
Yes, less than
significant.
b. Include or result in the temporary or permanent displacement of residents?
Yes, less than
significant.
720
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 71 XV. PUBLIC SERVICES: Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
CEQA Determination
a) Fire protection? Less than significant
impact.
b) Police protection? Less than significant
impact.
c) Schools? No impact.
d) Parks? Less than significant
impact.
e) Other public facilities? Less than significant
impact.
14. PUBLIC SERVICES: Will the proposal have an unplanned effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas?
TRPA Determination
a. Fire protection? Yes, less than
significant.
b. Police protection? Yes, less than
significant.
c. Schools? No.
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? Yes, less than significant.
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? Yes, less than significant.
f. Other governmental services? Yes, less than
significant.
XVI. RECREATION: Would the project: CEQA Determination
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No impact.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
Less than significant
impact.
19. RECREATION: Will the proposal: TRPA Determination
a. Create additional demand for recreation facilities? No. b. Create additional recreation capacity? Yes, less than significant.
c. Have the potential to create conflicts between recreation uses, either existing or proposed?
Yes, less than
significant.
d. Result in a decrease or loss of public access to any lake, waterway, or public lands?
No.
XVII. TRANSPORTATION: Would the project: CEQA Determination 721
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 72 a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
Less than significant
impact.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
Less than significant
impact.
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
Less than significant
impact.
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? Less than significant impact.
13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION: Will the proposal result in: TRPA Determination a. Generation of 650 or more new average daily Vehicle Miles Travelled? Yes, less than significant.
b. Changes to existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? Yes, less than significant.
c. Substantial impact upon existing transportation systems, including highway, transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities?
Yes, less than
significant.
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods?
Yes, less than
significant.
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? No.
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians? Yes, less than significant.
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS: Would the project: CEQA Determination a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects? Less than significant
impact.
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry and multiple dry years?
Less than significant
impact.
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
Less than significant
impact.
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
Less than significant
impact.
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
No impact.
16. UTILITIES: Except for planned improvements, will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
TRPA Determination
a. Power or natural gas? No.
b. Communication systems? No.
c. Utilize additional water which amount will exceed the maximum permitted capacity of the service provider?
No.
722
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 73 d. Utilize additional sewage treatment capacity which amount will exceed the maximum permitted capacity of the sewage treatment provider? No.
e. Storm water drainage? No.
f. Solid waste and disposal? No.
XX. WILDFIRE: If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
CEQA Determination
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Less than significant
impact.
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire? Less than significant
impact.
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
Less than significant
impact.
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
Less than significant
impact.
XXI. MANDATORY Findings of Significance CEQA Determination a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory?
Less than significant
impact.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
Less than significant
impact.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less than significant
impact.
Findings of Significance TRPA Determination
a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California or Nevada history or prehistory?
No.
b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time, while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) No.
c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environmental is significant?) No.
723
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 74 d. Does the project have environmental impacts which will cause substantial adverse effects on human being, either directly or indirectly? No.
5.5 Explanation of Checklist Responses
The following environmental analysis has been prepared using the 2024 CEQA Guidelines Appendix G: Environmental Checklist Form to complete an Initial Study. This checklist also includes analysis of environmental impacts required in the TRPA Initial Environmental Checklist found at:
https://www.trpa.gov/wp-content/uploads/IEC-Form.pdf.
5.5.1 CEQA
CEQA requires a brief explanation for answers to the Appendix G Environmental Checklist that indicated there is an impact, regardless of severity. “No Impact” responses do not require an explanation when they are adequately supported by noted information sources. Answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project- level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
Table 11: CEQA Defined Levels of Impact Significance
Impact Severity Definition
No Impact A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors, as well as general standards (e.g., the project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
Less than
Significant Impact
“Less than Significant Impact” applies where the Project’s impact creates no significant impacts based on the criterion or criteria that sets the level of impact to a resource and require no mitigation to avoid or reduce impacts.
Less than
Significant Impact
after Mitigation
“Less than Significant Impact after Mitigation" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from potentially "Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level.
Potentially
Significant Impact
"Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is potentially significant, as based on the criterion or criteria that sets the level of impact to a resource. If there are one of more “Potentially Significant Impact” entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
Source: CEQA Appendix G: Environmental Checklist Form, 2024
5.5.2 TRPA
Article VI of the TRPA Rules of Procedure presents the rules governing the preparation and processing of environmental documents pursuant to Article VII of the Compact and Chapter 3 of the Revised TRPA Code of Ordinances.
TRPA uses an Initial Environmental Checklist (IEC), in conjunction with other available information, to determine whether an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be prepared for a project or other matter. This could include preparation of an Environmental Assessment, in accordance with 724
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 75 Section 3.4 of the TRPA revised Code, when TRPA determines that an IEC will not provide sufficient information to make the necessary findings for a project.
The IEC includes a series of questions categorized by and pertaining to resources regulated by TRPA. Each checklist item requires a checked response of “Yes,” “No,” “No, with Mitigation,” or “Data Insufficient.” A checked response of “Data Insufficient” or a determination that a project may have a significant effect on the environment (Section 3.3.2 of the TRPA Code) indicates that additional environmental review in the form of an Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) would be required. The IEC form indicates that all “Yes” and “No, with Mitigation” responses require written explanations. This IEC provides supporting narrative for all responses. Where a checked response may not be intuitive or easily understood by the reader, that response has been marked with an asterisk (*) and a brief clarifying statement supporting the rationale for the checked response is included. As set forth in Code Subsection 3.3.1, based on the information submitted in the IEC, and other information known to TRPA, TRPA shall make one of the following findings and take the identified action:
5.4.2.1 The proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a finding of no significant effect shall be prepared in accordance with TRPA’s Rules of Procedure.
5.4.2.2 The proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, but due to the listed mitigation measures which have been added to the project, could have no significant effect on the environment and a mitigated finding of no significant effect shall be prepared in accordance with TRPA’s Rules of Procedure.
5.4.2.3 The proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, and an environmental impact statement shall be prepared in accordance with this Chapter and TRPA’s Rules of Procedure.
When completed, TRPA reviews the IEC to determine the adequacy and objectivity of the responses. When appropriate, TRPA consults informally with federal, state, or local agencies with jurisdiction over the project or with special expertise on applicable environmental impacts.
Checklist Items
I. AESTHETICS (CEQA)
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? The City recognizes scenic resources, roadways, shoreline units, and viewpoints as identified by TRPA. US Highway 50/Lake Tahoe Blvd. through the plan area includes three (3) TRPA designated Scenic Road Corridors. Roughly one third of Unit 35, Al Tahoe, is included, which features dense strip development broken by Trout Creek. Unit 34, El Dorado Beach, is entirely within the plan area.
Unit 34 provides views of Lake Tahoe through thin pine trees opposite a moderately wooded 56-Acre Master Plan1 site containing the Campground by the Lake and Multigenerational Aquatics and Recreation Center. A small portion of Unit 33, The Strip, is located within the plan area and features 1 Not a TRPA-approved master plan.
725
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 76 views of Heavenly Resort, Monument Peak, and Mt. Tallac beyond commercial development in the foreground.
Lake Tahoe is visible from the plan area for roughly 1,000 linear feet along US Highway 50/Lake Tahoe Blvd. from Lakeview Ave. to between Fremont Ave. and Takela Dr. This stretch is included in scenic shoreline unit 32, Al Tahoe. Nine (9) scenic viewpoints can be found within the vicinity of the plan.
The Mid-Town area consists of urban development mixed with forest areas, prominent stream environment zones, floodplains, and meadows. Trout Creek flows through the plan area, as does runoff from Heavenly Valley Creek. Seasonal high water occurs throughout the Bijou golf course and disc golf area along the eastern boundary of the plan.
Regular scenic threshold evaluations conducted by TRPA consistently support that area plans have positive effects on scenic threshold standards. Scenic Roadway Unit 34 has been in attainment since 1982. Improvements over the past 10 years include the installation of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks; redevelopment of older buildings consistent with design standards (including Tahoe Wellness Center and Hotel Azure); and improvements at Lakeview Commons (creation of Champions Plaza, reconstruction of parking areas, and relocated restrooms). Specific Environmental Improvement Program (EIP) Projects that contributed include:
• 03.01.02.0006 - Lakeview Commons Phase 2 - El Dorado Beach Improvements • 01.01.01.0098 - U.S. Highway 50 Water Quality Improvement Project - Trout Creek to Ski Run Boulevard
• 03.02.02.0008 - Harrison Avenue Streetscape Improvement & Bike Trail While Unit 35 remains in non-attainment, TRPA’s Threshold Evaluation reports have noted incremental improvements since 2011. These include installing curbs & gutters with sidewalks, new road pavement, façade improvements, and redevelopment. Evaluations note the lack of screening for parking lots as an area of concern. EIP Project 01.01.01.0005 - U.S. Highway 50 Water Quality Improvement Project - "Y" to Trout Creek contributed to air quality, scenic resources, soil conservation, and water quality threshold categories.
Such projects as mentioned above, which are responsible for scenic improvements, are primarily identified through area plans. While the adoption of the area plan may increase the amount, distribution, and type of development in the future, such changes are likely to be positive by improving the visual quality of the built environment consistent with the recommendations for site planning found in the TRPA Scenic Quality Improvement Program, the TRPA Code of Ordinances and the standards of the MTAP, specifically those tailored to spur redevelopment, have great potential to address blight by encouraging redevelopment and the creation of structures that meet current design, sustainability, and accessibility standards.
Additional height up to 46 feet is proposed in the Al Tahoe Center District and up to 56 feet in the Public Service Center District and the Lake Tahoe Community College District. Although the increase in height is permitted per Section 13.5.3 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances (up to 56 feet for Town Center Overlays), it may have the potential to impact existing scenic vistas. MTAP incorporates a standard requiring any building in a Town Center that consists of three or more 726
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 77 stories to make TRPA findings 1, 3, 5, and 9 of Section 37.7.16 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances. The Findings are:
Finding 1
When viewed from major arterials, scenic turnouts, public recreation areas, or the waters of Lake Tahoe, from a distance of 300 feet, the additional height will not cause a building to extend above the forest canopy, when present, or a ridgeline. For height greater than that set forth in Table 37.4.1-1 for a 5:12 roof pitch, the additional height shall not increase the visual magnitude beyond that permitted for structures in the shoreland as set forth in subsection 66.3.7, Additional Visual Magnitude, or Appendix H, Visual Assessment Tool, of the Design Review Guidelines.
Finding 3
With respect to that portion of the building that is permitted the additional height, the building has been designed to minimize interference with existing views within the area to the extent practicable.
Finding 5
The portion of the building that is permitted additional building height is adequately screened, as seen from major arterials, the waters of lakes, and other public areas from which the building is frequently viewed. In determining the adequacy of screening, consideration shall be given to the degree to which a combination of the following features causes the building to blend or merge with the background.
A. The horizontal distance from which the building is viewed; B. The extent of screening; and
C. Proposed exterior colors and building materials.
Finding 9
When viewed from a TRPA scenic threshold travel route, the additional building height granted a building or structure shall not result in the net loss of views to a scenic resource identified in the 1982 Lake Tahoe Basin Scenic Resource Inventory. TRPA shall specify the method used to evaluate potential view loss.
This evaluation concludes that the Mid-Town Area Plan development and design standards, and the required scenic quality findings of the TRPA Code of Ordinances, avoid and minimize potential impacts to scenic vistas by prohibiting buildings to protrude above the forest canopy or ridgeline, and by requiring site-specific design features that minimize ground disturbance, installation of screening, the use of earth tone colors the use of natural materials, and an architectural style that 727
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 78 complements the Tahoe landscape. Thus, the adoption of the MTAP would not have a significant effect on the scenic vistas.
Environmental Analysis: Less than significant impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
b) Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? The length of US Highway 50/Lake Tahoe Boulevard that runs through the Mid-Town plan area is eligible as a state scenic highway, though it has not been officially certified per the California State Scenic Highway System Map (California Department of Transportation). It is reasonably foreseeable that tree removal may occur as the result of new development, expansion, or redevelopment. The TRPA and Mid-Town Area Plan include policies to preserve trees of 30 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) or larger so long as they do not interfere with design standards. To strengthen this policy, the Mid-Town Area Plan includes an allowance for a staff waiver of certain development standards to preserve trees so long as the changes do not cause adverse impacts.
The California Office of Historic Preservation’s Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) identifies five (5) structures within the plan area that have been nominated to the National Register of Historic Places, though none were accepted (California Office of Historic Preservation). Each project that involves a structure 50 years of age or older requires a historic determination by TRPA.
Eligible historic resources may include sites associated with historically significant people, events, and structures, or may embody distinctive architectural characteristics. Projects on historically significant sites require a TRPA Hearings Officer review and public hearing. At that time mitigation measures are discussed and may be added as permit conditions. The Hearings Officer may also require a modification to the project scope that preserves historic elements.
The area within the Mid-Town Area Plan is relatively flat with no major rock outcropping. Should these exist, a variance may be offered allowing a project to adjust development standards and preserve the feature.
Due to the existing conditions and review and permitting practices within the Mid-Town Area Plan, substantial damage to scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway would be unlikely or less than significant.
Environmental Analysis: Less than significant impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
c) Would the project in non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from a publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
728
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 79 The Mid-Town Area Plan is located within an urban area, with just 20.6% of the plan area undeveloped. The Mid-Town Area Plan does not conflict with zoning or scenic regulations. The Area Plan contains a brief discussion of each scenic roadway and shoreline unit that intersects the plan area. This discussion, that presented in item I.a., and past TRPA analysis of Scenic Threshold Evaluations demonstrate that the score of scenic resources in urban corridors generally increases where private and public investments occur. Examples of such improvements include installation of curbs, gutter, and sidewalks; redevelopment of older buildings consistent with design standards; and additional or new screening of parking areas.
The Mid-Town Area Plan has a heavy focus on incentivizing development, with multiple strategies identified for further research and possible adoption by the City Council of South Lake Tahoe.
Should these redevelopment incentives be adopted, and successful, increased quality of scenic resources and corridors is a reasonably foreseeable effect. There should be no adverse impact, as development and design standards of the Mid-Town Area Plan are consistent with City and TRPA design guidelines. Buildings shall be designed with natural or natural appearing materials of earth tone colors, consistent with TRPA Design Review Guidelines and Colors of the Lake Tahoe Landscape. Darker hues are encouraged along scenic corridors to better blend with surrounding natural features. Screening of parking areas, maintenance areas, storage yards, and the like is required.
The Mid-Town Area Plan contains approximately half of Shorezone Tolerance District 4, described in TRPA Code of Ordinances 83.9.1.A. as “volcanic rock shorelines with moderate potential for erosion. The potential increases where colluvium of volcanic debris is present and stoney, sandy loams lie on 15 to 30 percent slopes; on morainic debris shorezones with high erosion potential above the shoreline; and alluvial shorezones where the shoreline is characterized by steep, crumbling cliffs with continuing erosion problems.”Development standards as included in TRPA Code of Ordinances Subsection 83.9.2 and TRPA Code of Ordinances Chapter 85 are applicable to parcels within Shorezone Tolerance District 4 and will supersede district standards should conflicts occur. Such projects shall be reviewed by TRPA.
Environmental Analysis: Less than significant impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
d) Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
All developments are largely subject to the City’s lighting standards in Chapter 6.10 and Chapter
6.85 of the South Lake Tahoe City Code (SLTCC), as well as Chapter 30 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances. These standards were developed to maintain dark skies, eliminate visual hazards to drivers, prevent light trespass, and mitigate other unintended consequences of outdoor lighting.
Below the general standards for onsite lighting are discussed alongside the intention of such standards.
Lighting Standard Intention
Lighting should be directed downward Avoid light spray offsite and distractions to drivers, pedestrians, and neighbors
729
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 80 Lights (including winter seasonal displays) shall
not blink, flash, change intensity or give the
illusion of movement
Minimize distractions to drivers
The light source (bulbs) shall not be visible as
seen in elevation
Ensure lighting design is consistent with
standards to avoid offsite impacts
No light shall spray off site Reduce disturbance to neighboring parcel Lighting shall not be affixed to trees except for
seasonal lighting
Avoid causing damage to trees and avoid
possible fires
The maximum color temperature shall not
exceed 3000 degrees Kelvin
Ensure lighting is not excessive for drivers and
best matches ambient lighting. Avoid lighting that
is brighter than necessary.
Lighting shall not exceed 26 feet in height Focus light on necessary/desired areas. Help avoid light spill onto neighboring parcels.
The Mid-Town Area Plan also incorporates the DarkSky International and Illuminating Engineering Society’s Five Principles for Responsible Outdoor Lighting to ensure lighting is useful and controlled.
Uplighting is only allowed for illumination of the United States flag when located within the veterans’ section of an existing cemetery. Before this exception can be applied, the applicant must explore all feasible downward illumination methods such as from light poles or adjacent buildings.
It must also be demonstrated that downward lighting would not reliably or consistently illuminate the subject. This is an existing exception under TRPA Code of Ordinances 36.8.1.E.3. and is already applicable within the plan area.
One exception to the maximum height for onsite lighting is provided: “Down lighting used to assist in the activation of a public pedestrian space on Lake Tahoe Blvd., Harrison Ave., Sandy Way, Fremont Ave., and Takela Dr., as well as interior spaces, may be affixed up to the eaves of the roof line or peak of the wall in the case of a gable roof of a building or structure for lighting of distinguished architectural features such as entries, arcades, chimneys, cornices, balconies, exterior trusses, highly textured materials, knee braces, enriched architectural facades, or landmark features.” This exception is intended to enhance the architectural features of buildings in heavily visited areas. In this case lighting is allowed up to the eaves of the roof line or peak of a wall.
This exception does not allow for lighting beyond this point as to prevent negative effects on neighboring parcels.
Light sources will also exist within Mid-Town in the form of signage. Signage standards in the MidTown Area Plan are consistent with those in SLTCC Chapter 6.40. These are TRPA approved alternatives adopted by reference in TRPA Code of Ordinances 36.2.2.C. Signage may be illuminated in a manner that does not create light pollution or hazardous conditions. Signs may be illuminated through individual letters backlit or with internal light sources or by external light sources that are shielded from public view, do not spill onto the surrounding area, and do project light beyond the sign face. Additionally, internally illuminated signs should not have backgrounds that are lighter than the text. Through the City building division review and inspection process, it is ensured that time clocks/timers are present so that sign light levels adjust according to day and nighttime natural light conditions.
730
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 81 Design standards of the Mid-Town Area Plan require dominant colors to be earthtone and nonreflective. Where metals are used in roofing or facades, they too must be nonreflective. Both building and signage design standards have been created to limit the amount of light to only provide purposeful lighting for safety and identification. Due to the lighting, colors, and materials standards as discussed above, no substantial glare or reflectivity of a project proposed under the Mid-Town Area Plan is expected to affect day or nighttime views in the area. This impact is less than significant.
Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
7. LIGHT AND GLARE (TRPA)
a. Will the proposal include new or modified sources of exterior lighting? See discussion and analysis for CEQA Question I.d, which concludes the level of impact is less than significant.
Environmental Analysis: Yes, less than significant.
Required Mitigation: None.
b. Will the proposal create new illumination, which is more substantial than other lighting, if any, within the surrounding area?
See discussion and analysis for CEQA Question I.d, which concludes the level of impact is less than significant.
Environmental Analysis: Yes, less than significant.
Required Mitigation: None.
c. Will the proposal cause light from exterior sources to be cast off -site or onto public lands? See discussion and analysis for CEQA Question I.d, which concludes the level of impact is less than significant.
Environmental Analysis: Yes, less than significant.
Required Mitigation: None.
d. Will the proposal create new sources of glare through the siting of the improvements or through the use of reflective materials?
See discussion and analysis for CEQA Question I.d, which concludes the level of impact is less than significant.
Environmental Analysis: Yes, less than significant.
Required Mitigation: None.
731
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 82
18. SCENIC RESOURCES/COMMUNITY DESIGN (TRPA)
a. Will the proposal be visible from any state or federal highway, Pioneer Trail or from Lake Tahoe?
Yes, the plan area includes parcels along or visible from US Highway 50, Pioneer Trail, and Lake Tahoe. Currently, views from Pioneer Trail of parcels within the plan area are shielded by trees; however, parcels may become visible should tree removal/thinning occur. When not proposed alongside a development, tree removal must adhere to TRPA Code of Ordinances 33.6.5 and 61.1.
Generally, this is only done for defensible space or safety reasons. Further tree removal may occur alongside a development to create space for structures and other site improvements. Under this scenario, the project would be reviewed by City or TRPA staff to ensure no alternative site designs are possible to preserve trees 30 inches dbh or larger. Additionally, the reviewer will ensure that proposed structures are consistent with height, articulation, color, and material standards. See sections I. Aesthetics and 7. Light and Glare, for further analysis regarding the effect of the MidTown Area Plan on views from Lake Tahoe Boulevard/US Highway 50, Pioneer Trail, and Lake Tahoe.
See also CEQA Aesthetics items I.a, b, c above, and TRPA items 18.b, c, d, and e below.
Environmental Analysis: Yes, less than significant.
Required Mitigation: None.
b. Will the proposal be visible from any public recreation area or TRPA designated bicycle trail?
Yes, the plan area includes parcels that contain portions of the Dennis T. Machida Memorial Greenway bike path, the City of South Lake Tahoe’s bikeway, and public recreation areas such as Bijou Community Park and Golf Course and Lakeview Commons. However, TRPA only recognizes Lakeview Commons, the Rufus Allen to Highway 50 to Al Tahoe Blvd and Highway 50 to Pioneer Trail portion of the South Tahoe Bikeway as scenic resources.
See CEQA sections I. Aesthetics and TRPA 7. Light and Glare, for further analysis regarding the effect of the Mid-Town Area Plan on views from such resources. See also TRPA items c, d, and e below. All developments that may become visible from such resources shall be reviewed for consistency with city-wide, and the Mid-Town Area Plan development and design standards.
Thus, implementation of specific projects under the Mid-Town Area Plan is not likely to result in impacts to views from any public recreation area or TRPA-designated bicycle trails. All projects would comply with existing city-wide design standards, TRPA Code Ordinances and the Mid-Town Area Plan development and design standards, which would result in generally improved scenic conditions in the Area Plan and restrict obstruction of ridgeline views.
Environmental Analysis: Yes, less than significant.
Required Mitigation: None.
c. Will the proposal block or modify an existing view of Lake Tahoe or other scenic vista seen from a public road or other public area?
732
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 83 The plan area includes parcels that face Lake Tahoe Boulevard. Several of these parcels are privately owned and contain development that obscures views of Lake Tahoe from US Highway 50/Lake Tahoe Boulevard. The remainder of the parcels are publicly owned. Some are vacant and some include existing public improvements.
Such parcels are part of Shorezone Tolerance District 4 where additional development standards as included in TRPA Code of Ordinances Subsection 83.9.2 and TRPA Code of Ordinances Chapter 85 apply and shall supersede district standards should conflicts occur. Such projects shall be reviewed by TRPA. The policies below have been included to ensure best practices when reviewing projects along the shoreline.
• Policy 2.1 Views from Lake Tahoe Ensure all projects visible from Lake Tahoe are thoroughly reviewed to prevent adverse scenic impacts (Al Tahoe Scenic Shoreline Unit 32). • Policy 2.2 Scenic Roadways Pursue improvements that contribute to increases in scenic quality rating.
• Policy 2.3 View of the Lake Implement development and design standards that create openings between buildings for increased visibility and accessibility of Lake Tahoe. • Policy 4.1 Redirection and Transfer of Development Do not allow new developments to encroach in SEZs and provide incentives to relocate development from SEZs to high capability lands.
The City of South Lake Tahoe and California Tahoe Conservancy CTC are finalizing an exchange of parcels that would assist each entity in furthering their missions. A number of these parcels are within the Mid-Town area. Three (3) parcels which are being considered for transfer to the City under the exchange (027-010-016, 027-010-024, and 027-010-029) would be maintained by the City for the purpose of maintaining open space along the shores of Lake Tahoe and increasing opportunities for public access and lake visibility, as supported by the following policy:
• Policy 5.1 CTC Land Exchange Continue parcel exchange efforts with the California Tahoe Conservancy to increase opportunities for beach access and exploring expansion scenarios for Lakeview Commons.
Two parcels which the City is considering for transfer to the CTC are for the purpose of maintaining open space along bike trails and adjacent stream environment zones. The transfer would allow these parcels to maintain their current natural state and provide alternative bike path options should future projects require such adjustments. In addition to the policies above, the following policy has been included to emphasize this effort.
• Policy 3.2 Open Space Maintain sufficient and facilitate new open space areas for community and environmental benefit.
There are nine scenic viewpoints within or with visibility of the Mid-Town region. Any structure three stories or taller must make findings of TRPA Code of Ordinances 37.7.16. Among these include ensuring structures will not result in the net loss of views to a scenic resource identified in the 1982 Lake Tahoe Basin Scenic Resource Inventory and that the structure is adequately screened as seen from major arterials, the waters of lakes, and other public areas. As part of review for such projects, 733
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 84 staff will review simulations of the proposed project relative to the natural surroundings and background.
Scenic Viewpoint Attainment Status Category
35.2 Attainment Roadway
35.3 Attainment Roadway
35.4 Attainment Roadway
35.5 Attainment Roadway
34.1 Attainment Roadway
34.2 Attainment Roadway
33.1 Attainment Roadway
32.1 Attainment Shoreline
31.4 Attainment Shoreline
Improvements to or redevelopment of these parcels may modify views of Lake Tahoe as viewed from Lake Tahoe Boulevard; however, negative impacts will be prevented through actions currently being pursued by the City as discussed above (CTC land exchange to maintain public open space) and standards as included in the Area Plan. Parking shall be located to have the least significant visual impact from scenic resources and Lake Tahoe. A maximum height of 42 feet is allowed in the Harrison/Sandy District where these privately owned lakefront parcels are located. This height is allowed under current conditions with a roof pitch of 10:12 and building site slope of 24%. The MidTown Area Plan allows this same height on a flat parcel and with a 5:12 roof pitch. Furthermore, TRPA Code of Ordinances 37.7.16 height findings shall apply to buildings of three stories or more.
All projects that propose heights which may detract from scenic viewpoints will be required to submit renderings so that staff can accurately determine if there will be an impact. In such cases height limitations may be applied. These elements will prevent any negative impacts.
Environmental Analysis: No impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
d. Will the proposal be inconsistent with the height and design standards required by the applicable ordinance, Community Plan, or Area Plan?
The Mid-Town Area Plan will not be inconsistent with the height and design standards required by the applicable ordinance or Area Plan. Permissible height within the Mid-Town Area Plan is determined primarily by the parcel’s location inside or outside of the Town Center overlay. Structure height on parcels outside of the Town Center overlay shall be determined by roof pitch and building site slope as identified in TRPA Code of Ordinance Chapter 37, Table 37.4.1-1. This section is currently applicable to such parcels of the plan area and does not constitute a change for parcels that remain outside of the Town Center. Height within the Town Center overlay is determined by TRPA Code of Ordinance Chapter 13, Table 13.5.3-1, which allows a maximum height of 56 feet.
There are three existing Town Center regions within the plan area boundary, which are proposed to be significantly expanded to include major existing developments that are central to South Lake Tahoe both geographically and functionally. All parcels to be included are developed or have 75% of their boundary adjacent to developed parcels. As such, all proposed Town Center parcels are less 734
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 85 than ¼ mile from existing Commercial and Public Service uses. This is demonstrated by the Existing Land Uses Map (Figure 2). The maximum allowed height within the Town Center overlay is 56 feet, though this is not being proposed for all eligible areas. To maintain community cohesion and prevent negative impacts of tall buildings, the maximum of 56 feet is only allowed within the Lake Tahoe Community College District and the Public Service District. These areas consist of large parcels with heavy tree cover. This allows for larger setbacks and better integration of structures into the natural environment, resulting in a lesser visual impact.
All buildings of three or more stories shall demonstrate compliance with findings of TRPA Code of Ordinances 37.7.16. These findings ensure that buildings are compatible with the surrounding natural features and do not detract from scenic views. Renderings of the proposed project are most often used to demonstrate consistency. These findings as included below must be made prior to permitting a structure of three or more stories.
Finding 1
When viewed from major arterials, scenic turnouts, public recreation areas, or the waters of Lake Tahoe, from a distance of 300 feet, the additional height will not cause a building to extend above the forest canopy, when present, or a ridgeline. For height greater than that set forth in Table 37.4.1-1 for a 5:12 roof pitch, the additional height shall not increase the visual magnitude beyond that permitted for structures in the shoreland as set forth in subsection 66.3.7, Additional Visual Magnitude, or Appendix H, Visual Assessment Tool, of the Design Review Guidelines.
Finding 3
With respect to that portion of the building that is permitted the additional height, the building has been designed to minimize interference with existing views within the area to the extent practicable.
Finding 5
The portion of the building that is permitted additional building height is adequately screened, as seen from major arterials, the waters of lakes, and other public areas from which the building is frequently viewed. In determining the adequacy of screening, consideration shall be given to the degree to which a combination of the following features causes the building to blend or merge with the background.
A. The horizontal distance from which the building is viewed; B. The extent of screening; and
C. Proposed exterior colors and building materials.
Finding 9
When viewed from a TRPA scenic threshold travel route, the additional building height granted a building or structure shall not result in the net loss of views to a scenic resource identified in the 1982 Lake Tahoe Basin Scenic Resource Inventory. TRPA shall specify the method used to evaluate potential view loss.
735
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 86 All heights proposed within the Mid-Town Area Plan are consistent with TRPA Code of Ordinances and the Regional Plan. When reviewed against all permitting criteria and necessary findings, building height will have no significant impact.
Building design standards have been included in accordance with TRPA Code of Ordinances
13.5.3.F.3, Building Design to ensure attractive and compatible development. These standards consider how structures can best functionally serve the intended use, as well as contribute to the community character. Standards were developed based on community input and the desire to maintain a mountain town atmosphere with a built environment that is in harmony with the natural surroundings. Moreover, non-residential buildings adjacent to residential districts or to open space/recreation areas with two or more stories shall be located out of a 45-degree angle as measured from the applicable height at the setback line to reduce the effects of massing.
Pitched roofs are required for all visible sides of a structure, through flexibility is provided for areas not visible from a public right of way. This exception is intended to allow for accessible roof areas (patios, dining, etc.), rooftop utilities/mechanical equipment, covered parking structures, to reduce the conditioned space and energy/construction costs of large structures, and maximize livable space within height restrictions.
All structures shall include elements to engage pedestrians. Project applicants may choose from a variety of methods of meeting this standard, including but not limited to window transparency, art, vertical articulation, exterior living/dining spaces, and using highly textured siding materials and decorative panels. These features are intended to add interest to the façade and create an atmosphere that is engaging for pedestrians. These elements are also encouraged to frame building entrances and openings.
Regardless of the pedestrian level detailing that is applied to a project, all materials shall be natural or natural appearing as to not cause distraction or detract from the natural surroundings. Colors must be earth tones consistent with TRPA Design Review Guidelines and Colors of the Lake Tahoe Landscape, with accent colors limited to no more than 15 percent of any building façade.
These design standards were carefully crafted, drawing from community input and existing guidance such as the City and TRPA’s South Lake Tahoe Design Guidelines (2016). Projects permitted under newer planning documents and design guidelines consistently result in increased scenic ratings as discussed in CEQA item I.c. and TRPA item 18.e.
Thus, no impact is expected with implementation of new height and design standards in the MidTown Area Plan.
Environmental Analysis: No impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
e. Will the proposal be inconsistent with the TRPA Scenic Quality Improvement Program (SQIP) or Design Review Guidelines?
The TRPA Scenic Quality Improvement Program was developed as a part of the TRPA Regional Plan in 1989 to provide a program for implementing physical improvements to the built environment in the Tahoe Basin to assist in the attainment of scenic quality thresholds. It aims to identify site 736
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 87 specific measures for each scenic unit (roadway and shoreline) not in attainment of the adopted scenic thresholds. Below is a brief description of each roadway and shoreline units intersecting the plan area, including recent improvements that have contributed to meeting scenic quality standards.
Scenic Roadway Units
El Dorado Beach (Unit 34): Scenic Roadway Unit 34 has been in attainment since 1982.
Improvements within the past 10 years include installation of curbs, gutters, and sidewalks; redevelopment of older buildings consistent with design standards (including Tahoe Wellness Center and Hotel Azure); and improvements at Lakeview Commons (creation of Champions Plaza, reconstruction of parking areas, and relocated restrooms). Specific Environmental Improvement Program (EIP) Projects that contributed include:
03.01.02.0006 - Lakeview Commons Phase 2 - El Dorado Beach Improvements
01.01.01.0098 - U.S. Highway 50 Water Quality Improvement Project - Trout Creek to Ski Run Blvd.
03.02.02.0008 - Harrison Avenue Streetscape Improvement & Bike Trail Al Tahoe (Unit 35): While Unit 35 remains in non-attainment, TRPA’s Threshold Evaluation reports have noted incremental improvements since 2011. These include installation of curbs & gutters with sidewalks and new road pavement; façade improvements; and redevelopments. Evaluations note the lack of screening for parking lots as an area of concern. (EIP) Projects 01.01.01.0005 - U.S. Highway 50 Water Quality Improvement Project - "Y" to Trout Creek contributed to air quality, scenic resources, soil conservation, and water quality threshold categories.
Scenic Shoreline Units
Bijou (Unit 31): The Bijou scenic shoreline is in attainment and has been since threshold evaluations began in 1982. The only comment included in threshold evaluations related to the portion of Unit 31 within the Mid-Town plan area is regarding a single-family dwelling, noting its strong articulation.
Al Tahoe (Unit 32): The Al Tahoe scenic shoreline is in attainment and has been since threshold evaluations began in 1982. The most recent evaluation (2023) reports satisfaction with revegetation at El Dorado Beach; however, screening of kayak storage is lacking. In 2011 Lakeview Commons Phase 2 - El Dorado Beach Improvements (EIP 03.01.02.0006) increased the overall rating.
Future area plan development applications that degrade existing scenic quality ratings would constitute a significant impact. SQIP planning recommendations for improving the scenic quality in the roadway segments will be required during review for projects within areas of nonattainment by the TRPA Code of Ordinances (Section 36.4). Factors that contribute to low ratings are dilapidated or abandoned buildings, excessive street parking, and removal of vegetation that would otherwise lessen the visual impacts of large structures. Public and private investments can substantially improve a scenic unit’s rating. By promoting redevelopment, the Mid-Town Area Plan can increase 737
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 88 the level of compliance with scenic standards. Redevelopment projects have beneficial impacts as they result in buildings that are better integrated with the natural environment, and in some cases restore the natural environment. Massing, natural colors and materials, screening, and landscaping standards are just some of the elements enforced by the Mid-Town Area Plan that will further scenic quality improvements. See also analysis for item CEQA I.c. regarding the effect of redevelopment on scenic ratings and TRPA item 18.d. regarding design standards that are being proposed for MidTown. These standards will ensure that projects are compliant with SQIP and Design Review Guidelines.
Environmental Analysis: No impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
II. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES (CEQA)
a) Would the project Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? As of 2024, the Mid-Town area was not mapped by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP) of the California Resources Agency. The plan area consists of already developed lands and recreational uses. There is no prime farmland, unique farmland, or farmland of statewide importance; therefore, the proposal poses no chance of conversion and has no impact on such lands.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
b) Would the project Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
Mid-Town does not have any areas zoned for agricultural uses, nor are there any Williamson Act contracts within the area. The Mid-Town Area Plan will have no impact on zoning for agricultural uses or Williamson Act contracts.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
c) Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))?
While there are no areas within Mid-Town zoned forestlands or timberlands, some individual resource management uses are allowed within the districts. In no case have these uses been reduced. The Mid-Town Area Plan creates no conflicts with zoning of and results in no rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production; thus, there is no impact.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
738
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 89 Required Mitigation: None.
d) Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
The Mid-Town area is highly developed and zoned primarily commercial/public service, followed by recreation. New developments under the plan would primarily occur as infill or redevelopment of already improved parcels. The loss of substantial forest land or conversion of forest land to nonforest would only create a significant impact if appropriate permits were not obtained.
See discussion and analysis for items CEQA II.a-c, which concludes no impacts.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
e) Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
See analysis for items CEQA II.a-d, which conclude no impacts to farmland and forest land.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
III. AIR QUALITY (CEQA)
The Mid-Town Area Plan is located in the City of South Lake Tahoe in El Dorado County, California, within the Lake Tahoe Air Basin (LTAB). The LTAB region comprises portions of Placer and El Dorado counties in California, and Washoe and Douglas counties and the Carson City Rural District in Nevada. Lake Tahoe lies in a depression between the crests of the Sierra Nevada and Carson ranges at a surface elevation of 6,260 feet above sea level. The mountains surrounding Lake Tahoe are approximately 8,000 to 9,000 feet high, with some reaching beyond 10,000 feet.
Air pollution is regulated by two types of standards: emissions standards and ambient air quality standards. Ambient air quality standards are levels of air pollutants that, if exceeded, are considered unhealthy to breathe. Primary sources of air pollution in the Region include local vehicle and equipment emissions, emissions associated with wildfire and wood-burning appliances, and dust particulates.
The Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act required the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to establish health-based air quality standards at the Federal and State levels. National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) were established for the following criteria pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), sulfates, lead, and hydrogen sulfide. These standards have been established with a margin of safety to protect the public’s health. Both EPA and CARB designate areas of the State as attainment, non-attainment, maintenance, or unclassified for the various pollutant standards according to the Federal Clean Air Act and the California Clean Air Act, respectively.
739
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 90 A toxic air contaminant (TAC) is an air pollutant that may cause or contribute to an increase in mortality or serious illness or which may pose a present or potential hazard to human health. TACs may result in long-term health effects such as cancer, birth defects, neurological damage, asthma, or genetic damage, or short-term acute effects such as eye watering, respiratory irritation, runny nose, throat pain, and headaches. TACs are considered either carcinogenic or non-carcinogenic based on the nature of the health effects associated with exposure. For carcinogenic TACs, potential health impacts are evaluated in terms of overall relative risk expressed as excess cancer cases per one million exposed individuals. Non-carcinogenic TACs differ in that there is generally assumed to be a safe level of exposure below which no negative health impact is believed to occur.
These levels are determined on a pollutant-by-pollutant basis. a) Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
The Mid-Town Area Plan would not alter, revise, conflict with, or obstruct the regulations pertaining to air quality. Consistent with existing conditions, subsequent projects that could occur under the area plan would be subject to subsequent environmental review and permitting and would be required to comply with Chapter 65 of the TRPA Code of Ordinance. Chapter 65 includes provisions that apply to direct sources of air pollution in the Tahoe region, including certain motor vehicles registered in the region, combustion heaters installed in the region, open burning, stationary sources of air pollution, and idling combustion engines.
TRPA’s 2050 Connections: Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP) includes an analysis of its conformity with the California State Implementation Plan to ensure that the RTP remains consistent with State and local air quality planning efforts to achieve and/or maintain the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) (Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 2025, pp. 41-53). Because the Area Plan is consistent with the City General Plan, the TRPA Regional Plan and the RTP, for which the program documents were prepared, the Mid-Town Area Plan is “within the scope” of the program documents.
Moreover, all potential future projects are subject to TRPA’s air quality, greenhouse gas reductions, and mobility mitigation program. All new projects or operational changes must meet the TRPA VMT standard of significance; otherwise, they are subject to further transportation analysis and mitigation requirements.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
b) Would the project result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non- attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
The Lake Tahoe Air Basin is currently in attainment of all NAAQS and CAAQS with the exception of the PM10 CAAQS.
Table 12: Federal and State Attainment Status for the Lake Tahoe Air Basin State Federal
740
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 91 8-Hour Ozone Attainment Attainment
PM10 Nonattainment Attainment
PM2.5 Attainment Attainment
CO Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment
NO2 Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment
SO2 Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment
Pb Attainment Unclassifiable/Attainment
Source: CARB 2026; EPA 2026
In the Lake Tahoe Region, these pollutants relate to emissions from construction activities and represents temporary impacts that are typically short in duration and long-term emissions from automobile use , as measured by VMT calculations. No single project is sufficient in size to, by itself; result in nonattainment of ambient air quality standards. Instead, a project’s individual emissions contribute to existing cumulatively significant adverse air quality impacts.
Short-Term Construction Emissions
Subsequent development and redevelopment projects that could occur under the Mid-Town Area Plan would involve construction and construction emissions. Construction emissions are described as short-term or temporary in duration. ROG and NOx (ozone precursors) emissions are primarily associated with gas and diesel equipment exhaust and the application of architectural coatings. Fugitive dust emissions (PM10 silt content, soil moisture, wind speed, acreage or disturbance area, and vehicle travel by construction vehicles on- and off-site.
Although the details of projects are not known at this time, implementation of subsequent projects under the Mid-Town Area Plan would involve construction that would result in the temporary generation of ozone precursor and fugitive dust emissions from site preparation; off-road equipment, material import/export, worker commute exhaust emissions; paving; and other miscellaneous activities. Typical construction equipment associated with development and redevelopment projects includes dozers, graders, excavators, loaders, and trucks.
Construction emissions associated with subsequent projects under the Mid-Town Area Plan have the potential to be substantial such that they could violate or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, and/or expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
As part of mitigation from the City General Plan EIR (CSLT 2010, page 4.5-33), the City adopted Policy NCR-5.10 in the General Plan (CSLT 2011b, page NCR-9), which is reinforced by Mid-Town Area Plan Policy NCR-5.10 in Natural Resources Goal 5, Policy 5.3 to address short-term construction emissions, which include incorporating measures to reduce construction-generated emissions to the extent feasible on a project-specific basis to address short-term construction emissions. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Implement measures recommended by the El Dorado County Air Quality Management District.
• Prohibit open burning of debris from site clearing unless involved with fuels reduction project;
• Restriction of idling of construction equipment and vehicles; • Apply water to control dust as needed to prevent dust impacts offsite; 741
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 92 • Utilize low emission construction equipment and/or fuels and use existing power sources (e.g., power poles), wherever feasible.
Therefore, the maximum daily criteria pollutants and precursors emissions generated by construction activities would not exceed air quality standards at the project level with implementation of applicable El Dorado County AQMD rules, and TRPA’s Beast Construction Practices Policy ; construction emissions would not result in a cumulative considerable net increase in criteria pollutants for which the Lake Tahoe Air Basin is in nonattainment.
Long-Term Operational Emissions
With respect to operational emissions of criteria pollutants and precursors, subsequent projects that may occur under the Mid-Town Area Plan may include development and redevelopment projects that could generate long-term operational emissions, including mobile and area source emissions. Based on the results of the emissions modeling conducted in support of the 2025 RTP IS/IEC, VMTs in the Lake Tahoe region would decrease by approximately 28,203 VMT per day by 2050 compared to 2022 conditions, and. , criteria pollutants and precursors in the Basin would be expected to decrease substantially by 2050 (Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 2025, pp. 41-53).
Updated emissions modeling results for the 2025 RTP/SCS for ozone precursors, ROG and NOX, CO, SO2, and particulate matter (PM10 and PM2.5) indicate an overall reduction in criteria air pollutants as compared to the 2022 baseline. The estimated reductions in on-road mobile source emissions are primarily due to a reduction in regional daily VMT, in addition to stricter vehicle emissions standards that will phase in over the planning period, and limited development that can occur within the Tahoe Basin under the region’s growth management system. Thus, the Mid-Town Area Plan would result in a substantial long-term reduction in criteria air pollutant emissions.
Furthermore, the City General Plan Policy NCR-5.11 requires that all feasible El Dorado County Air Quality Municipal District (EDCAQMD) recommended measures to reduce operational emissions of criteria pollutants be incorporated into project design and that all projects demonstrate compliance with TRPA’s air quality mitigation program at the time of project consideration. These proposed changes would be expected to continue the existing trend of decreasing emissions in the Region over the planning period.
Because the Mid-Town Area Plan land use goals focus on redirecting housing development in the Mid-Town Area Plan, closer to employment centers and services, the average daily trip rate and associated vehicles emission is expected to decrease over baseline conditions over the planning period. As shown in the 2025 RTP IS/IEC basin wide operational emissions modeling, criteria pollutant emissions would not exceed El Dorado County AQMD thresholds (82 lb/day), which have been established for ROG, Nox, and PM10 emissions Therefore, operational emissions associated with the Mid-Town Area Plan would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under applicable federal or state air quality standards, and impacts would be less than significant.
Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact
Required Mitigation: None.
c) Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 742
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 93 Sensitive receptors are people, or facilities that generally house people (e.g., schools, hospitals, residences) that may experience adverse effects from unhealthful concentrations of air pollutants.
Sensitive land uses are land uses that accommodate sensitive receptors, and exposure to pollutants could result in health-related risks to individuals. Existing sensitive land uses that accommodate sensitive receptors within the boundaries or adjacent to the Mid-Town Area Plan include residences, schools, parks, and playgrounds. Exposure of sensitive receptors to elevated localized concentrations of CO or Toxic Air Contaminants (TAC) emissions could result in adverse health impacts.
Subsequent development and redevelopment projects under the Mid-Town Area Plan could affect regional air quality and create localized exposure to carbon monoxide (CO) emissions .
Consistent with the Regional Plan and the General Plan, the Mid-Town Area Plan seeks to accommodate the expected growth in a way that improves traffic flow and mobility of residents and visitors to the Mid-Town, and reduces regional and localized traffic congestion and related CO concentrations. Based on the analysis in the Regional Plan (TRPA 2012a, pages 3.4-22 through 3.4- 26) and the General Plan EIR (CSLT 2010, pages 4.5-42 through 4.5-43), estimated mobile-source CO emissions associated with the Regional Plan would not conflict with or obstruct regional CO maintenance efforts. Similarly, because the Mid-Town Area Plan expected growth and estimated mobile-source CO emissions falls within that estimated for the General Plan and the Regional Plan, it would not impede CO maintenance efforts.
With respect to localized CO impacts, the Transportation Project-Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (Garza et al. 1997) states that signalized intersections that operate at an unacceptable level of service (LOS) represent a potential for a CO violation, also known as a “hot spot.” Thus, an analysis of CO concentrations is typically recommended for receptors located near signalized intersections that are projected to operate at LOS E or F. According to the traffic analysis prepared for the 2025 RTP IS/IEC, signalized intersections in the Basin, including those within the Mid-Town Area Plan (i.e., US 50/Al Tahoe Intersection), measured in 2050 would operate at an acceptable LOS (i.e., LOS D or better), 2025 RTP IS/IEC, pages 52 through 53, and Appendix H – LOS Memo, page 52 through 53). According to the traffic analysis prepared for the 2025 RTP, signalized intersections within the City limits , including those within the Mid-Town Area Plan, would operate at an acceptable LOS of D or better in 2050 , with the exception of the US 50/Heavenly Village/Park Avenue intersection, which would operate at LOS of E. Because the Mid-Town Area Plan seeks to implement and is within the scope of what was envisioned in the General Plan and the Regional Plan, it too would not cause signalized intersections to operate at unacceptable levels. Therefore, traffic volumes would not be heavy enough to result in a CO “hot spot”. For this reason, and based on the fact that CO emission factors would be reduced substantially (due to increasingly cleaner fuels and vehicles) over the planning period, the Mid-Town Area Plan would not result in congestion at intersections that would result in a violation of a CO air quality standard, contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation, and expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations.
With respect to TAC, consistent with the Regional Plan, subsequent projects under the Mid-Town Area Plan may include development and redevelopment activities that could generate localized TAC emissions.
743
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 94 The Mid-Town Area Plan would implement VMT-reducing land use patterns by promoting development within defined town centers designed to reduce associated air pollutant emissions by promoting more efficient travel patterns, facilitating the use non-auto modes of travel, promoting mixed land uses, and enhancing non-auto infrastructure. Projects resulting from the implementation of the Mid-Town Area Plan would comply with federal and state regulations, the TRPA Code of Ordinance, the City Municipal Code, and other applicable rules, including the TRPA Best Construction Practices Policy. Thus, similar to the conclusion reached in the 2025 RTP IS/IEC, short-term construction related and long term operational exposures of sensitive receptors in the Mid-Town Area Plan to TAC emissions associated with buildout of the Mid-Town Area Plan would be less than significant.
Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact
Required Mitigation: None.
d) Would the project result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
The occurrence and severity of odor effects depend on the nature, frequency, and intensity of the odor source, wind speed and direction, and the presence of sensitive receptors. Offensive odors rarely cause physical harm, but odors can be unpleasant and generate citizen complaints to regulatory agencies and local governments. Typical sensitive receptors include residences, hospitals, and schools. The Mid-Town plan area contains no hospitals but does contain the South Tahoe Middle School. Multiple residential uses are included in the plan area, as well as many surrounding the plan’s border.
Common uses that produce odor emissions are recycling and waste facilities and batch plants, neither of which is allowed under the Mid-Town Area Plan.
The South Tahoe Public Utility District’s wastewater treatment facility is located at the southern end of the plan area. The equipment used at the facility includes covers and seals to limit odor exposure to the surrounding area. The South Tahoe Public Utility District identifies one odor control project in the 2024 Capital Improvement Program update.
In the short term, odor impacts arise from diesel engine use and asphalt concrete paving during construction. As stated in the discussion of short-term impacts on sensitive receptors in III.c above, these odors are temporary and localized, affecting only the area immediately adjacent to the active construction area. Diesel exhaust emissions and asphalt concrete paving odors dissipate rapidly away from the source and cease upon completion of construction activities and would be addressed by the Chapter 65 of the TRPA Code idling restrictions and General Plan Policy NCR-5.10 and Mid-Town Area Plan Natural Resources Goal 5, policies 5.1 and 5.3 . Thus, the implementation of the Mid-Town Area Plan does not result in substantial direct or indirect exposure of sensitive receptors to offensive odors.
Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact
Required Mitigation: None.
744
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 95
2. AIR QUALITY (TRPA)
a. Will the proposal result in substantial air pollutant emissions? This potential effect is the same as those analyzed in the TRPA Regional Plan Update, and therefore the analysis is tiered from and is consistent with the RPU EIS. The Mid-Town Area Plan would not alter or revise the regulations pertaining to air quality. Consistent with existing conditions, subsequent projects that could occur under the Area Plan would be subject to subsequent environmental review and permitting and would be required to comply with Chapter 65 of the TRPA Code. Chapter 65 includes provisions that apply to direct sources of air pollution in the Tahoe region, including certain motor vehicles registered in the region, combustion heaters installed in the region, open burning, stationary sources of air pollution, and idling combustion engines.
The Lake Tahoe Air Basin is in attainment or designated unclassified for all national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and is designated a nonattainment area for PM10 California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS). Because the Mid-Town Area Plan would implement measures recommended by the El Dorado County Air Quality to reduce emissions to the extent feasible and Chapter 65 of the TRPA Code, subsequent projects under the Mid-Town Area Plan would not result in substantial air pollutant emissions during project construction and operation.
See also responses to CEQA Questions III.a – c above.
Environmental Analysis: No.
Required Mitigation: None.
b. Will the proposal result in deterioration of ambient (existing) air quality? As discussed under CEQA Questions III.b, construction and operational emissions associated with the Mid-Town Area Plan would not exceed El Dorado County AQMD thresholds and would not, therefore, result in substantial air pollutant emissions. Because implementation of the Mid-Town Area Plan would incorporate site-specific design and mitigation, no new significant impacts or substantially more severe impacts would occur beyond what was previously analyzed in the 2012 RPU EIR/EIS, and the 20205 RTP IS/IEC.
Environmental Analysis: No impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
c. Will the proposal result in the creation of objectionable odors? See response to CEQA Question III.d, which addresses the creation of objectionable odors and concludes a less-than-significant odor impact on short-term and long-term effects to sensitive receptors.
Environmental Analysis: Yes, less than significant
Required Mitigation: None.
d. Will the proposal result in alteration of air movement, moisture or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally?
745
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 96 This potential effect is the same as those analyzed in the TRPA Regional Plan Update, and therefore the analysis is tiered from and consistent with the RPU EIS. During the review of the adopted 2012 RPU and the Mid-Town Area Plan buildout assumptions for increased development, redevelopment, and construction activity that would result in higher overall greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, TRPA concluded that this impact was cumulatively significant, mitigated to the extent feasible, and otherwise unavoidable. Changes proposed in the current Mid-Town Area Plan would increase residential densities and maximum building heights to encourage residential redevelopment, but would not alter the existing TRPA growth management system that caps total development under the RPU.
Implementation of the Mid-Town Area Plan would result in some level of development and population growth anticipated during the planning horizon and would contribute some level of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to the regional output. Given that many of the sustainability- and conservation-oriented land use and transportation policies and strategies of the Regional Plan, General Plan and the Mid-Town Area Plan would reduce VMT, increase transit and non-motor vehicle travel, and allow or encourage redevelopment of older buildings that would improve energy efficiency, the combined influence of development and population growth planned for within and during the planning horizon of the Mid-Town Area Plan alone may only result in a less-thansignificant increase in overall GHG emissions. However, when considered in combination with basin-wide GHG emission resulting from overall Regional Plan implementation, this would be a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change as identified in the 2012 RPU EIS and described below (TRPA 2012a, page 3.5-15).
Construction-related emissions would primarily be associated with heavy-duty construction equipment and truck and vehicle exhaust associated with subsequent project development. Longterm operational sources of GHG emissions associated with subsequent projects under the MidTown Area Plan would include area sources (e.g., landscaping equipment, snow removal equipment, wood-burning appliances), mobile sources (e.g., vehicle exhaust), energy consumption (e.g., electricity and natural gas), solid waste (e.g., emissions that would occur at a landfill associated with solid waste decomposition), and water consumption (e.g., electricity used to deliver and treat water to serve the Region).
Based on the comparison of GHG emissions estimates conducted for the Regional Plan under existing and build-out conditions, the Regional Plan would increase overall GHG emissions in the Basin. The net increase in GHG emissions associated with Regional Plan implementation was considered substantial, and the resultant substantial long-term increase in GHG emissions was determined to make a cumulatively considerable contribution to global climate change in the RPU EIS. Because implementation of the Mid-Town Area Plan is consistent with the Regional Plan, it too would contribute cumulatively to climate change.
As required under RPU EIS mitigation, TRPA’s GHG Emissions Reduction Policy will require implementation of measures for the reduction of GHG emissions generated by demolition and construction activity in the Region and by ongoing building and property operations. Such measures include, but are not limited to, the following:
For construction-related GHG emissions:
• Limit equipment idling time to a maximum of five minutes; 746
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 97 • Recycle or reuse construction waste and demolition material to the maximum extent feasible;
• Use electrified or alternative-fueled construction equipment to the maximum extent feasible; and
• Use local and sustainable building materials to the extent possible. • For operation-related GHG emissions: Use on-site renewable energy, such as photovoltaic systems;
• Exceed building code standards for energy efficiency; • Install energy efficient appliances and equipment in new buildings; • Retrofit existing buildings to exceed energy efficiency building code standards; • Construct new development to allow for electric lawn maintenance and snow removal equipment compatibility;
• Require minimum passive solar design standards in new buildings; • Expand recycling opportunities and increase recycling infrastructure, including food waste diversion into a composting process; and
• Implement water conservation standards in new development.
In addition to the measures described above in the RPU EIS, the Mid-Town Area Plan incorporates General Plan Policy NCR-5.10 (CSLT 2011b, page NCR-9) in Mid-Town Area Plan Natural Resources Goal 5, policies 5.1 and 5.3 of the Mid-Town Area Plan to address short-term construction emissions (MTAP 2026, page 70), which include incorporating measures to reduce constructionrelated GHG emissions to the extent feasible on a project-specific basis. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Implement measures recommended by the El Dorado County Air Quality Management District.
• Prohibit open burning of debris from site clearing unless involved with fuels reduction project;
• Restriction of idling of construction equipment and vehicles; • Apply water to control dust as needed to prevent dust impacts offsite; • Utilize low emission construction equipment and/or fuels and use existing power sources (e.g., power poles), wherever feasible.
For operational-related GHG emission the implementation of relevant policies from the General Plan are also anticipated to reduce GHG emissions. These policies include:
• Decreasing reliance on non-renewable energy source
• Developing a comprehensive strategy to reduce GHG emission • Provide credits and incentives for “Green Buildings”
• Use emission-reduction technology in building components and design • Use of photovoltaic systems
• Promote rehabilitation of the housing stock to achieve greater energy efficiency • Use “EPA Energy Star” certified appliance for new private and public facilities In October 2020, the City adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) to both reduce GHG emissions from activities within the City and help the community to adapt to climate change and improve its resilience over the long term. In addition to reducing emissions, the CAP will provide numerous co747 Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 98 benefits and improve the livability of the City. The CAP Executive Summary (Table ES-1) summarizes numerous actions that will implement many of the recommendations from the RPU mitigation programs and City General Plan policy. Through the implementation of the 2020 CAP, along with participation from public agencies, businesses, and individuals, the City will be able to make significant progress towards its 2030 and 2040 GHG reduction targets, increase the City’s resilience to impacts of climate change, and, in the process, help reduce the impact of RPU and the Mid-Town Area Plan buildout.
The Mid-Town Area Plan will help implement measures outlined above to replace old inefficient buildings with modern energy efficient and greener development, encourage higher density residential development closer to services and transit to reduce vehicle trips, and reduce the reliance on the private automobile to reduce average annual VMT per capita.
Environmental Analysis: Because implementation of the Regional Plan (i.e., cumulative condition) will result in significant and unavoidable impacts to GHG emissions and TRPA has already found that other social, environmental and economic factors overrode those impacts, no further analysis is required for the Mid-Town Area Plan since its impacts are consistent with those identified in the RPU EIS.
Required Mitigation: No Further Mitigation is Required. e. Will the proposal result in increased use of diesel fuel? This potential effect is the same as those analyzed in the TRPA Regional Plan Update, and therefore, this analysis is tiered from and consistent with the RPU EIS. Construction associated with subsequent projects under the Mid-Town Area Plan would require the use of diesel fuel for the operation of construction equipment. Certain specific projects that involve on-going truck deliveries or motorized vehicle use (such as snowmobile courses) as part of their operations could also increase gasoline and diesel fuel consumption relative to existing conditions.
From an air quality perspective, one of the primary concerns related to diesel fuel consumption is the resultant exposure of sensitive receptors to emissions of toxic air contaminants (TACs) that can occur during both the construction and operational phases of a project.
The construction of subsequent projects under the Mid-Town Area Plan could result in short-term diesel exhaust emissions, including diesel particulate matter (PM), from the use of off-road diesel equipment required for site grading and excavation, paving, and other construction activities.
Diesel PM was identified as a TAC in 1998. The potential cancer risk from the inhalation of diesel PM is a more serious risk than the potential non-cancer health impacts (TRPA 2012a, page 3.4-39).
Consistent with the findings in the RPU EIS, the proximity of heavy-duty diesel-fueled construction equipment to existing sensitive receptors within or adjacent to the Mid-Town Area Plan during construction activities resulting from implementation of the Mid-Town Area Plan may result in exposure of sensitive receptors to TACs.
As part of mitigation from the RPU EIS, TRPA implemented the Best Construction Practices Policy for TAC Emissions During Construction, which includes measures to reduce exposure to construction-related TAC emissions to the extent feasible. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, the following:
748
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 99 • Limit diesel-equipment idling time to five minutes maximum; • Equip heavy-duty construction equipment with diesel particulate traps; and • Locate construction staging areas as far away as possible from on- and off-site receptors.
In addition to the measures described above in the RPU EIS, the Mid-Town Area Plan incorporates General Plan Policy NCR-5.10 (CSLT 2011b, page NCR-9) in Policy NCR-5.1 of the Area Plan to address short-term construction emissions, which includes measures to reduce constructionrelated GHG emissions to the extent feasible on a project-specific basis. Such measures may include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Implement measures recommended by the El Dorado County Air Quality Management District.
• Prohibit open burning of debris from site clearing unless involved with fuels reduction project;
• Restriction of idling construction equipment and vehicles; • Apply water to control dust as needed to prevent dust impacts offsite; • Utilize low emission construction equipment and/or fuels and use existing power sources (e.g.,
• power poles), wherever feasible.
As part of a Mitigation Measure 4.5.5 from the GP EIR (CSLT 2010, page 4.5-47) the City also adopted Land Use Policy LU-8.18 (CSLT 2011b, page LU-19) to reduce exposure of TACs by requiring that all new or relocated discretionary development that would be a source of TACs near residences or sensitive receptors to either provide an adequate buffer, or filters, or other equipment, or incorporate mitigation measures to reduce potential exposure to acceptable levels.
Therefore, because measured identified in the RPU EIS and GP EIR that would reduce constructionrelated TAC emission to the extent feasible have been incorporated into the Mid-Town Area Plan, subsequent projects under the Mid-Town Area Plan involving the use of heavy-duty diesel-fueled construction equipment would not result in the exposure of sensitive receptors to TACs.
Finally, based on a review of the proposed permissible uses in the Mid-Town Area Plan, the MidTown Area Plan would not include the construction or operation of any major sources of TAC emissions, such as power-generating plants or other heavy industrial uses. The land use strategy of the Mid-Town Area Plan, the City General Plan, and the Regional Plan, would include incentivizing development in the town and regional centers, which are located along the Basin’s main transportation corridors (US Highway 50). The ARB recommends a minimum setback distance of 500 feet from urban roads with 100,000 vehicles per day or rural roads with 50,000 vehicles per day to minimize the health risk of sensitive receptors to mobile-source TACs (TRPA 2012a, page 3.4- 39). US Highway 50 cannot accommodate more than 50,000 vehicles per day (TRPA 2012a, page
3.4-40).
Environmental Analysis: Yes, less than significant.
Required Mitigation: None
749
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 100 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (CEQA)
a) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
To assess existing biological resources in the plan area and evaluate potential effects of implementing the proposed Mid-Town Area Plan on special-status species, a biologist with expertise in Tahoe Basin natural resources reviewed existing data and conducted a reconnaissance-level survey of the plan area. The data review included: a records search of the California Natural Diversity Database (California Department of Fish and Wildlife, 2026); a list of federally proposed, candidate, threatened, and endangered species that may occur in the project region obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Information for Planning and Consultation system (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2026); TRPA Geographic Information System (GIS) data; and high-resolution aerial imagery.
Plants and animals may be special-status species due to declining populations, vulnerability to habitat change, or restricted distributions. Special-status species include those species legally protected under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), TRPA Code, or other regulations, as well as species considered sufficiently rare by the scientific community to qualify for such listing. In this document, special status species are defined as plants and animals in the following categories. • Species listed or proposed for listing as threatened or endangered under ESA (50 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 17.12 for listed plants, 50 CFR 17.11 for listed animals, and various notices in the Federal Register for proposed species) or candidates for possible future listing as threatened or endangered under ESA (75 CFR 69222). • Species listed or candidates for listing by the State of California as threatened or endangered under CESA (14 Cal. Code Regs., Section 670.5). • Animals fully protected under the California Fish and Game Code (FGC) (Section 3511 for birds, Section 4700 for mammals, Section 5050 for reptiles and amphibians, and Section 5515 for fish).
• Plants and animals designated as a sensitive, special interest, or threshold species by TRPA (TRPA Code of Ordinances, Chapters 61, 62, and 63).
• Plants listed as rare under the California Native Plant Protection Act (FGC Section 1900 et seq.).
• Plants considered by California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to be “rare, threatened or endangered in California” (California Rare Plant Ranks of 1A, presumed extinct in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere; 1B, considered rare or endangered in California and elsewhere; 2A, presumed extinct in California but common elsewhere; and 2B, considered rare or endangered in California but more common elsewhere). Note, that while these rankings do not afford the same type of legal protection as ESA or CESA, the uniqueness of these species requires special consideration under CEQA. • Animals identified by CDFW as species of special concern. 750
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 101 • Species considered locally significant, that is, a species that is not rare from a statewide perspective but is rare or uncommon in a local context such as within a county or region (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15125 (c)) or is so designated in local or regional plans, policies, or ordinances (State CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G). • Species that otherwise meets the definition of rare or endangered under State CEQA Guidelines Section 15380.
Existing conditions and factors evaluated during the reconnaissance survey included proximity of the plan area to known sensitive plant and wildlife resources; the general distribution, types, and quality of habitats; the plan area’s potential to support core breeding areas or movement corridors for special-status and common wildlife species; and sources and levels of disturbances from existing land uses.
Although special-status plant and animal species have been documented in the vicinity of the plan area, this analysis identified none that are currently known or with moderate to high potential to occur regularly in the plan area or use habitats in the plan area for breeding or other critical life history functions. The plan area is centrally located within the City, surrounded by an urban community, and composed of mostly developed lands and urban uses; it is intersected and fragmented by a major highway corridor (US 50/Lake Tahoe Boulevard) and other roadways. Most of the special-status species known or with potential to occur in the vicinity are not expected to occur in the plan area due to the absence of suitable or high-quality breeding habitat, high disturbance levels associated with existing urban uses (e.g., public service, commercial, developed recreation, and residential), and lack of documentation of recent occurrences in the plan area. Wildlife species that use the plan area year-round or seasonally are primarily common species well-adapted to and associated with urban and residential areas in the Tahoe Basin.
Areas west-northwest of Lake Tahoe Community College (within the proposed Lake Tahoe Community College district), and portions of the proposed Bijou Recreation, Public Service Center, and Tahoe Sierra Business districts, in the plan area include small patches of urban/disturbed riparian, meadow, and conifer forest habitats in some locations. Due to the developed conditions, urban land uses, and major roadways within and surrounding the plan area that fragment and disconnect open space and natural habitats, these undeveloped areas are subject to edge effects, high levels of physical and noise disturbance, and habitat degradation that limits their suitability for special-status species.
Implementation of the Area Plan would allow for development of a greater density of residential and commercial uses primarily in areas that have already been disturbed and/or are developed.
Although the proposed Town Center expansion includes some undeveloped areas, expansion of land uses and changes to development and design standards allowable within the expanded Town Center would be concentrated in existing commercial, residential, and public service land use areas that do not currently provide habitats suitable for special-status species.
The largest area of undeveloped land within the proposed Town Center expansion is in the Lake Tahoe Community College district. Where the proposed Town Center expansion overlaps with the undeveloped portions of the Lake Tahoe Community College district, which includes land capability districts 1b (SEZ) and 7 (see Figures 7, 8, and 13 in the proposed Mid-Town Area Plan), 751
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 102 increases in allowable coverage and densities would be concentrated in upland/high capability land (i.e., land capability district 7) that is currently disturbed by an informal trail network, public access and uses (e.g., pedestrians, bicyclists, dog walkers), and edge effects from surrounding development/urban uses and not expected to support special-status species or sensitive habitats.
With implementation of Area Plan goals and policies, any new development or increases in allowable coverage and densities would avoid sensitive lands in this area (i.e., land capability district 1b [SEZ] associated with Trout Creek). Natural Resources Goal 4 and Recreation Goal 3 of the proposed Area Plan include policies to preserve, enhance, and restore SEZ areas and their natural functions, including prohibiting new development in SEZs and providing incentives to relocate development from SEZs to high capability lands, and maintain existing and facilitate protection of new open space areas for community and environmental benefit. Specifically, the design and implementation of any future development or other projects approved under the MidTown Area Plan would be guided by, and required to comply with, Natural Resources Policies 4.1 (Redirection and Transfer of Development), 4.2 (SEZ Mitigation), and 4.3 (Bijou Park and Golf Course SEZ); and Recreation Policies 3.1 (Stream Environment Zones) and 3.2 (Open Space).
Three parcels along Trout Creek and US 50 in the proposed Tahoe Sierra Business district and in the northwest corner of the proposed Lake Tahoe Community College district are identified by TRPA as a Stream Restoration Plan Area. The City is in the process of transferring two of the parcels to CTC to be maintained for open space and recreational purposes.
No specific developments or projects are proposed or analyzed in this program-level document. All future projects and activities proposed, reviewed, and approved under the Mid-Town Area Plan that could significantly affect biological resources would require project-specific environmental review similar to that under the existing planning and regulatory framework, and consistency with proposed Area Plan goals and policies to protect natural resources and open space. TRPA’s existing policies and Code provisions address potential impacts to special-status species through sitespecific environmental review, requiring development and implementation of project-specific measures to minimize or avoid impacts through the design process, and providing compensatory or other mitigation for any significant effects on special-status species as a condition of project approval. As discussed previously, Natural Resources Goal 4 and Recreation Goal 3 of the proposed Area Plan include policies to preserve, enhance, and restore SEZ areas and their natural functions, and maintain existing and facilitate the protection of new open space areas for community and environmental benefit. The design and implementation of any future development or other projects approved under the Mid-Town Area Plan would be required to comply with Natural Resources policies 4.1 (Redirection and Transfer of Development), 4.2 (SEZ Mitigation), and 4.3 (Bijou Park and Golf Course SEZ); and Recreation Policies 3.1 (Stream Environment Zones) and 3.2 (Open Space).
For any TRPA special interest species that could be affected, compliance with the TRPA Code requires that projects or land uses within TRPA disturbance (nondegradation) zones would not, directly or indirectly, significantly affect the habitat or cause the displacement or extirpation of the population; and TRPA would not permit a project that would degrade habitat without compensatory mitigation to avoid a significant effect. For other special-status species, project-level planning and environmental analysis for CEQA and/or TRPA review would identify potentially significant effects, based on the type and location of the project; minimize or avoid those impacts through the design 752
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 103 process (e.g., conducting surveys and modifying projects to avoid special-status species, if feasible); and provide mitigation for any significant effects as a condition of project approval (e.g., implementing limited operating periods for construction and/or operations, compensatory habitat enhancement/restoration).
Adoption and implementation of the proposed Mid-Town Area Plan is not expected to disturb or remove any known occurrences of a special-status plant or animal species; cause a physical change in habitat suitability or availability for any special-status or common species; remove or change any existing protections for biological resources, including special-status species; or remove or modify existing project-level environmental review requirements related to biological resources for future projects approved under the Mid-Town Area Plan.
Environmental Analysis: No impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
b) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Sensitive habitats and natural communities include those that are of special concern to resource agencies or are afforded specific consideration through CEQA, the TRPA Goals and Policies and TRPA Code, Section 1602 of the FGC, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the state’s PorterCologne Water Quality Control Act, and other applicable regulations. Sensitive natural habitats and communities may be of special concern to agencies and conservation organizations for a variety of reasons, including their locally or regionally declining status, or because they provide important habitat to common and special-status species. Examples of sensitive habitats in the Lake Tahoe Basin include montane riparian, wet meadow, riverine (streams and rivers), and lacustrine (open water); many of these are also designated as SEZ. The Upper Truckee River is located just west of the westernmost boundary of the plan area, and Trout Creek is located along the western edge of the Lake Tahoe Community College District and passes through the southwestern corner of this district.
Sensitive habitats in portions of the plan area include riparian and wetland communities (USFWS 2026b) such as wet meadows, riparian zones along streams or waterways (Upper Truckee River and Trout Creek), and seasonal wetlands. The largest concentration of riparian/wetland habitats in the plan area are located along the western edge of the proposed Lake Tahoe Community College District; smaller areas containing these sensitive habitats occur in the Bijou Recreation, Tahoe Sierra Business, and Public Service Center districts. Most of these communities are designated by TRPA as SEZ and/or habitats of special significance. Some of the SEZ/wetland/riparian habitats in the plan area would likely be considered jurisdictional under CWA Section 404 and the PorterCologne Act.
Adoption and implementation of the proposed Mid-Town Area Plan would not result in or facilitate new development of undeveloped areas containing sensitive habitats, and would not disturb or remove any riparian, wetland, or other sensitive natural community or habitat; remove or change any existing protections for biological resources, including sensitive habitats; or remove or modify 753
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 104 existing project-level environmental review requirements related to biological and hydrologic resources for future projects proposed in the plan area. As discussed previously, the design and implementation of any future development or other projects approved under the Mid-Town Area Plan would be required to comply with provisions to protect SEZ/sensitive habitats in Natural Resources Policies 4.1 (Redirection and Transfer of Development), 4.2 (SEZ Mitigation), and 4.3 (Bijou Park and Golf Course SEZ); and Recreation Policies 3.1 (Stream Environment Zones) and 3.2 (Open Space) of the Area Plan. Although the Area Plan includes a potential new community riverwalk adjacent to the north edge of the Trout Creek SEZ in the Lake Tahoe Community College District, SEZ encroachment would be avoided if this concept is eventually implemented because the design of the project would be refined in future project planning to address site-specific constraints, including avoidance of SEZ.
In addition to consistency with proposed Area Plan goals and policies to protect SEZ/sensitive habitats and open space, any future development, redevelopment, or other project proposed and approved under the Mid-Town Area Plan would be required to comply with existing TRPA, federal, and state regulations, permitting requirements, and environmental review procedures that protect SEZs, wetlands, and other sensitive habitats. These regulations and procedures address potential construction-related impacts to SEZs and other sensitive habitats through site-specific environmental review; require development and implementation of project-specific measures to minimize or avoid impacts through the design and permitting process; and require compensatory or other mitigation for any significant effects as a condition of project approval and permitting.
Specifically, existing regulations and permitting requirements would minimize the loss of sensitive habitats during construction and provide habitat compensation for any unavoidable loss of riparian, wetland, and other sensitive habitats through CWA Section 404, FGC Section 1602, TRPA, and other permitting/review processes. These existing regulations often require that after application of avoidance and minimization of impacts to sensitive habitats, compensation for unavoidable project-related losses or degradation of these sensitive habitats is achieved in a manner that results in no net loss of habitat acreage, natural processes, or level of habitat quality.
Environmental Analysis: No impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
c) Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? See discussion for CEQA Question IV.b, above, which addresses state and federally protected wetlands and other sensitive habitats.
Environmental Analysis: No impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
d) Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? 754
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 105 The plan area is centrally located within the City, surrounded by an urban community, and made up of mostly developed lands and urban uses; it is intersected by a major highway corridor (US 50/Lake Tahoe Boulevard) and other roadways. Much of the plan area is adjacent to residential uses. Wildlife species that use the plan area year-round or seasonally are primarily common species well adapted to and associated with urban and residential areas in the Tahoe Basin.
Because natural habitats in the plan area are fragmented and highly disturbed, native wildlife species in most of the plan area generally occur in relatively low abundance and diversity.
Portions of the proposed Lake Tahoe Community College, Bijou Recreation, Public Service, and Tahoe Sierra Business districts contain undeveloped fragments of urban/disturbed riparian, meadow, and conifer forest habitats in some locations, including adjacent to Trout Creek, Upper Truckee River, and near Bijou Community Park. Due to the developed conditions, urban land uses, and major roadways within and surrounding the plan area that fragment and disconnect open space and natural habitats, the plan area is not expected to provide critical animal movement functions regionally or support significant wildlife nursery sites.
Although the proposed Town Center expansion includes some undeveloped lands, the proposed expansion of land uses, increases in coverage allowances, and changes to development and design standards allowable in the expanded Town Center would be concentrated in high capability parcels within existing commercial, residential, and public service land use areas; these areas are not known or expected to function ecologically as significant wildlife movement linkages or nursery sites for the reasons discussed previously. Although the Area Plan includes a potential new community riverwalk adjacent to the north edge of the Trout Creek SEZ in the Lake Tahoe Community College District, if this concept is eventually implemented, SEZ encroachment would be avoided through site-specific design and implementation of applicable Area Plan policies to protect SEZ and open space. For example, the design and implementation of any future development or other projects approved under the Mid-Town Area Plan would be required to comply with Natural Resources Policy 4.2 (SEZ Mitigation) and Recreation Policies 3.1 (Stream Environment Zones) and 3.2 (Open Space). Additionally, adoption and implementation of the MidTown Area Plan would not remove or change any existing protections for biological resources, including wildlife movement corridors or nursery sites; or remove or modify existing project-level environmental review requirements related to wildlife movement corridors, nursery sites, or other biological resources for future projects approved under the Mid-Town Area Plan.
Environmental Analysis: No impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
e) Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Adoption and implementation of the Mid-Town Area Plan would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources in the City. No specific developments or projects are proposed or analyzed in this program-level document. All future projects approved under the MidTown Area Plan that could affect biological resources would require project-specific environmental review, and compliance with all applicable laws, policies, and ordinances, similar to that under the existing planning and regulatory framework. For example, future projects that require tree removal 755
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 106 would require compliance with the provisions set forth in the TRPA Code Chapter 61 (Section 61.1, “Tree Removal”). The TRPA Code and Mid-Town Area Plan include policies to preserve trees 30 inches diameter at breast height (dbh) or greater if they do not interfere with design standards. To strengthen this policy, the Mid-Town Area Plan includes an allowance for a staff waiver of certain development standards to preserve trees if the changes do not cause adverse impacts (see the “Landscaping” standards section in Appendix A, “Development and Design Standards,” of the Area Plan).
Project-level design and planning, environmental analysis, and compliance with existing TRPA regulations and policies, and proposed Area Plan policies, would identify potentially significant tree removal; minimize or avoid those impacts through the design, siting, and permitting process; and provide mitigation for any significant effects as a condition of project approval and permitting.
Environmental Analysis: No impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
f) Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
The plan area is not located in an area covered by an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state conservation plan.
Therefore, the adoption and implementation of the Mid-Town Area Plan would have no impact on the provisions of any adopted or approved conservation plan.
Environmental Analysis: No impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
4. VEGETATION (TRPA)
a. Will the proposal result in removal of native vegetation in excess of the area utilized for the actual development permitted by the land capability/IPES system? The proposal will not result in the removal of native vegetation beyond the area utilized for the actual development permitted by the land capability/IPES system. For future projects reviewed and approved under the Mid-Town Area Plan , any construction-related disturbance shall be limited to the building site with protection measures to ensure vegetation outside the development site is not removed. Where new urban uses would occur within a forested setting as a result of the proposed plan, vegetation removal necessary for actual development would include wildfire resilience treatment, such as the creation of defensible space consistent with City Code Chapter 5.30, “Hazardous Vegetation and Defensible Space,” California Public Resources Code Section 4291, and TRPA Code Chapter 61, “Vegetation and Forest Health.” Consistent with existing conditions, vegetation surrounding the construction site of any permitted project would be required to comply with Section 33.6, “Vegetation Protection During Construction,” of the TRPA Code. Protective requirements include installation of temporary construction fencing, standards for tree removal and tree protection, standards for soil and vegetation protection, and revegetation of disturbed areas.
756
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 107 Environmental Analysis: No impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
b. Will the proposal result in removal of riparian vegetation or other vegetation associated with critical wildlife habitat, either through direct removal or indirect lowering of the groundwater table?
The Mid-Town Area Plan does not alter regulations pertaining to riparian vegetation, groundwater tables, or critical wildlife habitat. TRPA regulations prohibit the approval of any development requiring water unless there is adequate water supply within an existing water right (Section 32.4.1 of the TRPA Code). Additionally, Section 33.3.6 of the TRPA Code prohibits excavation that intercepts or interferes with groundwater except under specific circumstances and with prior approval by TRPA (Section 33.3.6.A.2). For these reasons, consistent with existing conditions, projects approved under the Mid-Town Area Plan would not directly or indirectly lower the groundwater table.
Furthermore, functioning riparian environments are classified as SEZ, which are prohibited from being developed. TRPA Code of Ordinances 61.3.3. prohibits projects or activities within SEZ that would convert the land to a non-native or artificial state, including, but not limited to, clearing biomass, thinning vegetation, or modifying vegetation communities; some exceptions are provided.
TRPA Code of Ordinances 62.3.3 prohibits the loss of any habitat component considered critical to the survival of a particular wildlife species. The Mid-Town Area Plan would comply with the TRPA Code and therefore would not remove vegetation associated with critical wildlife habitat.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
c. Will the proposal result in introduction of new vegetation that will require excessive fertilizer or water, or will provide a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? All projects reviewed and approved under the Mid-Town Area Plan shall incorporate landscaping for curb appeal; soil stabilization; screening of mechanical equipment; mitigation of noise and air quality impacts; and enhancement of outdoor spaces to reflect the Tahoe region’s natural character. Generally, native species require less fertilizer and water than non-native species. Plant species not found on the TRPA Recommended Native and Adapted Plant List may be used only as accent plantings. Such plants shall be limited to borders, entryways, flowerbeds, and other similar locations to provide accents to the overall native or adapted landscape design. All dominantly used species shall be listed in the TRPA Recommended Native and Adapted Plant List. Species identified as invasive plant species in the TRPA BMP Handbook shall never be used. In addition, the existing Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance requires vegetation maintenance plans to provide the appropriate amount of water to support the long-term growth of landscape, using efficient watering methods.
Vegetation shall also be suited for the portions of any parcel used for snow storage. Particularly, landscaping within snow storage areas must be native and locally adapted species tolerant of snow storage such as perennials that die annually and shrubs or trees that can bend (but not break) with 757
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 108 snow load (see the “Snow Storage” standards section in Appendix A, “Development and Design Standards,” of the Area Plan).
Where uses may include substantial fertilizer, such as nursery operations, TRPA Code of Ordinances 60.1.8, Fertilizer Management, is referenced. This section of the Code discusses provisions for fertilizer management and preparation of fertilizer management plans that address the type, quantity, and frequency of use of fertilizers. Compliance with the Code is required, so no environmental impact related to fertilizer would occur.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
d. Will the proposal result in change in the diversity or distribution of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, micro flora, and aquatic plants)? See discussions for CEQA Questions IV.a through c, above.
Environmental Analysis: No impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
e. Will the proposal result in reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants?
See discussion for CEQA Question IV.a, above.
Environmental Analysis: No impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
f. Will the proposal result in removal of stream bank and/or backshore vegetation, including woody vegetation such as willows?
TRPA Code of Ordinances 85.7 is applicable to the Mid-Town Area Plan, which states the following:
“Indigenous vegetation, appropriate to the backshore shall not be removed or damaged in the backshore, unless otherwise authorized under TRPA permit pursuant to Section 85.5 or subsection
61.3.3. Landscaping installed for the purpose of scenic quality may be maintained pursuant to subsection 61.3.3. Species used in the backshore for revegetation or landscaping shall be those listed on the TRPA-approved plant list as species appropriate for the backshore type and site conditions (e.g. barrier beach, sedimentary bluff).”
See additional analysis for TRPA Questions 4.a through c, above.
Environmental Analysis: No impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
g. Will the proposal result in removal of any native live, dead or dying trees 30 inches or greater in diameter at breast height (dbh) within TRPA's Conservation or Recreation land use classifications?
758
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 109 The Mid-Town Area Plan contains 4.7 acres of conservation land and approximately 300 acres of recreation land as identified in TRPA’s Regional Plan Conceptual Land Use Map. TRPA Code of Ordinances 61.3.7 shall apply to any future projects proposed within these land use classifications.
Trees 30 inches or greater in dbh within such land use classifications shall only be cut if a TRPA forester identifies an appropriate exception included in Section 61.3.7 of the TRPA Code. See discussion in CEQA checklist item IV.e, above, for additional analysis and policy discussion related to tree removal and protection of trees 30 inches or greater in dbh.
Environmental Analysis: No impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
h. Will the proposal result in a change in the natural functioning of an old growth ecosystem? See analysis for TRPA Question 4.g. above.
Environmental Analysis: No impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
5. WILDLIFE (TRPA)
a. Will the proposal result in change in the diversity or distribution of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms, insects, mammals, amphibians or microfauna)? Adoption and implementation of the proposed Mid-Town Area Plan would not disturb or remove any animal species or occurrences, or significant habitats for any species; cause a physical change in habitat distribution, suitability, or availability for any species; remove or change any existing protections for biological resources; or remove or modify existing project-level environmental review requirements related to biological resources for future projects approved under the MidTown Area Plan because the Area Plan would comply with Chapters 62 and 63 of the TRPA Code.
The Mid-Town Area Plan does not alter regulations that pertain to maintaining the distribution, abundance, and diversity of native animal species. The resource management provisions contained in Chapters 60 through 68 of the TRPA Code will remain applicable. Consistent with existing conditions, permit applicants would be required to demonstrate that any proposals would be designed and implemented consistently with TRPA Code provisions related to resource management, including specifically the provisions of Chapters 62 and 63 that address protection of wildlife and fish resources, respectively.
Environmental Analysis: No impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
b. Will the proposal result in reduction of the number of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals?
See analysis from TRPA Question 5.a, and CEQA Question IV.a, above.
Environmental Analysis: No impact.
759
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 110 Required Mitigation: None.
c. Will the proposal result in Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals?
See analysis from TRPA Question 5.a. above.
Environmental Analysis: No impact.
Required Mitigation: None
d. Will the proposal result in deterioration of existing fish or wildlife habitat quantity or quality?
See analysis from TRPA Question 5.a, and CEQA Question IV.d, above.
Environmental Analysis: No impact.
Required Mitigation: None
V. CULTURAL RESOURCES (CEQA)
a) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource pursuant to in §15064.5?
This potential effect is the same as those analyzed in the City General Plan Update and therefore the analysis is tiered from and is consistent with the General Plan EIR.
All items within the plan area and included on the Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) maintained by California State Parks’ Office of Historic Preservation have been deemed ineligible for National Register (NR) by consensus through the Section 106 process, though they have not been evaluated for the California Register (CR) or local listing (California Office of Historic Preservation).
In addition to state historic review, the City and TRPA have historic resource protection policies and standards in place that are designed to ensure that known and undiscovered prehistoric resources, historic resources and human remains are not impacted by a project, activity, or soil disturbance.
Policies within the Mid-Town Area Plan direct procedures around historic resources to encourage preservation where feasible, and mitigation where preservation is not feasible. The following policies are proposed to support the Area Plan’s Art, Cultural, and Historic Resources Goal 3 – Appreciate and recognize cultural and historic resources within the Mid-Town plan area. • Policy 3.1 Archeological Discoveries Treat all newly discovered archeological finds as significant resources until evidence to the contrary has been provided. • Policy 3.2 Paleontological Discoveries Treat all newly discovered paleontological finds as significant resources until evidence to the contrary has been provided. • Policy 3.3 Resource Preservation Where feasible, preserve or restore cultural and historic resources. Where preservation is not feasible, require mitigation for the loss of the resource that preserves public access and provides education.
760
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 111 Policies and practices that exist and are proposed as part of the Area Plan will ensure proper assessment of newly identified historical resources and result in a less than significant impact.
Environmental Analysis: Less than significant impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
b) Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
General Plan Policy NCR-4.5 requires applicants and contractors for projects and other ground disturbing activities to notify the City if human remains are discovered and for all work to halt. The County Coroner shall be notified pursuant to California’s Public Resources Code and Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, and the procedures outlined in CEQA Section 15064.5(d) and (e) shall be followed.
See CEQA Question V.a. above for additional analysis, supporting a less than significant impact.
Environmental Analysis: Less than significant impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
c) Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of dedicated cemeteries?
The State, City and TRPA have historic resource protection policies and standards in place that are designed to ensure known and undiscovered prehistoric resources, historic resources, and human remains are not impacted because of a project, activity, or soil disturbance.
General Plan Policy NCR-4.1 and NCR-4.2 directs the City to designate and preserve sites of historical, cultural, and architectural significance within the City and Section 67.3.4 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances prohibits soil disturbance in areas where designated historic resources are present.
General Plan Policy NCR-4.3 requires archeological investigations for all applicable discretionary projects, in accordance with CEQA regulations, for areas not previously surveyed and/or that are determined sensitive for cultural resources. The City requires the preservation of discovered archeologically-significant resources in place if feasible, or provide mitigation prior to further disturbance. Section 67.3.1 requires projects and activities to cease all operations if a potential archeological, cultural, or historical resource is discovered, and a site survey to be performed by a qualified archaeologist to evaluate the potential for significance of the resource.
General Plan Policy NCR-4.5 and Mid-Town Area Plan Policy 3.4 require applicants and contractors for projects and other ground disturbance activities to notify the City if human remains are discovered and for all work to halt. The County Corner shall be notified pursuant to State Public Resources Code and California’s Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. If the remains are determined to be Native American, the coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission, and the procedures outlined in CEQA Section 15064.5(d) and (e) shall be followed. 761
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 112 Section 67.3.2 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances requires a site survey to be performed by a qualified archaeologist within a project area of known or newly discovered sites of cultural and/or historic significance prior to TRPA project approval. The standard also requires consultation with the Washoe Tribe of California and Nevada for the presence of Washoe sites. If resources are discovered and deemed significant, then soil disturbance activity is prohibited until a resource protection plan is prepared that includes measures to protect the resource.
Implementation of the policies and standards listed above would ensure that cultural and ethnic values of known and undiscovered prehistoric resources, historic resources and human remains would not be impacted. Thus, this would be a less than significant impact.
Environmental Analysis: Less than significant impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
XVIII. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES (CEQA)
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code § 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or The Mid-Town Area Plan does not alter regulations pertaining to cultural resources. Pursuant to AB 52, the City of South Lake Tahoe sent notification letters to the Ione Band of Miwok Indians, Washoe Tribe of California and Nevada, Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, and the United Auburn Indian Community on January 22, 2025. No response has been received. Additionally, on August 22, 2024, and August 12, 2025, City staff reached out directly to the Washoe Tribal Historic Preservation Office (THPO), providing information about the plan’s goals and development process.
The specific goal of this outreach was to develop policies for protection, preservation, and appreciation of cultural resources alongside the THPO. City staff offered to collaboratively explore ways to use the plan as a tool for the Washoe tribe to raise awareness of locations of significance, as well as requested correspondence regarding or access to review records associated with cultural resources.
City staff relied on past communications with the Washoe Tribe in which it was shared there is a strong mission to preserve the Washoe language. To assist in achieving this goal, traditional Washoe place names are incorporated in all land use figures in the Mid-Town Area Plan.
Documentation previously provided to the City by the Washoe Tribe’s Culture/Language Resources Director was used. Art, Cultural, and Historic Resources Goal 2 of the Mid-Town Area Plan - Collaborate with underrepresented communities to foster pride, awareness, and appreciation of different cultures within the South Lake Tahoe community-includes the following policies to ensure efforts to collaborate with the Washoe Tribe are carried out through projects in the plan area. • Policy 2.1 Washoe Representation Through consultation with the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California, identify appropriate opportunities where public art may assist in preservation and appreciation of indigenous knowledge and culture. 762
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 113 • Policy 2.2 Education Identify education opportunities for natural resources used by indigenous peoples for medicine, food, or tools.
• Policy 2.4 Place Naming Consider appropriate areas to formally reinstate place names as originally identified by the Washoe Tribe.
City staff identified the following areas that may be considered culturally and historically significant by the Washoe Tribe, though may not necessarily be geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape as described in Public Resources Code § 21074:
• Archaeological sites such as prehistoric camps, tool-making areas, seasonal or permanent habitation sites, and travel corridors
• Sacred sites or places with ceremonial or spiritual significance • Burial locations or ceremonial sites possibly containing human remains and associated funerary objects
• Plant gathering areas and fishing/hunting locations used traditionally for food, medicine, or basketry materials
• Water-related cultural places connected to Lake Tahoe, streams, springs, and wetlands Based on these categories, the Mid-Town Area Plan contains the following policies under Art, Cultural, and Historic Resources Goal 3 – Appreciate and recognize cultural and historic resources within the Mid-Town plan area.
• Policy 3.1 Archeological Discoveries Treat all newly discovered archeological finds as significant resources until evidence to the contrary has been provided. • Policy 3.2 Paleontological Discoveries Treat all newly discovered paleontological finds as significant resources until evidence to the contrary has been provided. • Policy 3.3 Resource Preservation Where feasible, preserve or restore cultural and historic resources. Where preservation is not feasible, require mitigation for the loss of the resource that preserves public access and provides education.
• Policy 3.4 Human Remain Discovery Require projects or ground disturbance activities be halted should human remains be discovered. Follow state procedures regarding notifying the County Coroner and the Native American Heritage Commission and Washoe Tribe should the remains be determined to be indigenous.
Federal and state regulations, TRPA Code Chapter 67, and City General Plan policies also address protection of tribal cultural resources and provide processes to avoid or minimize impacting such resources. Included in the existing Codes and policies are measures to identify tribal cultural resources discovered during ground-disturbing construction activities and protect those deemed by the tribes to have unique ethnic values. Project development within the plan area will be required to comply with federal and state regulations, TRPA Code and General Plan policies during project-specific review, and therefore, would not alter or adversely affect tribal cultural resources.
Environmental Analysis: Less than significant impact.
Required Mitigation: None
763
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 114 b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resource Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe.
See discussion above for CEQA Question XVIII.A.
Environmental Analysis: Less than significant impact.
Required Mitigation: None
20. ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL (TRPA)
a. Will the proposal result in an alteration of or adverse physical or aesthetic effect to a significant archaeological or historical site, structure, object or building? This potential effect is the same as those analyzed in the City General Plan Update and therefore the analysis is tiered from and is consistent with the General Plan EIR. Also see discussion and analysis for CEQA Question V.c. above. The Mid-Town Area Plan does not propose to change existing regulations regarding the protection of archaeological or historical site, structure, object or buildings. Policies within the Plan support existing TRPA and City policies and efforts to recognize, preserve, and mitigate significant archaeological or historical sites.
As part of the 56 Acres Master Plan, a NCIC records search and pedestrian survey determined that there were no prehistoric or historic-period archeological resources within the 56 acres site.
The Mid-Town Area Plan would accommodate development, which could occur on properties that include known historical or archaeological resources; be associated with historically significant events or individuals; or result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a significant historical or archaeological site, structure, object, or building. Additionally, development permitted within the plan area could result in physical changes that would affect unique ethnic cultural values or restrict historic or prehistoric religious or sacred uses. However, federal and state regulations, TRPA Code (Chapter 67) and General Plan policies address protection of these resources and provide processes to avoid or minimize impacts on historic and archaeological resources. Because any development associated with the Mid-Town Area Plan would be required to comply with these regulations, consistent with existing practices, it would not alter or adversely affect archeological or historical resources. Thus, this would have a less than significant impact.
Environmental Analysis: Yes, less than significant.
Required Mitigation: None.
b. Is the proposed project located on a property with any known cultural, historical, and/or archaeological resources, including resources on TRPA or other regulatory official maps or records?
The plan area contains parcels and sites that are historically significant. Some of these have been determined as such by TRPA and some may remain unidentified pending a historic determination analysis. Prior to demolition or major changes to an existing structure of 50 years or older, a TRPA 764
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 115 historic determination is required. This process includes input from the SHPO, the Washoe Tribe, and other land management agencies or interested parties. Should a structure be determined to be historically significant, mitigation options may be explored to appropriately preserve or commemorate the site, structure, or other resource.
All projects determined to be historically significant are subject to TRPA Code of Ordinances Chapter 67, Historic Resource Protection. This includes compliance with the U.S. Secretary of Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties with Guidelines for Preserving, Rehabilitating, Restoring, and Reconstructing Historic Buildings when a project involves the construction, reconstruction, repair, or maintenance of a historic resource.
Also see analysis for CEQA Questions V.a. and V.b.
Environmental Analysis: Yes, less than significant.
Required Mitigation: None.
c. Is the property associated with any historically significant events and/or sites or persons? See analysis for CEQA Questions V.a, V.b, and TRPA Question 20.b.
Environmental Analysis: Yes, less than significant.
Required Mitigation: None.
d. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
See analysis for CEQA Questions V.a-c and TRPA Question 20.b.
Environmental Analysis: Yes, less than significant.
Required Mitigation: None.
e. Will the proposal restrict historic or pre-historic religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area?
See analysis for CEQA Questions V.a-c and TRPA Question 20.b.
Environmental Analysis: Yes, less than significant.
Required Mitigation: None.
VI. ENERGY (CEQA)
a) Would the project result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
All development permitted under the Mid-Town Area Plan would occur in accordance with the existing Regional Plan and California Building Code. To maintain consistency with the 2011 City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan, Table LU-2 (Development Intensity Standards) must be amended to permit up to 65 residential units per acre in Town Centers, Neighborhood Centers, High Density 765
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 116 Residential, and Recreation land use designations. Because the Area Plan is a joint City/TRPA document, density must also be consistent with TRPA Coe of Ordinances Chapters 13 and 31. The Area Plan will allow up to 65 units per acre when and if these TRPA sections are amended to allow such densities. The densities as noted in the area plan are only allowed to the extent they are lower than the maximum densities as set by TRPA Code of Ordinances Table 13.5.3-1 or as subsequently amended. General Plan Land Use Diagram LU-1 must also be amended to maintain consistency with changes to MTAP Zoning District boundaries. New construction would require electric and natural gas services as part of the basic services (Chapter 32 of the TRPA Code). See TRPA item
15.a. for additional analysis.
Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
b) Would the project conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
See TRPA Question 15.a. below which determines a less than significant impact.
Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
15.ENERGY (TRPA)
a. Will the proposal result in use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? All development permitted under the Mid-Town Area Plan would occur in accordance with the Regional Plan. New construction would require electric and natural gas services as part of the basic services per Chapter 32 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances. Existing electric and gas infrastructure is available throughout the entire plan area. Approximately 80% of the plan area is developed and already receives such services. Additionally, projects requiring new or modified connections would be subject to the applicable utility providers' requirements and fees.
The utility companies project that, based on their forecasting and recent growth trends, the available capacity would far exceed the demand generated at build-out of the Regional Plan (TRPA 2012a, p. 3.13-20). Development within the Mid-Town plan area would not result in growth beyond limits of the Regional Plan’s growth management system, ensuring consistency with progress toward environmental thresholds.
Developments within the plan area are encouraged to use sustainable building practices and obtain green building certifications, for which incentives are provided. New developments or redevelopment under the area plan, even if standard building codes are used, would be more efficient than existing developments of a similar nature.
Environmental Analysis: No.
Required Mitigation: None.
b. Will the proposal result in substantial increase in demand upon existing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy?
766
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 117 See discussion in TRPA Question 15.a. above that concludes that the available capacity would far exceed the demand generated at build-out of the TRPA Regional Plan. The Mid-Town Area Plan is consistent with the TRPA Regional Plan and falls under such analyses.
Environmental Analysis: No.
Required Mitigation: None.
VII. GEOLOGY AND SOILS (CEQA)
a) Would the project directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
While the Tahoe Basin experiences moderate frequency seismic activity, there are no faults within the plan area. The California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application ("EQ Zapp"), which was most recently updated on September 23, 2021, does not show any fault zones intersecting any parcel within the Mid-Town Area Plan’s boundary.
All structures subject to the California Building Code shall be built to or to exceed requirements for seismic Zone D. This category corresponds to areas that may experience severe ground shaking despite not being close to a major fault. The City’s permitting of structures adheres to current requirements of the California Building Code (CBC). CBC Section 1803 requires geotechnical investigations for new structures under a variety of scenarios. Future development in the area would also be subject to the restrictions contained in Section 33.3.6 of the TRPA Code or Ordinances related to excavation.
Excavation in excess of 5 feet requires a soils/hydrologic report be prepared to identify and remedy possible groundwater interception or interference. The report also serves to help identify the potential for ground failure.
Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
ii) Strong seismic ground shaking?
The analysis for this item is the same as that for CEQA Question VII.a.i. above. The City and State’s existing permitting procedures ensure new construction will have minimal risk of loss, injury, or death resulting from seismic ground shaking.
Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 767
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 118 Risk of liquefaction is higher along waterways and stream environment zones where there are high groundwater levels. High ground water levels that can contribute to the potential for ground failure particularly during excavation and construction of below-grade structures (CSLT 2010, pp, 4.8-28 to 4.8-29). Hazards associated with seismic-related ground failure are also regulated by the CBC standards which are adopted in Chapter 6.15 of the City Code to ensure that structures area properly designed and constructed to withstand anticipated ground failure. See answer for CEQA Question VII.a.i. above for supporting analysis.
The California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application ("EQ Zapp"), last updated September 23, 2021, does not show any liquefaction zones intersecting any parcel within the Mid-Town Area Plan’s boundary. The California Department of Conservation CGS Seismic Hazards Program: Liquefaction Zones MapService, as of the most recent update on February 11, 2022, does not include data for the City of South Lake Tahoe.
Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
iv) Landslides?
Landslide risk was assessed in the City of South Lake Tahoe’s 2022 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) which determined the probability of landslides and debris flow to be of “medium” significance (moderate potential impact). The probability of landslide occurrences within the City is high but limited in geographic extent, and further limited with the plan area. Figure 4-23 (page 4-106) in the LHMP contains a landslide susceptibility map showing three primary locations within the plan area that are identified as Class VI or VII susceptibility. These are contained within Bijou Park, Bijou Golf Course, and the South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD) facilities. The steepest slope within the plan area is within STPUD property, at approximately 20%. These locations present low risk, as they do not contain dwelling units.
The City of South Lake Tahoe has never declared a disaster due to landslides and no deaths have occurred due to landslides. The California Department of Conservation’s Geological Survey reports two landslides in recent records within the sphere of influence of the City, though none within City limits. Both incidents were along US Highway 50 entering the Lake Tahoe Basin.
• April 9, 2021 – Rockfall covered Highway 50 near Echo Summit with large boulders.
One vehicle collided with boulders and overturned.
• December 2, 2019 – 2 miles south of Echo Summit boulders covered westbound lane of US-50.
The California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application ("EQ Zapp"), last updated September 23, 2021, does not show any landslide zones intersecting any parcel within the Mid-Town Area Plan’s boundary.
768
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 119 Please also refer to the analysis for VII.c. below for permitting practices of the City of South Lake Tahoe that ensure structures are not built on unstable soils or result in unstable soils or landslides.
Historical records and permitting processes create a less than significant impact.
Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
b) Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Please see analysis for CEQA Questions VII.c, 1.a, 1.b, and 1.c. regarding soils fit for development.
Limitations to soil conditions, disturbance, and coverage are discussed in item 1, land. Best management practices (BMPs) are required on all developed parcels to ensure the volume from a 20-year, one-hour storm can be infiltrated onsite, lessening the chances of runoff and associated negative water quality effects. BMPs are discussed further in item X, hydrology and water quality.
Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
c) Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? Various measures are included in the City of South Lake Tahoe’s review and permitting practices to ensure that structures will not be built on unstable soils or result in unstable soils or landslides. The City’s permitting of structures adheres to current requirements of the California Building Code (CBC) and International Building Code. CBC Section 1803 requires geotechnical investigations for new structures under a variety of scenarios; however, South Lake Tahoe is in Seismic Zone D where a geotechnical investigation is mandatory for all buildings. This preliminary step prevents harm to people and property by ensuring that project areas are property suited for the proposed development.
See further discussions in section VII, a. There are no faults within the plan area. The California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application ("EQ Zapp"), which was most recently updated on September 23, 2021, does not show any fault zones intersecting any parcel within the Mid-Town Area Plan’s boundary. The California Earthquake Hazards Zone Application ("EQ Zapp"), last updated September 23, 2021, does not show any liquefaction zones intersecting any parcel within the Mid-Town Area Plan’s boundary. The California Department of Conservation CGS Seismic Hazards Program: Liquefaction Zones MapService, as of the most recent update on February 11, 2022, does not include data for the City of South Lake Tahoe. Landslides are rare, with only two occurring in recent records, neither of which was within City limits.
Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
769
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 120 d) Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property? For this item see analysis for CEQA Question VII.c. provided above. South Lake Tahoe is in Seismic Zone D where a geotechnical investigation is mandatory for all buildings. Additionally, the Building Official may require further soil tests to determine if expansive soils are present in the project area.
If expansive soils are present, a project may be developed only when the soil is stabilized or when foundations and structures meet additional standards. With such practices in place, the risk of direct or indirect risks to life or property due to expansive soil is not significant.
Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
e) Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act requires all sewage and wastewater to be disposed of outside the Lake Tahoe Basin; therefore, the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal is prohibited in the Lake Tahoe Basin including within the Mid-Town plan area.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
f) Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature?
This potential effect is the same as that analyzed in the City General Plan Update and therefore the analysis is tiered from and is consistent with the General Plan EIR.
A search of the University of California, Berkeley Museum of Paleontology collections database identified two locales of fossilized invertebrates within the Lake Tahoe Region (2490) of El Dorado County. The information readily available in the database does not specify the location at which the finding was made. Out of the instances of 3,956 specimens found in El Dorado County, these are the only two within the Lake Tahoe region (University of California Museum of Paleontology, n.d.). As discussed in the Environmental Impact Statement for the 2012 Regional Plan Update, fossils are most often found in sedimentary rock formations (Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 2012). Much of the Tahoe region was created by geologic uplift with shallow surface soils. Sedimentary rock formations are uncommon in these conditions, making major paleontological resources unlikely to occur.
It is possible that ground-disturbing activities as a result of the Mid-Town Area Plan could uncover previously unknown paleontological resources. Policies within the Mid-Town Area Plan provide direction to treat all newly discovered archeological and paleontological finds as significant resources until evidence to the contrary has been provided. Preservation is required where feasible.
Where preservation is not feasible, mitigation for the loss of the resource that preserves public access and provides education is required. The following Mid-Town Area Plan policies apply:
770
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 121 • Policy 3.1 Archeological Discoveries Treat all newly discovered archeological finds as significant resources until evidence to the contrary has been provided. • Policy 3.2 Paleontological Discoveries Treat all newly discovered paleontological finds as significant resources until evidence to the contrary has been provided. • Policy 3.3 Resource Preservation Where feasible, preserve or restore cultural and historic resources. Where preservation is not feasible, require mitigation for the loss of the resource that preserves public access and provides education.
• Policy 3.4 Human Remain Discovery Require projects or ground disturbance activities be halted should human remains be discovered. Follow state procedures regarding notifying the County Coroner and the Native American Heritage Commission and Washoe Tribe should the remains be determined to be indigenous.
Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
1. LAND (TRPA)
a. Will the proposal result in compaction or covering of the soil beyond the limits allowed in the land capability or Individual Parcel Evaluation System (IPES)? The Mid-Town Area Plan implements coverage limitations according to TRPA Code of Ordinances Chapters 13, Areas Plans, and Chapter 30, Land Coverage. Chapter 13 grants local jurisdictions the authority, through an area plan, to make modifications to the boundaries of Town Centers, Regional Center and High-Density Tourist District. TRPA Code 3.5.3.B.1 allows a local jurisdiction, through an area plan, to implement a comprehensive coverage management system as an alternative to the parcel-level coverage requirements. The Mid-Town Area Plan proposes an alternative system in place of TRPA Code 30.4.1.C.3.c.
Town Center modification shall comply with the following:
1. Boundaries of Centers shall be drawn to include only properties that are developed, unless undeveloped parcels proposed for inclusion have either at least three sides of their boundary adjacent to developed parcels (for four-sided parcels), or 75 percent of their boundary adjacent to developed parcels (for non-four-sided parcels). For purposes of this requirement, a parcel shall be considered developed if it includes any of the following: 30 percent or more of allowed coverage already existing on site or an approved but unbuilt project that proposes to meet this coverage standard.
2. Properties included in a Center shall be less than 1/4 mile from existing Commercial and Public Service uses.
3. Properties included in a Center shall encourage and facilitate the use of existing or planned transit stops and transit systems.
The Mid-Town Area Plan proposes a 339-acre expansion of the Town Center consistent with the findings above. Within the Town Center, allowed coverage for high capability lands is 70%. Coverage beyond the base allowed up to the 70% limit must be transferred to the parcel based on procedures outlined in TRPA Code of Ordinances Section 30.4. Based on an areawide assessment, 771
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 122 approximately 90% of the proposed expansion is high capability land (class 7). The proposed Town Center expansion creates the potential for a maximum of 5,345,230 additional square feet of coverage within the plan area. The exact square feet of additional coverage will vary based on existing conditions and will likely be less than calculated. This number assumes that all parcels within the Town Center are redeveloped to 70% coverage; however, the actual amount of new coverage would be less due to multiple variables. The northernmost portion of the Town Center contains parcels partially or entirely within 300 feet of the high-water line of Lake Tahoe. These areas are limited to 50% coverage so long as the parcel has received a high land capability score.
Though not all parcels have undergone a coverage verification, satellite imagery shows that many parcels have existing coverage over 70%. Various parcels are estimated to be at or near 100% coverage. Additional coverage would not be allowed on such parcels; moreover, it is likely that coverage would be reduced as these parcels are redeveloped. TRPA Code of Ordinances 30.6 discusses the excess land coverage mitigation program. Excess coverage is most often mitigated by retiring coverage or paying an excess coverage mitigation fee, both of which contribute to threshold attainment. The reduction of coverage ensures the coverage system is upheld, while mitigation fees contribute to stream restoration projects throughout the region. Stream restoration projects often remove coverage from sensitive lands and restore SEZs to functioning states.
The increased potential coverage within the Mid-Town plan area would not increase the overall existing coverage in the Tahoe Basin, as it must be relocated from other regions. Any coverage that is relocated or transferred to a different parcel must follow proper transfer procedures or be mitigated according to TRPA Code of Ordinances Section 30.4. This section incentivizes the transfer of coverage from sensitive lands, resulting in a net environmental benefit through the creation of open space, facilitation of vegetation, and the possibility of restoring stream environment zones.
When the receiving parcel is above 50% coverage, additional coverage is transferred in a manner that results in a net reduction of coverage as set forth in Table 30.4.3-1 of TRPA Code of Ordinances.
The Mid-Town Area Plan proposes an alternative system per TRPA Code 3.5.3.B.1. in place of TRPA Code 30.4.1.C.3.c. The system only applies to public service uses on parcels or project areas of more than one-third of an acre. It allows all base allowable land coverage attributed to Land Capability Districts 1 through 3 to be placed within any Land Capability District 4 through 7.
Additionally, all base allowable land coverage attributed to Land Capability Districts 4 through 6 may be placed within any higher land capability district. This coverage system results in an overall reduction to base allowed coverage, as coverage equal to 5 percent of the coverage used in a higher land capability district shall be permanently retired. This meets the requirements of TRPA Code
3.5.3.B.1 that the coverage system shall: “reduce the total coverage and not increase the cumulative base allowable coverage in the area covered by the comprehensive coverage management system; 2) reduce the total amount of coverage and not increase the cumulative base allowable coverage in Land Capability Districts 1 and 2; and 3) not increase the amount of coverage otherwise allowed within 300 feet of high water of Lake Tahoe.” While all public service uses over one-third of an acre may use this coverage system, it would only be applicable where there are various land capability districts within the project area or parcel.
Sites and uses that may benefit from the development of this coverage system include Lake Tahoe Community College, South Tahoe Public Utility District, and Bijou Park and Golf Course. Rather than using coverage in lower capability districts, this approach encourages consolidating coverage 772
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 123 in high capability zones and minimizing sprawl within project areas. The proposed system encourages coverage to be used in high capability areas, leading to a potential reduction of coverage in low capability land districts.
An analysis of the South Tahoe Public Utility District project area demonstrates the potential to permanently retire 15,682 square feet of coverage. The project area contains 24 acres of land capability district 6, or 313,632 square feet of class 6 base allowable coverage. Using this coverage within land capability district 6 would result in improvements far from the existing plant that would require significant coverage for vehicle access and possibly an additional access point. Under the proposed coverage system this coverage may be used within land capability district 7 where the existing water treatment infrastructure exists. The relocation of class 6 coverage to land capability district 7 would result in the retirement of 15,682 square feet of class 6 coverage.
Redevelopment incentives included in the Mid-Town Area Plan have the potential to address illegal, excess, and otherwise nonconforming coverage. Each redevelopment project would require coverage be assessed and mitigated where necessary. Mitigation may include removing illegal coverage or paying excess coverage mitigation fees where the coverage was legally created prior to the establishment of TRPA.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
b. Will the proposal result in a change in the topography or ground surface relief features of site inconsistent with the natural surrounding conditions? The Mid-Town Area Plan does not propose changes to grading regulations or other construction activities. Projects reviewed under the Mid-Town Area Plan would be required to comply with the provisions of Chapter 33, “Grading and Construction,” of the TRPA Code and Chapters 7.15 and
7.20 of the City Code. Chapter 33 includes specific provisions for timing of grading, winterization of construction sites, specifications for cut and fills areas, protection of vegetation during construction, and preparation of a Slope Stabilization Plan for projects at the request of TRPA.
Additionally, in accordance with Section 7.15.100 of the City Code, all projects are required to implement temporary best management practices (BMPs) in accordance with the Handbook of Best Management Practices and maintained throughout the construction period until winterization and installation of permanent BMPs once construction has been finalized.
For additional analysis, see previous discussions for CEQA Questions VII.a. through VII.d.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
c. Will the proposal result in unstable soil conditions during or after completion of the proposal?
See previous discussions for CEQA Questions VII.a. through VII.d.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
773
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 124 Required Mitigation: None.
d. Will the proposal result in changes in the undisturbed soil or native geologic substructures or grading in excess of 5 feet?
This analysis is tiered from the 2012 Regional Plan Update Environmental Impact Statement. See pages S-47 and 3.7-4 through 3.7-5.
The Mid-Town Area Plan does not propose changes to existing grading, excavation, or ground disturbance requirements and policies. While projects will cause soil disturbance and may change substructures or include excavation beyond 5 feet in depth, they will be subject to existing provisions of TRPA Code of Ordinances. Per TRPA Code of Ordinances Section 33.3.6 all projects including excavations more than 5 feet in depth shall provide for staff review a soils/hydrologic report. Such projects may only be approved if it is demonstrated that there will be no interference or interception of groundwater, that no damage will occur to mature trees which are meant to be maintained, that excavated materials are properly disposed of, and that natural topography is maintained to the extent feasible. Projects with excavation less than 5 feet in depth may be subject to this section should there be a reasonable possibility of groundwater interference or interception occurring.
Additionally, all projects are subject to Chapter 7.20 of the South Lake Tahoe City Code. The purpose of this chapter is, per SLTCC Section 7.20.020: “(1) Regulating grading on both public and private property within the city of South Lake Tahoe to safeguard life, limb, health, property and public welfare; (2) To avoid pollution of watercourses with hazardous materials, nutrients, sediments, or other earthen materials generated on or caused by surface runoff or by aerial deposition of pollutants generated from the permit area on or across the permit area; and (3) To ensure that the intended use of a graded site is consistent with the city of South Lake Tahoe general plan, any specific plans adopted thereto and applicable city of South Lake Tahoe ordinances including the zoning ordinance, flood damage prevention ordinance, environmental review ordinance and applicable chapters of the California Building Code.” Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
e. Will the proposal result in the continuation of or increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site?
See previous discussions for CEQA Questions VII.a. through VII.d.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
f. Will the proposal result in changes in deposition or erosion of beach sand, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion, including natural littoral processes, which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of a lake?
For a discussion of design standards specific to the shorezone of the Mid-Town Area Plan, see items TRPA Questions I.c. and 18.c. The existing land capability system ensures that environmentally 774
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 125 sensitive areas and those with active water channels are not developed or impacted by nearby development. Functioning riparian environments are classified as stream environment zones, which are prohibited from being developed. TRPA Code of Ordinances 61.3.3. prohibits projects or activities within SEZ that would convert the land to a non-native or artificial state, including, but not limited to, clearing biomass, thinning vegetation, or modifying vegetation communities. Some exceptions are provided.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
g. Will the proposal result in exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, backshore erosion, avalanches, mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards?
See discussion for all items under item VII. Geology and Soils. This section discusses that there are no active faults within the plan area and the Local Hazard Mitigation Plan’s identification of landslides as a “medium” overall significance (City-wide). The section also discusses the current regulations and requirements of TRPA Code of Ordinances and the California Building Code that require analysis to ensure the project area and excavation scope is appropriate for the parcel.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
VIII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS (CEQA)
Certain gases in the earth’s atmosphere, classified as greenhouse gases (GHGs), play a critical role in determining the earth’s surface temperature. Solar radiation enters the atmosphere from space, a portion of which is absorbed by the earth’s surface, and a smaller portion is reflected toward space. The absorbed radiation is then emitted from the earth as low-frequency infrared radiation.
Most solar radiation passes through GHGs; however, infrared radiation is absorbed by these gases.
As a result, radiation that otherwise would have escaped back into space is instead “trapped,” resulting in a warming of the atmosphere. This phenomenon, known as the greenhouse effect, is responsible for maintaining a habitable climate on earth.
Prominent GHGs contributing to the greenhouse effect are methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), perfluorochemicals (PFCs), sulfur hexafluoride (SF6) and hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs). Humancaused emissions of these GHGs in excess of natural ambient concentrations are found to be responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect and leading to a trend of unnatural warming of the earth’s climate, known as global climate change or global warming. It is “extremely likely” that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in GHG concentrations and other anthropogenic forcing (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2014).
Climate change is a global problem. GHGs are global pollutants, unlike criteria air pollutants and toxic air contaminants, which are pollutants of regional and local concern. Whereas most pollutants with localized air quality effects have relatively short atmospheric lifetimes (approximately 1 day), GHGs have long atmospheric lifetimes (1 year to several thousand years). 775
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 126 GHGs persist in the atmosphere long enough to be dispersed around the globe. Although the lifetime of any GHG molecule depends on multiple variables and cannot be determined with any certainty, it is understood that more carbon dioxide (CO2) is emitted into the atmosphere than is sequestered by ocean uptake, vegetation, and other forms of sequestration. Of the total annual human-caused CO2 emissions, approximately 55 percent are estimated to be sequestered through ocean and land uptake every year, averaged over the last 50 years, whereas the remaining 45 percent of human-caused CO2 emissions remain stored in the atmosphere (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2013).
The quantity of GHGs in the atmosphere responsible for climate change is not precisely known, but it is considered to be enormous. No single project alone would measurably contribute to an incremental change in the global average temperature or to global or local climates or microclimates. From the standpoint of CEQA, GHG impacts relative to global climate change are inherently cumulative.
a) Would the project generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment?
Emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change are attributable in large part to human activities associated with the industrial/manufacturing, utility, transportation, residential, and agricultural sectors. Therefore, the cumulative global emissions of GHGs contributing to global climate change can be attributed to every nation, region, and city, and virtually every individual on Earth. A project’s GHG emissions are at a micro-scale relative to global emissions but could result in a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to a significant cumulative macro-scale impact. Implementation of the Area Plan would contribute to increases of GHG emissions that are associated with global climate change. Estimated GHG emissions attributable to future development under the Area Plan would be primarily associated with increases of CO2 and other GHG pollutants, such as CH4 and N2O, from mobile sources, landscaping and construction equipment usage, and from building energy consumption.
Future development that would occur as a result of implementation of the Area Plan would include activities that emit GHG emissions over the short- and long-term. According to the City of South Lake Tahoe Climate Action Plan (CAP), the major predicted impacts of climate change in the plan area are expected to be long-term warming trends, declining snowpacks, variations in precipitation extremes, heightened tree mortality, extended droughts, higher risk of frequent and intense wildfires, changes in streamflow timing, increased algal growth in Lake Tahoe, and substantial threats of aquatic invasive species. The major sources of GHGs in the city include building energy (59 percent), transportation (32 percent), solid waste (7 percent) and water and wastewater (2 percent) (City of South Lake Tahoe, 2020). Short-term and long-term emissions typically associated with the construction and operation of future development with the Area Plan, are further described below.
Short-Term Construction Emissions
Short-term GHG emissions would occur during construction from the use of construction equipment and worker and haul trips to and from the plan area. As required under TRPA’s Standard Conditions of Approval For Grading Projects, the project would comply with the following 776
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 127 conditions to reduce GHG emissions during the grading and construction phases of the project.
Measures include:
• Limit diesel powered equipment idling time to a maximum of 5 minutes; • Utilize existing power sources (e.g. power poles) or clean-fuel generators rather than temporary diesel power generators wherever feasible;
• Use local and sustainable building materials to the extent possible.
The Area Plan incorporates Natural Resources Goal 5 and policies 5.1 and 5.3 of the Area Plan to address short-term construction emissions. These policies require individual projects to employ measures to reduce construction-related GHG emissions to the extent feasible on a projectspecific basis. Such measures may include the following:
• Implement measures recommended by the El Dorado County Air Quality Management District.
• Prohibit open burning of debris from site clearing unless involved with fuels reduction project;
• Restriction of idling of construction equipment and vehicles; and • Utilize low emission construction equipment and/or fuels and use existing power sources (e.g., power poles), wherever feasible.
These measures would reduce construction-generated GHG emissions from plan area development by limiting idling time to reduce unnecessary GHG emissions, reducing truck trips and truck VMT by reusing construction waste and demolition materials and using local and sustainable building materials, and reducing fuel consumption by using electrified or alternativefueled construction equipment when possible.
Long-Term Operational Emissions
Changes proposed in the current Mid-Town Area Plan would increase residential densities and maximum building heights to encourage residential redevelopment in the Town Center and expand the Town Center boundaries in the plan area, but would not alter the existing TRPA growth management system that caps total development in the Basin. Implementation of the Area Plan would result in development and population growth in the plan area and would contribute GHG emissions to the regional output. However, these increases attributable to the plan area would represent a shift in emissions associated with directing development within the plan area rather than other areas of the Tahoe Basin. Long-term operational sources of GHG emissions associated with subsequent projects under the Area Plan would include area sources (e.g., landscaping equipment, snow removal equipment, wood-burning appliances), mobile sources (e.g., vehicle exhaust), energy consumption (e.g., electricity and natural gas), solid waste (e.g., emissions that would occur at a landfill associated with solid waste decomposition), and water consumption (e.g., electricity used to deliver and treat water to serve the Basin).
The Mid-Town Area Plan would expand the Town Center boundary from 65 acres to 780 acres and expand both commercial and residential allowed uses throughout the area, including making multifamily dwellings allowed in all districts except the Bijou Recreation District. By increasing the total Town Center area, implementation of the Area Plan would spur redevelopment and encourage 777
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 128 residential uses in this area with the intent of creating a vibrant and walkable downtown environment. Additionally, concentrating residential development in the Town Center, moves residents closer to employment and service centers, which will provide better access to transit, sidewalks, and bicycle facilities, thereby reducing the need for auto travel and reducing daily vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled. The Area Plan would not increase the capacity for residential units in the Tahoe Basin but would incentivize the development of residential units in a concentrated area that would have otherwise been developed elsewhere in the Basin. Thus, by concentrating residential development in the Town Center of the Area Plan, where people can rely on non-motor vehicle forms of transportation, the Area Plan would result in a decrease of approximately 365 daily VMT from within the City of South Lake Tahoe and approximately 5,389 daily VMT within the Tahoe Basin (see Section XVII, “Transportation”). The reduction in VMT resulting from implementation of the Area Plan would thereby reduce GHG emissions associated with mobile sources.
Future development projects would be required to compare VMT against applicable TRPA screening criteria and standards of significance to determine compliance. Projects that exceed the applicable land use standards of significance would be required to implement project-level mitigation to reduce VMT and pay the TRPA mobility mitigation fee.
Implementation of the Area Plan would also improve energy efficiency in the Plan area. TRPA’s GHG Emissions Reduction Policy would require individual projects to implement measures for the reduction of operational GHG emissions. Such measures include the following:
• Use on-site renewable energy, such as photovoltaic systems; • Exceed building code standards for energy efficiency; • Install energy-efficient appliances and equipment in new buildings; • Retrofit existing buildings to exceed energy efficiency building code standards; • Construct new development to allow for electric lawn maintenance and snow removal equipment compatibility;
• Require minimum passive solar design standards in new buildings; • Expand recycling opportunities and increase recycling infrastructure, including food waste diversion into a composting process; and
• Implement water conservation standards in new development.
These measures would reduce operational GHG emissions in the plan area by installing and utilizing photovoltaic systems to increase renewable energy usage, exceeding building code standards for energy efficiency, installing energy-efficient appliances and equipment to reduce the reliance on electricity and natural gas to power, heat, and cool buildings, and retrofitting existing buildings to exceed energy efficiency building code standards.
Summary
Implementation of the Area Plan would result in short-term (construction) and long-term (operational) GHG emissions. However, the Area Plan would include measures that align with the CAP, General Plan, and Regional Plans requirements to reduce those emissions and impacts.
Additionally, implementing the Area Plan would reduce VMT and associated GHG emissions because higher density development near non-motor vehicle forms of transportation would be 778
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 129 incentivized and would reduce GHG emissions associated with building energy use by relying on renewable energy sources such as photovoltaic systems and passive solar when possible, installing energy efficient appliances, and exceeding building code standards for energy efficiency in compliance with TRPA’s GHG Emissions Reduction Policy. Thus, the Area Plan would not generate GHG emissions that have a significant impact on the environment and this impact would be less than significant.
Environmental Analysis: Less than significant.
Required Mitigation: None.
b) Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
The Mid-Town Area Plan would not alter, revise, conflict with, or obstruct the regulations pertaining to reducing GHG emissions. Applicable plans, policies, and regulations include the City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan, Tahoe Regional Plan, California Air Resources Board 2022 Scoping Plan, and the City of South Lake Tahoe CAP, which all include policies and regulations aimed towards reducing GHG emissions.
The Area Plan includes many policies that pertain to reducing GHG emissions that align with the plans mentioned above. These policies include Land Use and Community Design policies 1.4 and
2.2. These policies would implement a land use pattern that supports housing supply, transportation, and work opportunities support GHG emission reduction targets, and support diligent implementation of sustainability upgrades. These policies align with General Plan policies LU-1.2, Smart Growth; LU-5.1, Locally-Serving Commercial; LU-5.3, Commercial Center Enhancement; and LU-5.5, Neighborhood Serving Commercial Uses by prioritizing sustainable community designs, creating an environment with ease of access for all modes of transportation that activate streetscapes, and thus reducing VMT and GHG associated emissions. These Area Plan policies would also align the Area Plan with CAP Land Use Actions LUP-1, LUP-2, LUP-3, and LUP-4 by encouraging complete neighborhoods, ensuring a healthy job-to-housing balance by prioritizing dense mixed-use development, and exploring paid on-street public parking.
The Area Plan would also implement VMT reducing policies such as Housing Policy 2.1 and Transportation policies 1.10 and 2.2. These measures would create residential units in conjunction with construction and redevelopment projects to increase pedestrian activity near transit stops and amenities, implement bike parking and storage, and review all developments and how they would affect VMT, requiring mitigation when a project exceeds standards of significance. These measures would align with General Plan policies ED-2.1, TC-1.9, TC-1.16, TC-2.1, TC-2.2, TC-2.4, NCR-5.1, and NCR-5.9 by increasing residential and commercial density while also developing a community that is less car-dependent and centered around transit, biking, and pedestrians, all reducing project-related VMT. These Area Plan policies would also make the Area Plan consistent with the CAP transportation actions COT-1, EDT-1, TDM-1, TR-1, TR-2, and WB-1 by reducing GHG emissions from vehicles by incentivizing walkable and bikeable communities that prioritize increasing community density and mixed-use development. Lastly, as stated above, implementation of the Area Plan would result in a decrease of approximately 365 daily VMT from within the City of South Lake Tahoe and approximately 5,389 daily VMT within the Tahoe Basin. This would enable the 779
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 130 project to meet the VMT reduction goals in the 2025 Regional Transportation Plan Update (2025 RTP/SCS) and with the priorities listed in Appendix D, Local Actions, of the 2022 Scoping Plan. One of the priority areas of the 2022 Scoping Plan includes VMT reduction by enabling more mixed-use, walkable, and compact infill development, which the Area Plan would do by increasing residential and commercial density while introducing more mixed-use land uses.
Natural Resources Policies 5.2 through 5.5 of the Area Plan, would all reduce GHG emissions associated with implementation of the Area Plan. Policy 5.2 would reduce GHG emissions by implementing measures recommended by EDCAQMD and offering incentives for community benefits, and Policy 5.3 encourages the use of low-emissions construction equipment, prohibiting open burning of debris, and reducing idling time for construction equipment and vehicles. Policy
5.4 would hold individual projects to current standards of the California Building Code and Building Energy Efficiency Standards. Policy 5.5 would support the creation of location appropriate renewable energy systems and advocate for the allowance of shared renewable energy systems.
Implementation of these policies would align the Area Plan with General Plan policies LU-9.1, LU9.2, LU-9.3, LU-9.4, LU-9.6, ED-1.1, ED-1.5, ED-1.6, ED-2.7, PQP-1.9, PQP-8.3, NCR-3.7, NCR-5.12 through NCR-5.15, NCR-6.2 through NCR 6-15, NCR-6.18, and NCR-6.19. General Plan policies LU9.1, LU-9.2, LU-9.3, LU-9.4, and LU-9.6 promote the use of sustainable construction materials, achieving LEED certification for all new buildings, promoting mixed-use development, and incorporating energy efficiency into buildings and facilities. General Plan policies ED-1.1, ED-1.5, ED-1.6, and ED-2.7 promote the development of high-tech, environmentally sustainable, and “green” businesses and the diversification of the economy with mixed-use, environmentally friendly businesses that reduce building energy and VMT. General Plan policies PQP-1.9, PQP-8.3, NCR-3.7, NCR-5.12 through NCR-5.15, NCR-6.2 through NCR 6-15, NCR-6.18, and NCR-6.19 all would reduce GHG emissions associated with the Area Plan by implementing green infrastructure and buildings, encouraging alternative forms of transportation such as biking, electrical vehicles, and walking to reduce VMT, establishing GHG reduction emission targets consistent with AB 32 and SB 375, analyzing and mitigating increases in carbon emissions during project review, increasing the reliance on renewable energy sources such as bio-fuel while reducing the reliance on nonrenewable energy sources, incentivizing solar energy that exceeds Title 24 energy efficiency standards, and installing “EPA Energy Star” appliances. Area Plan policies 5.2 through 5.5 of the Natural Resources chapter would also help the Area Plan achieve consistency with CAP actions EB2, RE-1, RE-2, RE-3, ZNE-1, and ZNE-2 by electrifying buildings, transitioning to more renewable electricity and energy sources, pursuing solar and distributed energy systems, exploring biofuel production, adopting green building standards, and pursuing zero new energy projects. Additionally, the project would support the third priority area of the Local Actions of the 2022 Scoping Plan, Building Decarbonization, by adopting policies and incentive programs to implement energy efficiency retrofits, electrify all appliances and equipment in existing buildings, purchase Energy Star equipment, and facilitating deployment of renewable energy production, distribution, and energy storage through photovoltaic systems.
Although the project does not propose any new parking lots, the City has identified the “Mid-Town Zone,” which includes several existing public parking lots, as a potential location for EV charging parking spaces in the City of South Lake Tahoe Electric Vehicle Charger Siting Plan (City of South Lake Tahoe, 2022). Future individual development projects (multifamily residential developments 780
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 131 and non-residential projects) would be required to comply with the California Green Building Standards Code standards (California Code of Regulations, Title 24 Part 11) for EV-capable parking spaces or EV-charging stations.
As described above, the Area Plan includes many policies that would reduce GHG emissions. The Area Plan would reduce GHG emissions by promoting mixed-use development, reducing VMT in the project area, and promoting energy efficiency and the use of renewable energy sources. Thus, the Plan Area would not conflict with the City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan, the Tahoe Regional Plan, the 2022 Scoping Plan, nor the City of South Lake Tahoe CAP. This impact would be less than significant.
Environmental Analysis: Less than significant.
Required Mitigation: None.
IX. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (CEQA)
a) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? This analysis tiers from the General Plan EIR as the potential effect is the same. (CSLT 2010, pp. 4.3- 36 to 4.3-38.)
The primary source of hazardous materials within the plan area is the South Tahoe Public Utility District’s wastewater treatment plant. This facility is located at the southern end of the plan area and is where sewage from the City of South Lake Tahoe and the surrounding area is conveyed and treated. Although this region is included in the plan area, the Mid-Town Area Plan identifies no specific improvements. The plan is meant to facilitate future improvements to South Tahoe Public Utility District facilities, for which contingency plans would be developed at that time, alongside an independent environmental analysis.
Construction of new residential and commercial improvements would require the routine transportation and use of hazardous materials, including paints, adhesives, solvents, fuel, lubricants, and other commonly used materials. The transportation of hazardous materials on area roadways is regulated by the California Highway Patrol (CHP), the U.S. Department of Transportation (Hazardous Materials Transportation Act), and Caltrans. Use of these materials is regulated by the DTSC (22 Cal. Code Regs §§66001, et seq.). The use, storage, and transport of hazardous materials by developers, contractors, business owners, and others must comply with local, state, and federal regulations during project construction and operation. Facilities that use hazardous materials are required to obtain permits and comply with applicable regulatory agency standards and regulations designed to avoid hazardous material releases. All existing and future developments in the Mid-Town plan area would be required to comply with federal, state, and local regulations regarding the handling, transportation, disposal, and cleanup of hazardous materials.
The El Dorado County Department of Environmental Management is responsible for consolidating, coordinating, and making consistent the administration requirements, permits, inspections, and enforcement activities of state standards regarding the transportation, use, and disposal of hazardous materials in the County and the Mid-Town plan area. The City has incorporated specific, enforceable requirements and/or restrictions and corresponding performance standards that 781
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 132 address hazardous materials. General Plan Policy HS-6.4 would require private waste collectors to provide household hazardous waste collection programs and Policy HS-6.5 requires private waste collectors to transport hazardous waste during non-peak hours (CSLT 2011, p. HS-7).
All existing and new developments in the Mid-Town plan area would be required to comply with federal, state, and local regulations regarding the handling, transportation, disposal, and cleanup of hazardous materials. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
Environmental Analysis: Less than significant impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
b) Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment?
The General Plan EIR (2010) identified that development and redevelopment within the City limits could result in the release of hazardous materials into the environment under reasonably foreseeable upset or accident conditions. Exposure to such materials could occur either through routine use or due to accidental release, and it was concluded that this was a potentially significant impact requiring mitigation (CSLT 2010, pp. 4.3-38-39). The General Plan EIR identified two mitigation measures that were incorporated into the final adopted General Plan (2011). Policy HS6.1 requires existing and new commercial and industrial uses involving the use, handling, transport, or disposal of hazardous materials within the city to disclose their activities in accordance with El Dorado County guidelines and state law requirements. Policy HS-6.2 requires that all construction activity cease if contamination is discovered on construction projects. Remediation is required to the satisfaction of the appropriate responsible agency (i.e., El Dorado County Department of Environmental Management, Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board, Department of Toxic Substances Control, or the City of South Lake Tahoe) (CSLT 2011, p. HS-7).
All existing and new developments under the Mid-Town Area Plan are required to be consistent with regional, federal, state, and local regulations regarding the release of hazardous materials into the environment due to reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. See analysis for CEQA Question IX.a. above for additional discussion.
Environmental Analysis: Less than significant impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
c) Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? As discussed in CEQA Question IX.b, exposure to hazardous materials, substances, or waste could occur either through routine use or due to accidental release. There are two schools within the plan area, the South Tahoe Middle School (STMS) and Lake Tahoe Community College (LTCC), which also contains a preschool.
782
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 133 In order to site and construct a state-funded school, a public school district must complete an extensive and independent statutory review process in accordance with the siting requirements of the California Department of Education. In addition to CEQA review and in order to ensure that each new school site is safe from toxic hazards, new school sites may be subject to review from the following agencies: DTSC, the State Allocation Board, which administers and allocates funding requests, and the Division of the State Architect, which reviews the design, plans, and construction of publicly funded schools. These review processes are most typically done on a site-specific basis.
The selection of new public school sites must comply with the California Education Code (including Section 17521, requiring the governing board of the school district to adopt a resolution in connection with consideration of a proposal for occupancy of a building to be constructed on its property, and to conduct a public meeting), and the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 5, Sections 14001 through 14012, which outlines the powers and duties and establishes standards with which the California Department of Education and all public school districts must comply in the selection of new school sites. Furthermore, no new schools are planned. Therefore, impacts resulting from the construction of new schools are expected to be less than significant.
The transportation of hazardous materials is regulated by the CHP, U.S. Department of Transportation, and Caltrans. Use, storage, and disposal of hazardous materials is regulated by DTSC as well as local, state, and federal regulations. This applies to both demolition/construction and operation of projects. Facilities that use hazardous materials are required to obtain permits and comply with applicable regulatory agency standards designed to avoid hazardous waste releases.
Underground storage tanks (UST) are common stationary sources of pollution. There are 4 UST sites within the plan area, two of which are within one-quarter mile of the school, including one the same parcel as STMS, serving the Lake Tahoe Unified School District’s bus garage. USTs are defined as "any one or combination of tanks, including pipes connected thereto, that is used for the storage of hazardous substances, and that is substantially or totally beneath the surface of the ground" (State Water Resources Control Board, 2025). They are regulated under the Underground Storage Tank Program implemented by the California State Water Resources Control Board, Division of Water Quality. California Health and Safety Code Chapter 6.7 contains statutes relating to UST integrity, licensing, permitting, inspections, corrective action, and other necessary functions to ensure USTs are properly installed, maintained, decommissioned, and when necessary, mitigated.
Table 13: Open Underground Storage Tanks
Facility Name (ID) Address UST Status Distance to School (miles)
STMS LTCC
US Gasoline
(CA10202863) 2470 Lake Tahoe Blvd. Open (3) 1 0.83
Liquor Shack
(CA10202863) 2525 Lake Tahoe Blvd. Open (3) 0.85 0.72
American Gas
(CA10202851) 2762 Lake Tahoe Blvd, #1 Open (3) 0.33 0.35 LTUSD/Bus Garage
(CA10480414) 1021 Al Tahoe Blvd. Open (1) 0 0.43
783
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 134 Source: United State Environmental Protection Agency, UST Finder, https://www.epa.gov/ust/ustfinder.
There are 20 Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Sites within the plan area that have undergone remediation and been closed, and one open case. The open case (T10000021479) concerns potential diesel contamination of soil at the South Tahoe Public Utility District’s (STPUD) main operation plant at 1275 Meadow Crest Dr. The case was opened in November of 2023 and, as of 2025 was under investigation for site characterization, risk evaluation, and remediation considerations (State Water Resources Control Board, 2025). This site is within one-quarter mile of LTCC and the on-campus preschool.
The facility at 1275 Meadow Crest Dr. houses STPUD’s 7.7 million gallons per day wastewater treatment plant, including infrastructure for separating, treating, and transporting waste and waste byproducts. To address hazards that could potentially compromise these facilities and cause harm to people and property, the South Tahoe Public Utility District Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP) was adopted in 2017 and most recently revised in 2019. The STPUD LHMP addresses a variety of natural, human, and technological hazards, as well as STPUD’s administrative and technical mitigation capabilities. Facilities are rated with a priority level to reinstate or maintain the highest level of operation in compromising events. Plans such as these ensure responses to hazards are quick and orderly.
Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were widely used during the period when much of the development within the Mid-Town plan area occurred. It is likely that electrical transformers and industrial products currently located within the area contain PCBs and other heavy metals. Trace amounts may be present where such uses previously existed but were not properly decommissioned or demolished. Other chemicals that may be present include pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. Even when used prior to bans, certain chemicals and components may still be detectable due to differing decomposition rates and environments. Sensitive receptors such as children, the elderly, or hospital patients can be significantly affected by these emissions and are a primary concern for exposure.
All existing and new developments under the Mid-Town Area Plan are required to and will implement and are consistent with regional, federal, state, and local regulations regarding the release of hazardous materials into the environment due to reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant. See analysis for CEQA item IX.a. for additional discussion.
Environmental Analysis: Less than significant impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
d) Would the project be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
The State of California Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (also known as the “Cortese List”) is a planning document used by state and local agencies and developers to comply with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements for providing information about the 784
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 135 location of hazardous materials sites. Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal-EPA) to annually update the Cortese List. The Cortese List was accessed on June 22, 2026, at which time there were no sites listed within the plan area or the City of South Lake Tahoe.
Additionally, the California “Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) Public Envirostor Data including Cleanup, Hazardous Waste and Inspection sites” does not identify any sites within the plan area or the greater south shore region of Lake Tahoe. This data was last updated on November 9, 2021.
Environmental Analysis: No impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area? Airport Land Use Comprehensive Plans (ALUCPs) are documents that ensure that future land uses in areas around an airport are compatible with its continued operation while safeguarding the welfare of people who live in the airport vicinity and the general public. More specifically, the ALUCP should act as a guide for the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and local jurisdictions in safeguarding the general welfare of the public as the area surrounding the airport develops. The ALUCP also serves as a tool for the ALUC in fulfilling its duty to review airport and land use development proposals within the Airport Influence Area (AIA). The ALUCP provides the standards, criteria, and policies on which the compatibility of proposed local land use policy actions is determined. The ALUCP includes land use policies to protect the public from airport-related noise, to protect air traffic from hazards associated with development, and to limit the who would be to the risk of an aircraft accident.
The City of South Lake Tahoe Planning Commission, acting in its capacity as the South Lake Tahoe Airport Land Use Commission, adopted an updated Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) on September 12, 2019.
Safety Zones 4 and 6 (Figure 11) overlay portions of the plan area. Zone 6 is the Airport Traffic Pattern Zone. It is the least restrictive, and all uses are compatible. Safety Zone 4 is the Outer Approach/Departure Zone, with uses ranging from compatible to incompatible. Non-residential densities are limited per Table 4-2 of the ALUCP (Environmental Science Associates (ESA), 2019).
Noise contour bands for 50-55 CNEL (dB) and 55-60 CNEL (dB) overlay portions of the Mid-Town plan area (Environmental Science Associates (ESA), 2019, pp. Figure 4-1). All uses are compatible in the 50-55 dB range. Single-family dwellings, secondary residences, mobile home dwellings, schools, and threshold-related research facilities are conditionally compatible in the 55-60 dB range. Conditionally compatible uses will experience moderate noise interference with outdoor activities and with indoor activities when windows are open. The uses shall be allowed so long as outdoor activities are minimal, and construction features are included that reduce interior noise levels to 45 dB.
785
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 136 All of the Mid-Town Area Plan is located within the ALUCP Overflight Notification Zone. ALUCP Policy OP-2 requires all residential development in the Mid-Town Area Plan to record an Overflight Notification Document disclosing that the property is within the vicinity of an airport and the property may be subject to inconveniences associated with airport operations.
Beyond the requirements of the ALUCP to moderate noise interference and annoyance, the MidTown Area Plan includes standards and policies to protect quality of life for residents. Screening requirements are included as well as the following policies to strengthen protection. • Policy 3.1 Noise Mitigation for Residential Uses Residential projects fronting US Hwy 50/Lake Tahoe Blvd shall include features that mitigate transportation related noise pollution, such as vegetation buffers and air conditioning. • Policy 3.2 Airport Noise Review all projects against Noise Compatibility Criteria (Table 4-1) of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) to avoid establishing noise-sensitive uses in affected areas.
• Policy 3.3 Transportation Noise Require mitigation of new transportation noise sources to the levels shown in Table HS-2 of the City General Plan at all outdoor activity areas and interior spaces of existing noise-sensitive land uses.
• Policy 3.4 Acoustic Analysis Require an acoustical analysis as part of the environmental review process when noise-sensitive land uses are proposed in areas exposed to existing or anticipated exterior noise levels exceeding the levels shown in Table HS-1 and HS-2 of the City General Plan.
• Policy 3.5 Ground Bourn Noise Require an analysis of potential vibration impact be conducted for all construction activities that include impact equipment and activities such as pile driving, soil compaction, or vibratory hammers that occur within 200 feet of existing structures.
Environmental Analysis: Less than significant impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
786
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 137 Figure 11: Lake Tahoe Airport Overflight Safety Zones
787
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 138 f) Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
This matter is discussed in TRPA Question 10.b and XX.
Environmental Analysis: No impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
g) Would the project expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires? This matter is discussed in TRPA Questions 10.b and XX.
Environmental Analysis: No impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
10. RISK OF UPSET (TRPA)
a. Will the proposal involve a risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals, or radiation in the event of an accident or upset conditions?
See analysis for CEQA Questions IX.a, b, and c.
Environmental Analysis: Yes, less than significant.
Required Mitigation: None.
b. Will the proposal involve possible interference with an emergency evacuation plan? The City of South Lake Tahoe is responsible for emergency operations within the city limits. The City has adopted a Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (adopted October 2022), which has been approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). This plan provides guidance to the City for the development of pre-mitigation and post-mitigation recovery for disasters in all hazard classifications.
Chapter 1.15 of the City Code provides for the preparation and implementation of plans for the protection of persons and property within the City in the event of an emergency and the coordination of the emergency functions of the City with all other public agencies, corporations, organizations, and affected private persons. The City Manager, or his designee, serves as the director of emergency services and is empowered to proclaim an “emergency”, or to issue an emergency proclamation. The City has adopted General Plan policies in the Health and Safety Element: Policy HS-1.1 requires the City to periodically review and update the City’s Local Emergency Operations Plan; Policy HS-1.3 requires the City to maintain a reverse 911 system; and HS- 1.4 requires the City to identify pre-planned areas for disaster staging and evacuations (CSLT 2011, p. HS-2).
In addition to the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, Tahoe Basin coordination is addressed in the Lake Tahoe Regional Evacuation Plan (2024), which identifies primary and alternate evacuation routes, traffic management strategies, and inter-agency communication and notification 788
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 139 procedures for a range of emergency scenarios, including wildfires and severe winter storms. The 2024 Regional Evacuation Plan provides a coordinated, multi-jurisdictional framework that aligns the evacuation roles and responsibilities of the City of South Lake Tahoe and surrounding counties, as well as state and tribal partners, across the Basin. Implementation of this Area Plan would occur within that existing framework and would not alter designated evacuation routes, reduce roadway capacity on critical evacuation corridors, or otherwise conflict with or impair implementation of the Lake Tahoe Regional Evacuation Plan (2024) or applicable local emergency operations plans; therefore, the Area Plan would not interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan and would result in a less-than-significant impact related to emergency access and evacuation.
Indirect effects on emergency response occur when construction and roadway improvements result in temporary and permanent changes in circulation patterns and individual site access.
Construction can often disrupt emergency response and thus adversely affect response coordinated through local emergency plans. Construction-related impacts would be temporary – lasting only as long as construction – and overall traffic improvements are expected to enhance circulation within the plan area, resulting in a net decrease in response times.
Environmental Analysis: Yes, less than significant.
Required Mitigation: None.
17. HUMAN HEALTH (TRPA)
a. Will the proposal result in creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)?
See analysis for CEQA Questions IX.a, b, and c.
Environmental Analysis: No impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
b. Will the proposal result in exposure of people to potential health hazards? See analysis for CEQA Questions IX.a, b, and c.
Environmental Analysis: No impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
X. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY (CEQA)
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
Development under the Mid-Town Area Plan may result in temporary water quality impacts to surface runoff from construction and increases in impervious coverage. These improvements, however, are required to comply with existing policies related to installation and retrofitting of best management practices (BMPs), mitigation of coverage impacts, and implementation of area-wide stormwater treatment systems. These policies are intended to offset negative water quality impacts 789
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 140 of development and generally go further, resulting in a net reduction of pollutant loads to Lake Tahoe when compared to the baseline conditions.
All public and privately owned lands shall install BMPs in accordance with the Best Management Practices Handbook. The requirement to install BMPs is determined by the scope of a proposed project. These may include temporary BMPs that are added to construction sites and maintained throughout the construction until winterization and permanent BMPs are in place. Permanent BMPs shall be present and maintained in operating order for the lifetime of a development. While most BMPs are designed to capture and infiltrate stormwater, some are intended to prevent soil disturbance on undeveloped land, generally by blocking vehicle access.
TRPA Code of Ordinances 30.6 discusses the excess land coverage mitigation program. Excess coverage is most often mitigated by retiring coverage or paying an excess coverage mitigation fee, both of which contribute to threshold attainment. The reduction of coverage ensures the coverage system is upheld, while mitigation fees contribute to stream restoration projects or area-wide stormwater treatment systems. Area-wide systems are most often implemented to treat shared spaces such as roadways, though they can be designed to accommodate runoff from private parcels. These systems oftentimes receive more frequent maintenance, resulting in more significant reductions in sediment load entering Lake Tahoe. The Mid-Town Area Plan presents Sandy Way and the surrounding area as having high potential for an areawide treatment. Projects such as these, however, can take years to design, fund, and implement.
While the proposed Town Center expansion creates the potential for 122 acres or 5,345,230 square feet of new coverage within the overlay, the water quality benefits of concentrated coverage are significant, both within and outside of the project area. To use the Town Center coverage incentive for coverage up to 70% of the project area, coverage must be transferred from elsewhere in the Basin. Moreover, only high-capability lands are eligible for coverage beyond the base allowed, ensuring that full infiltration BMPs are possible. All land coverage transfers are subject to TRPA Code of Ordinances Section 30.4.3 regarding the transfer of coverage. Additional coverage within the Town Center does not result in a net increase of coverage within the Basin.
Coverage must be transferred from elsewhere, oftentimes from sensitive areas or parcels further from amenities and services. The coverage transfer system is designed to incentivize transfers of coverage from sensitive lands, which are allowed at a 1:1 ratio. A 1:1 ratio also applies to transfers from nonsensitive lands up until the receiving parcel is at 50% coverage. Any additional coverage transferred from nonsensitive lands shall be at the ratios as pursuant to TRPA Code of Ordinances Section 30.4.3.A.2.b. For each parcel of one acre that is developed to 70% coverage using coverage transferred from nonsensitive lands, twice as much coverage is transferred as is used onsite (2:1 ratio). This results in a net reduction and retirement of 8,712 square feet of coverage per acre.
Should the 123 acres of new Town Center all be developed or expanded to 70% using transfers from nonsensitive lands, 24.6 acres of coverage will be permanently retired.
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act lists Lake Tahoe as an impaired water due to excessive levels of nitrogen, phosphorus, and fine sediments. This designation requires the state to develop a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) plan to determine necessary pollutant load reductions to accomplish California’s Lake Tahoe transparency standard of roughly 97 feet over an estimated 65-year implementation period. In 2011, the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (Lahontan) 790
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 141 established load reduction targets to be reevaluated every five years to assess each jurisdiction’s progress towards meeting these goals. Each jurisdiction holding a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit is required to reduce the baseline pollutant load within its jurisdiction by the amounts shown in Table 4.
In 2016, the City submitted to Lahontan the City’s Lake Tahoe TMDL Baseline Pollutant Load Update Report, which was subsequently incorporated into the City’s NPDES permit. The City’s load reduction requirement through 2026 under the NPDES permit is shown in Table 5. The City completed development of a Pollutant Load Reduction Plan (PLRP), defining feasible and costeffective pathways to comply with the requirements to reduce pollutant loading to Lake Tahoe from urban stormwater runoff. In September 2021, the City Council received a draft of the 2021 City of South Lake Tahoe PLRP, which documents the City’s proposed approach and timeline for meeting the 2026 load reduction targets as set forth in the City’s NPDES permit. The PLRP was submitted to Lahontan in October 2021 and updated in September 2023 as required by the NPDES permit. The City is currently on track to reach the required Lake Clarity Credits (credits). Credits are used to account, track and report load reductions across multiple pollutant types.
Section 60.1.3. of the TRPA Code, which includes standards for discharge limits to surface and ground waters, and Chapter 7.15 of the City Code regulate urban runoff and stormwater quality.
Additionally, consistent with existing conditions, all development, redevelopment, and infrastructure improvements within the Mid-Town Area Plan would be required to meet the discharge standards of the Lahontan Regional Water Control Board and the City’s municipal stormwater discharge permit.
Groundwater interception or interference is prohibited under Section 33.3.6 of the TRPA Code, except under certain circumstances, described as follows:
1. Excavation is prohibited that interferes with or intercepts the seasonal high water table by:
a. Altering the direction of groundwater flow;
b. Altering the rate of flow of ground water;
c. Intercepting ground water;
d. Adding or withdrawing ground water; or
e. Raising or lowering the water table.
2. TRPA may approve exceptions to the prohibition of groundwater interception or interference if TRPA finds that:
a. Excavation is required by the International Building Code (IBC) or local building code for minimum depth below natural ground for above ground structures; b. Retaining walls are necessary to stabilize an existing unstable cut or fill slope;
c. Drainage structures are necessary to protect the structural integrity of an existing structure;
d. It is necessary for the public safety and health;
e. It is a necessary measure for the protection or improvement of water quality; f. It is for a water well;
g. There are no feasible alternatives for locating mechanical equipment, and measures are included in the project to prevent groundwater from leaving the 791
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 142 project area as surface flow, and any groundwater that is interfered with is rerouted in the ground water flow to avoid adverse impacts to riparian vegetation; h. It is necessary to provide two off-street parking spaces, there is no less environmentally harmful alternative, and measures are taken to prevent groundwater from leaving the project area as surface flow; i. It is necessary to provide below grade parking for projects that qualify for additional height under subsection 37.5.4 or 37.5.9 to achieve environmental goals, including scenic improvements, land coverage reduction, and area-wide drainage systems. Measures shall also be included in the project to prevent ground water from leaving the project area as surface flow and that any groundwater, that is interfered with is rerouted into the groundwater flow to avoid adverse impacts to hydrologic conditions, SEZ vegetation, and mature trees; or j. It is necessary for a marina expansion approved pursuant to Chapter 14:
Specific and Master Plans, and the environmental documentation demonstrates that there will be no adverse effect on water quality.
Where active hazardous materials release sites are located (see CEQA Question IX) there is the potential for surface water infiltration associated with BMPs to disturb and/or distribute the pollutants further prior to remediation. The EPA recommends keeping uncontaminated stormwater separate from contaminated soils and water to prevent leaching and spreading of contaminants.
Though both parcel-specific BMP systems and area-wide systems have the potential to create this adverse impact by infiltrating stormwater, area-wide systems are typically implemented by government entities, and their scale requires detailed site reconnaissance and environmental analysis, including evaluation of Source Water Protection Maps in accordance with TRPA Code section 60.3. Therefore, it is more likely that the potential for this impact would be identified and mitigated through an area-wide system than a parcel-specific BMP system implemented by a private property owner. The possibility of surface water infiltration where active release sites are located is a less than significant impact due to the existing monitoring of such sites. The only open Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) identified within the plan area is discussed in CEQA Question IX (State Water Resources Control Board, 2025). As of 2025 this site was under investigation for site characterization, risk evaluation, and remediation considerations. The Cortese List, as discussed in CEQA Question IX was accessed on June 22, 2026, at which time there were no sites listed within the plan area or the City of South Lake Tahoe. Additionally, the California “Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) Public Envirostor Data including Cleanup, Hazardous Waste and Inspection sites” does not identify any sites within the plan area or the greater south shore region of Lake Tahoe. This data was last updated on November 9, 2021.
Environmental Analysis: Less than significant impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin? Water to the plan area and greater South Lake Tahoe region, including portions of El Dorado County, is provided by South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD). The system consists of 11 active wells and 4 standby wells and is entirely dependent on groundwater. STPUD does not use surface water sources, including Lake Tahoe, for their potable supply. 792
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 143 STPUD’s 2020 Urban Water Management Plan (UWMP) was adopted in June 2020 to satisfy California’s Urban Water Management Planning Act. The plan is a management tool for ensuring a reliable-long term water supply and should not be treated as a detailed project development or action plan. Key areas of the UWMP include existing water demand; available water supply; supply reliability and projections; and water shortage contingency plans. The UWMP looks forward to 2045, which roughly matches the 20-year timeframe of the Mid-Town Area Plan.
The largest variables considered in STPUD’s water supply and demand projections are population growth rates, groundwater basin yield, and climate, specifically reliability under drought conditions.
The potential for the Mid-Town Area Plan to cause population growth is discussed in CEQA Question XIV.a. Significant growth is not expected to be caused by the Mid-Town Area Plan; rather, development is expected to shift to the Mid-Town area where amenities, services, and infrastructure is available; alternative transportation is more readily available; and development standards are conducive to more dense residential developments. UWMP’s projected water demands use the California Department of Finance’s El Dorado County growth rate of 0.37% annually. At this rate, the potable demand is projected to increase from 5,778 000 acre-feet per year (AFY) in 2020 to 6,338 AFY in 2045, an increase of 560 AFY over 25 years. During an average year, the groundwater available for extraction in the Tahoe South Subbasin is 32,050 AFY (South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD), 2020, pp. 7-3, Table 7-2: Retail: Basis of Water Year Data (Reliability Assessment ). STPUD is operating well below this level and is expected to remain within sustainable yield into the future. Under standard conditions, natural groundwater recharge can be expected to sufficiently serve the greater South Shore community at the anticipated growth rate.
STPUD’s UWMP also analyses groundwater supply under single-dry-year and multiple-dry-year conditions. UWMP’s multiple-dry-year analysis shows that even in the modeled fifth consecutive dry year, projected supply remains above projected demand (South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD), 2020, pp. 7-3, Table 7-2: Retail: Basis of Water Year Data (Reliability Assessment). The plan shows 13,851 AFY of supply against 6,432 AFY of demand in 2045 under this scenario, with a remaining margin of 7,419 AFY. The UWMP states that the Tahoe South Subbasin has historically shown little to no response to hydrologic year types, and that STPUD’s supply was not severely impacted during the 2012–2016 statewide drought emergency. Additionally, it is noted that the groundwater basin may produce more than Table 7-2 shows, because it reflects the volume STPUD’s wells would pump to meet demand rather than the basin’s absolute maximum yield.
Section 8 of the UWMP is Water Shortage Contingency Planning. It identifies graduated demandreduction measures that would be implemented during water shortages and drought conditions to maintain reliable service and reduce discretionary water use. At lower shortage levels, STPUD emphasizes anti-waste requirements and controlled outdoor water use, including requirements to repair plumbing and irrigation leaks, use of automatic shutoff nozzles on hoses, limits on irrigation days and duration, restrictions on washing hard surfaces except where necessary for fire protection or sanitation, and service of drinking water by restaurants only upon request. At more severe shortage levels, these measures remain in effect and are supplemented by additional restrictions, including prohibitions on filling uncovered outdoor pools, prohibitions on ornamental fountains unless water is recirculated, stricter limits on landscape irrigation frequency, and prohibitions on irrigation for landscaping associated with new construction. Under emergency shortage conditions, 793
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 144 STPUD may continue and intensify these measures and apply additional enforcement or service restrictions as necessary to protect public health and maintain system reliability.
As the Mid-Town Area Plan’s is determined to have a less than significant impact on population growth, the UWMP is an accurate projection of STPUD’s ability to serve the surrounding area for the foreseeable future. STPUD is generally drought-resilient and expects to have adequate groundwater supply through 2045.
Environmental Analysis: Less than significant impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
(i) result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site; See analysis for CEQA Question VII.c, and TRPA Questions 1.a, and 1.b. All projects are required to install best management practices (BMPs) per TRPA Code of Ordinances Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
(ii) substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
See analysis for items CEQA Questions VII.c, and TRPA Questions1.a, and 1.b. All projects are required to install best management practices (BMPs) per TRPA Code of Ordinances Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
(iii) create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff; or
See analysis for CEQA Question VII.c, and TRPA Questions 1.a, and 1.b. Coverage limitations are discussed in TRAP Questions 3.b. and 1.a. All coverage is required to be treated by onsite BMPs per TRPA Code of Ordinances. The Area Plan does not alter coverage limitations.
Environmental Analysis: Less than Significant Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
(iv) impede or redirect flood flows?
While there are existing developments and disturbances within the 100-year floodplain, new developments are limited by TRPA Code of Ordinances 35.4.2. Development allowed 794
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 145 under this section is strictly regulated. Through project review, it must be determined that there is no reasonable alternative location.
See TRPA Question 3.c. for further discussion of possible alterations to the course or flow of 100-yearflood waters due to the Mid-Town Area Plan. The policies and review procedures discussed will limit impacts to flood flows to a less than significant level.
Environmental Analysis: Less than significant impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
Project inundation is unlikely to cause increased risk of pollutant exposure as the plan area is largely developed. Most new developments would be considered infill, and infrastructure would be the minimum necessary to service such uses.
The Department of Conservation’s Tsunami Hazard Area Map (State of California Depatment of Conservation) does not identify any part of the City of South Lake Tahoe as being in a tsunami hazard area. This area includes the maximum reasonable tsunami runup distance based on a 975- year average return period tsunami event model.
The United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) states that any area with a 1% or higher chance of experiencing a flood each year is considered to have a high risk. There are several areas in Mid-Town within the 100-year floodplain or 1% annual chance flood hazard zone. While there are existing developments and disturbances within the 100-year floodplain, new developments are limited by TRPA Code of Ordinances Section 35.4.2. Development allowed under this section is regulated strictly and must make findings demonstrating that there is no reasonable alternative location.
A seiche is a type of wave, causing oscillations in the water level of an enclosed body of water.
Seiches are most often caused by changes in atmospheric pressure, though there is geological evidence of seiche waves in Lake Tahoe being caused by earthquakes (Ichinose, 2000). See Geology and Soils, CEQA Questions VII.a.i and iii for further discussion regarding risk of loss, injury, or death involving earthquakes.
Environmental Analysis: Less than significant impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
As discussed in item CEQA Questions X.b. above, the Mid-Town Area Plan is expected to have a less than significant impact on water quality control or sustainable groundwater management plan.
Water quality control is discussed further in TRPA Question 3.
Environmental Analysis: Less than significant impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
795
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 146
3. WATER QUALITY (TRPA)
a. Will the proposal result in changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements?
The Mid-Town Area Plan would not result in changes to currents, or the course or direction of water movements. Stream modifications are limited by the provisions of Chapter 63 of the TRPA Code, which requires protection of fish resources, and Sections 61.3.3 and 30.5, which require protection of SEZ areas, thereby protecting streams as well. Any project with the potential to modify water flow, direction, or movements would be subject to subsequent permitting and environmental review, and TRPA Code sections described above, as well as all other federal, state, and local regulations pertaining to the course or direction of water movements.
Per TRPA Code of Ordinances Section 33.3.6, all projects involving excavations more than 5 feet in depth shall provide for staff review of a soils/hydrologic report. Such projects may only be approved if it is demonstrated that there will be no interference or interception of groundwater, that no damage will occur to mature trees which are meant to be maintained, that excavated materials are properly disposed of, and that natural topography is maintained to the extent feasible. Projects with excavation less than 5 feet in depth may be subject to this section should there be a reasonable possibility of groundwater interference or interception occurring.
Environmental Analysis: No.
Required Mitigation: None.
b. Will the proposal result in changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface water runoff so that a 20 yr. 1 hr. storm runoff (approximately 1 inch per hour) cannot be contained on the site?
The Mid-Town Area Plan proposes to significantly expand the Town Center from approximately 65 acres to 404 acres. With this change, almost half of the plan area will be included within the Town Center boundary. The Town Center boundary correlates to water absorption and drainage in that parcels within the Town Center are allowed coverage beyond the parcel’s base allowed coverage as determined by the Bailey’s System (Land Capability Classifications of the Lake Tahoe Basin, Bailey, R. G. 1974) or the Individual Parcel Evaluation System (IPES). Additional coverage allowed in Town Centers is limited to high-capability lands and will not apply to 30.5 acres or 8 percent of the expanded Town Center area.
Without the Town Center expansion, TRPA Code of Ordinances Section 30.4.2.B.2. allows commercial and mixed-use facilities located within community plans approved pursuant to TRPA Code Chapter 12, but not within a Center of a Conforming Area Plan, up to 50 or 70 percent coverage based on the development status and development date of the parcel. Under this provision, even without a Town Center expansion, adoption of the Mid-Town Area Plan would result in the potential for 2,047,320 new square feet (47 acres) of coverage in the plan area. The majority of the Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan area is developed, thus, a maximum of 50 percent allowable coverage was used per TRPA Code of Ordinances Section 30.4.2.B.2. The Town Center expansion allows all included parcels up to 70 percent coverage so long as they are high-capability lands. This increases the new potential coverage to 5,345,230 square feet (122 acres) within the plan area. To 796
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 147 use this coverage incentive, projects must use coverage from elsewhere in the Basin, adhering to TRPA Code of Ordinances Section 51.1 regarding the transfer of development. By locating coverage in Town Centers, near existing development, and on high-capability lands, coverage is limited elsewhere.
All coverage, base allowed and transferred coverage, is required to be accompanied by stormwater conveyance and treatment. The Mid-Town Area Plan does not propose to alter regulations around onsite treatment of stormwater. All projects developed will be required to install best management practices (BMPs) to minimize rainwater/snowmelt runoff and erosion. BMP requirements are outlined in TRPA Code of Ordinances Chapter 60, which requires property owners to infiltrate the volume of a 20-year/1 hour storm on their property or meet alternative standards in instances where site constraints are present, such as high groundwater. The Area Plan refers to the Tahoe BMP Handbook for installation methods, details, and maintenance. TRPA Code of Ordinances Chapter 60 and the BMP Handbook are already applicable to sites within the project area. The MidTown Area Plan does not constitute a change for this purpose.
Furthermore, the Mid-Town Area Plan proposes numerous area-wide improvements, which would include stormwater conveyance and treatment. Area-wide stormwater improvements generally target roadways and, once implemented, have the largest positive impact on reducing fine sediments reaching Lake Tahoe.
Environmental Analysis: No.
Required Mitigation: None.
c. Will the proposal result in alterations to the course or flow of 100-year flood waters? Floodplains are regulated by Section 35.4 of the TRPA Code or Chapter 6.65 of the City Code.
Portions of the plan area surrounding Lake Tahoe Community College and through Bijou Golf Course and Meadow are within the 100-year floodplain. Future development within such areas would be required to meet the requirements of Section 35.4 of the TRPA Code or Chapter 6.65 of the City Code. Aside from exceptions in TRPA Code of Ordinances 35.4.2(A), (B), (C), or (D), new development within the 100-year floodplain is prohibited. Improvements would be limited to those receiving such exceptions or for redevelopment of already disturbed areas. Development of already disturbed areas within the 100-year floodplain shall be required to demonstrate compliance with City Code 6.15.110 Criteria for prevention of flood damage.
The Mid-Town Area Plan recognizes the danger and harmful nature of developing floodplains and has incorporated the TRPA findings as referenced above in the following policy:
• Policy 1.1 Floodplain Development Do not allow additional development in 100-year floodplains unless the findings of TRPA Code of Ordinances 35.4.2(A), (B), (C), or (D) are made.
See further discussion above in TRPA Questions 3.b and below in 3.f.
Environmental Analysis: No.
Required Mitigation: None.
797
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 148 d. Will the proposal result in changes in the amount of surface water in any water body? The Mid-Town Area Plan would not alter or revise the regulations pertaining to surface water management. Surface water and water rights in California are managed by the California State Water Resources Control Board. Consistent with existing conditions, projects that could occur under the Mid-Town Area Plan that would require additional water supply affecting the amount of surface water in Lake Tahoe or another water body would be required to comply with Chapters 32 and 60 of the TRPA Code. These regulations pertain to the provision of basic services to projects and the protection of source water.
Because the regional water demand at build-out would be less than the regional surface water allocation analyzed in the RPU EIS, and because TRPA Code Section 32.4 requires demonstration of adequate available water supply within an existing water right prior to permit approval, implementation of the Mid-Town Area Plan would not result in a substantial reduction in the amount of surface water or the water available for public water supplies. Thus, this impact would be less than significant.
Environmental Analysis: Yes, less than significant.
Required Mitigation: None.
e. Will the proposal result in discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, including but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? This potential effect is the same as those analyzed in the TRPA Regional Plan Update and, therefore, this analysis incorporates by reference the RPU EIS. (TRPA 2012a, p. 3.8-24 to 3.8-31.) Also see discussion and analysis for TRPA item 3.d. above.
Chapter 60 of the TRPA Code, which includes standards for discharge limits to surface and ground waters, and Chapter 7.15 of the City Code, which regulates urban runoff and stormwater quality.
Additionally, consistent with existing conditions, all development, redevelopment, and infrastructure improvements within the Mid-Town Area Plan would be required to meet the discharge standards of the Lahontan Regional Water Control Board and the City’s municipal stormwater discharge permit. All projects that would create more than one acre of disturbance are required to prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in accordance with The City’s Stormwater Management Plan (2007).
Environmental Analysis: Yes, less than significant.
Required Mitigation: None.
f. Will the proposal result in alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground water? The Mid-Town Area Plan does not propose changes to existing grading, excavation, or ground disturbance requirements and policies. While projects will cause soil disturbance and may change substructures or include excavation beyond 5 feet in depth, they will be subject to existing provisions of the TRPA Code of Ordinances. Per TRPA Code of Ordinances Section 33.3.6, all projects including excavations more than 5 feet in depth, shall provide for staff review a soils/hydrologic report. Such projects may only be approved if it is demonstrated that there will be 798
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 149 no interference or interception of groundwater, that no damage will occur to mature trees which are meant to be maintained, that excavated materials are properly disposed of, and that natural topography is maintained to the extent feasible. Projects with excavation less than 5 feet in depth may be subject to this section should there be a reasonable possibility of groundwater interference or interception occurring.
Additionally, all projects are subject to Chapter 7.20 of the South Lake Tahoe City Code. The purpose of this chapter is, per SLTCC Section 7.20.020: “(1) Regulating grading on both public and private property within the city of South Lake Tahoe to safeguard life, limb, health, property and public welfare; (2) To avoid pollution of watercourses with hazardous materials, nutrients, sediments, or other earthen materials generated on or caused by surface runoff or by aerial deposition of pollutants generated from the permit area on or across the permit area; and (3) To ensure that the intended use of a graded site is consistent with the city of South Lake Tahoe general plan, any specific plans adopted thereto and applicable city of South Lake Tahoe ordinances including the zoning ordinance, flood damage prevention ordinance, environmental review ordinance and applicable chapters of the California Building Code.” Environmental Analysis: No.
Required Mitigation: None.
g. Will the proposal result in change in the quantity of groundwater, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? See analysis for TRPA Questions 3.b. and 3.f. above, which concludes no impact to a less than significant impact.
Environmental Analysis: No.
Required Mitigation: None.
h. Will the proposal result in substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies?
See analysis for TRPA Questions 3.b. and 3.f. above, which concludes no impact to a less than significant impact.
Environmental Analysis: No.
Required Mitigation: None.
i. Will the proposal result in exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding and/or wave action from 100-year storm occurrence or seiches? See analysis for item TRPA Question 3.c. above, which concludes a less than significant impact.
Hazards from wave and seiche action are discussed in CEQA Questions X.d. and concludes a less than significant impact.
Environmental Analysis: No.
Required Mitigation: None.
799
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 150 j. Will the proposal result in the potential discharge of contaminants to the groundwater or any alteration of groundwater quality?
All existing state and local protections for ground water remain in place, and water quality BMPs (in accordance with Chapter 60 of the TRPA Code and Chapter 7.15 of the City Code) would continue to be required for all properties within the Area Plan. See also TRPA Question 3.j. below for additional regulations for uses within 600 feet of drinking water sources.
See also TRPA Question IX.c. for discussion of underground storage tanks.
Environmental Analysis: Yes, less than significant.
Required Mitigation: None.
800
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 151 Figure 12: Source Water Protection Zones
801
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 152 k. Is the project located within 600 feet of a drinking water source? The plan area includes parcels that are within 600 feet of a drinking water source. These areas are considered “source water protection zones” (Figure 12). Possible contaminating activities may not be approved within these zones unless all findings of the TRPA Code of Ordinances 60.3.3(D) are made. Possible contaminating activities are defined by TRPA as “activities equivalent to TRPA primary uses identified by either the California Department of Public Health or the Nevada Bureau of Water Quality Planning, regardless of where the project is located, as having the potential to discharge contaminants to surface or groundwaters.” Uses include the following:
Residential Domestic animal raising
Commercial Service stations, auto repair and service, business support services, laundries and dry-cleaning plant, repair services, batch plants, fuel and ice dealers, industrial services, recycling and scrap, storage yards, vehicle storage and parking, vehicle and freight terminals
Public Service Airfields, landing strips, and heliports; collection stations, hospitals, local public health and safety facilities; regional public health and safety facilities; power generating, public utility centers, schools, transit stations and terminals
Recreation Beach recreation, boat launching facilities, developed campgrounds, golf courses, marinas, recreational vehicle parks, rural sports Resource Management Timber stand improvement, grazing, range pasture management, runoff control
Shore zone Construction equipment storage, seaplane operations, tour boat operations, water-oriented outdoor recreation concessions Consistent with existing conditions, permit applicants within 600 feet of a drinking water source would be required to demonstrate compliance with the source water protection provisions in Chapter 60 of the TRPA Code. Thus, this impact would be less than significant.
Environmental Analysis: Yes, less than significant.
Required Mitigation: None
XI. LAND USE AND PLANNING (CEQA)
a) Would the project physically divide an established community? The most common form of community division resulting from land-use decisions is the creation of large roadways or freeways that bisect established communities. The Mid-Town Area does not propose any new roadways or freeways; there is no potential for community division in that sense.
Community division on a smaller scale can occur when large developments block access to or through adjacent parcels. The potential for new development is quite limited, as the area is currently 79.4% developed. Of the 20.6% vacant area (143.9 acres), 65% (93.79 acres) is owned by the South Tahoe Public Utility District, with plans to be developed as needs of the wastewater facility grow.
802
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 153 The Mid-Town Area Plan is designed to foster a stronger community and a sense of community identity by creating shared spaces for people of all ages and abilities. This is a primary focus for Bijou Park and Golf Course, the Recreation & Aquatics Center, and Lakeview Commons.
Throughout the plan area transportation improvements are identified to enable safe navigation and stress-free connectivity to nearby community assets. Such improvements will yield a net benefit and make navigation of the area by bike or on foot more efficient, inviting, and safe.
Environmental Analysis: No impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
b) Would the project cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
Local jurisdictions are delegated the authority to create area plans through Chapter 13 of the TRPA Code of Ordinances. TRPA Code Section13.6.4 states that once the TRPA Governing Board makes a finding that the plan-including its policies, plans, maps, codes, and ordinances-is consistent with and furthers the goals and policies of the Regional Plan, the area plan may be considered part of the Regional Plan. In addition to adopting an area plan, TRPA must also certify the plan annually. To do so, TRPA conducts an annual audit of projects permitted within the plan area to confirm they comply with plan standards. A four-year recertification is also completed based on Regional Plan Goals and Policies DP-2.1 to review load reductions.
Each project is reviewed under the Regional Plan in its nature, extent, and timing for possible impacts on any reasonably applicable threshold. In addition to threshold attainment and maintenance, the review includes analyses of resource utilization such as additional vehicle miles traveled, vehicle trip ends, impervious coverage, water demand, sewage disposal capacity, and area of SEZ disturbance.
The Mid-Town Area Plan is designed to encourage redevelopment that will further progress towards attaining and maintaining threshold goals. Redevelopment drives greater compliance with coverage regulations, results in environmental mitigation, and ensures BMPs are installed and maintained.
The Mid-Town Area Plan promotes a dense, walkable, town center concept that will facilitate active transportation and lessen vehicle miles traveled.
Environmental Analysis: Less than significant impact
Required Mitigation: None.
8. LAND USE (TRPA)
a. Will the proposal include uses which are not listed as permissible uses in the applicable Area Plan, Plan Area Statement, adopted Community Plan, or Master Plan? The Mid-Town Area Plan proposes modifications to various existing primary use definitions as included in the TRPA Code of Ordinances Chapter 90. These are for clarification only and do not affect the intensity of the uses.
803
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 154 Two new uses are proposed as allowed uses in various districts of Mid-Town. These were created specifically to address feedback received during community outreach. Both uses are intended to create more opportunities for small business owners and entrepreneurs within South Lake Tahoe.
Many residents of the City of South Lake Tahoe who hold home occupation permits to allow them to create handmade goods and homemade nonperishable foods for sale. Due to the nature of these businesses being operated from a home, growth capacity is rather limited.
Based on discussions with numerous individuals, a primary barrier to the growth of small food operations is the limited availability of commercial space for preparation, as some foods must be prepared in commercial kitchens. Producers of food that can be made in a residential kitchen can experience a growth ceiling due to limited production capacity in residential kitchens and limitations imposed by State law. Additionally, to conduct sales across state lines, food must be prepared in a commercial kitchen. The proposed use is defined below. • Small Commercial Kitchen: This use consists of small-scale establishments producing prepared foods or beverages, such as baked goods, condiments, frozen foods, preserves, or the like for local distribution at stores or farmers' markets. Outside storage and display is not included. A storefront is required.
Similar uses are allowed elsewhere throughout the City under the existing uses in TRPA Code of Ordinances Chapter 90 of “small scale manufacturing” and “food and kindred products.” These uses, however, are targeted toward larger operations of an industrial nature, which do not characterize local entrepreneurial businesses. These uses are intended to fill a gap that limits the growth potential of local artisan businesses.
A full list of permissible uses and where they are allowed by right, allowed with a special use permit, or not allowed relative to the existing planning guidance is included in Appendix A, Permissible Use Changes.
A more flexible permissible use matrix is intended to spur economic development and decrease commercial vacancy throughout the area. As discussed above, some of the uses included in the Mid-Town Area Plan may facilitate the expansion of existing local businesses. Operating out of a traditional commercial space rather than as a home occupation allows for greater production and is not subject to the same income caps. Allowing more uses in Mid-Town increases the likelihood that vacant commercial sites will be leased and improved. Land with flexible zoning is generally more valuable and more attractive to developers and investors. Adaptive reuse is a planning and development approach that relies on flexible zoning, allowing a structure to be easily converted to support a different use. The Mid-Town Area Plan’s permissible uses and development standards may facilitate such projects.
Environmental Analysis: Yes, less than significant.
Required Mitigation: None.
b. Will the proposal expand or intensify an existing non-conforming use? See TRPA Question 8.a. and Appendix A for a discussion on new uses allowed within the Mid-Town Area Plan. A list is provided below, noting general expansions of uses. A use is noted where it is 804
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 155 proposed to be expanded in at least one district. Please see Appendix A for a complete list of district specific changes.
• Multifamily dwelling
• Multi-person dwelling
• Nursing and personal care
• Residential care
• Single-family dwelling
• Nursery
• Amusement, recreation, & entertainment
facilities
• Animal services
• Repair services
• Printing and publishing
• Small-scale manufacturing
• Government offices
• Local public assembly facilities
• Local post office
• Regional public health and safety
facilities
• Membership organization
• Power generating
• Social service organizations
• Threshold-related research facilities
• Riding and hiking trails
• Group facilities
• General retail
• Outdoor retail sales
• Broadcasting studios
• Schools - business and vocational
• Secondary storage
• Small commercial kitchen
• Storage yards
• Vehicle storage and parking
The Mid-Town Area Plan is a new area plan that is to replace the Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan and Sierra Tract Commercial Plan Area Statement (PAS) in their entirety. Select parcels from the Al Tahoe PAS, Highland Woods PAS, and Bijou Meadows PAS have been incorporated to address split zoning and to incorporate public service uses within the plan area. As such, the Mid-Town Area Plan proposes expanding permissible uses for all districts.
Flexibility in permissible uses was a theme throughout community outreach to increase business opportunities and reduce the number of vacant sites within the plan area. As directed by the City’s 2023-2028 Strategic Plan (Action Item 4.1.1), a summary of vacant/underutilized properties was created from which a priority list could be made to work with property owners on redevelopment opportunities. Using the categories below, 40 sites were identified during the winter of 2023, 17 of which are in the Mid-Town plan area.
Multi-family and multi-person dwellings are proposed to be allowed where they were previously not allowed or required a special use permit. Only in the Bijou Recreation District will residential uses be required to obtain a special use permit. Uses within the Lake Tahoe Community College District were expanded to support the growing needs and shifting atmosphere of the campus, as onsite housing creates a greater demand for complimentary uses such as food retail and community spaces.
There are no new areas that allow tourist accommodation uses, and they have been further limited within the Harrison/Sandy District. New tourist accommodation uses are allowed; however, they are prohibited north of Lake Tahoe Blvd. This was done to preserve public beach access along Lake Tahoe and maintain public serving uses along Harrison Ave. Outreach demonstrated a strong community desire for these spaces to remain accessible to the public. 805
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 156 Allowing a wider range of uses within Mid-Town has the potential to strengthen the area’s economic strength and sense of community . The Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan which applies to most of the project area was adopted in 1995 and focused on tourist and public-facing uses, severely limiting the development pathways for residential uses. The Mid-Town Area Plan’s support for housing has the potential to increase pedestrian activity and create a more attractive environment for retail tenants. This region of the City is well connected to the peripheral El Dorado County neighborhoods of Montgomery Estates, Golden Bear, and Black Bart via Black Bart Ave, making it a common avenue into the City for employment and pleasure.
The Mid-Town Area Plan builds on the City’s 56-Acres Master Plan which proposes locating City offices and City Hall within the 56-acres site. These improvements cement the area as a true public arena and can support the existing recreation center as a venue for community events.
Implementation of the Mid-Town Area Plan would not intensify any non-conforming uses. All nonconforming uses that remain may be continued and maintained pursuant to City Code Section
6.55.380 and TRPA Code Section 90.3.3, and expansion would be limited in scope, intensity, and size pursuant to City Code Section 6.55.390.
Any new uses proposed in the Mid-Town Area Plan would be subject to City and/or TRPA permitting.
Consistent with existing conditions, permit applicants would be required to demonstrate that any proposed project would not have a significant effect on the environment, including, but not limited to, traffic, land coverage, scenic resources, air quality, water quality.
Environmental Analysis: Yes, less than significant.
Required Mitigation: None.
XII. MINERAL RESOURCES (CEQA)
a) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state?
The Department of Conservation’s California Geological Survey does not identify any production areas within the Mid-Town region of South Lake Tahoe. No local guiding documents, including the City General Plan, specific plan, or other plan, the TRPA Regional Plan, and Plan Area Statement, identify any sites within the project area as an important mineral recovery site.
Environmental Analysis: No impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
b) Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? The impact for this item is the same as discussed previously in CEQA Question XII.a. The Department of Conservation’s California Geological Survey does not identify any production areas within the Mid-Town region of South Lake Tahoe.
Environmental Analysis: No impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
806
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 157
9. NATURAL RESOURCES (TRPA)
a. Will the proposal result in a substantial increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? Mid-Town Area Plan may create the potential for natural resources such as wood, metals, and gasoline to be used at an increased rate due to new development or redevelopment should the plan be a successful catalyst. Wood and metals used in construction projects within the City of South Lake Tahoe are generally not sourced or produced locally. Any project permitted under the Area Plan would be subject to project-level environmental review and, if necessary, site-specific mitigation measures will be applied. Therefore, any increase in the rate of use of natural resources would not be substantial and would not be in quantities that would result in a significant effect.
Environmental Analysis: No.
Required Mitigation: None.
b. Will the proposal result in substantial depletion of any non-renewable natural resource? The rate of use of some resources may temporarily increase if the Mid-Town Area Plan is a successful catalyst; however, this may be experienced due external factors, such as development and commerce trends beyond the Plan’s reach. The potential for new development is limited by the growth management system implemented by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), which limits the number of residential units, tourist accommodation units, and commercial floor area that can be built within the basin. Construction would be limited and would not require quantities of non-renewable resources beyond those typical of residential and commercial construction.
Projects associated with the Mid-Town Area Plan would not result in substantial depletion of any non-renewable natural resources.
Environmental Analysis: No.
Required Mitigation: None.
XIII. NOISE (CEQA)
a) Would the project result in generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? This potential effect is the same as that analyzed in the City General Plan EIR in Impact 4.6.1, and therefore this analysis tiers from and is consistent with the EIR. The EIR concluded that application of the General Plan noise policies was adequate to mitigate any potential noise impacts (City of South Lake Tahoe, 2011, pp. 2.0-16). The City’s noise policies provide expanded protection for ambient conditions, designed to eliminate land-use conflicts with respect to noise. Policies include specific numeric noise-level standards for new projects affected by or including both transportation and non-transportation noise sources, as well as guidance for evaluating noise impacts and identifying noise mitigation measures. The applicable General Plan noise policies are:
• HS-8.1, Annoying and Excessive Non-Transportation Noise Protection • HS-8.2, Annoying and Excessive Non-Transportation Noise Mitigation • HS-8.3, Overall Background Noise Mitigation
807
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 158 • HS-8.4, Annoying and Excessive Transportation Noise Protection • HS-8.5, New Transportation Noise Source Mitigation
• HS-8.6, Acoustical Analysis Preparation
• HS-8.7, California State Building Code Title 24 Consistency • HS-8.8, Lake Tahoe Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan Compliance • HS-8.9, Airport Noise Mitigation for Adjacent Residential Projects • HS-8.10, Airport Noise Level Compatibility
Temporary increases in ambient noise levels may occur during construction activities requiring heavy equipment or power tools. To minimize the effects of construction noise on adjacent parcels, TRPA imposes the standard conditions of approval below for all residential projects. As a permitting authority under the City of South Lake Tahoe and TRPA memorandum of understanding, these conditions apply to residential projects approved by the City of South Lake Tahoe under the MOU. • Any normal construction activities creating noise in excess of the TRPA noise standards shall be considered exempt from said standards, provided all such work is conducted between the hours of 8:00 am and 6:30 pm.
• Stationary equipment (e.g., generators or pumps) shall be located as far as feasible from noise-sensitive receptors and residential areas. Stationary equipment shall be equipped with temporary sound barriers near sensitive noise sources or residential areas. • Sonic pile driving shall be utilized instead of impact pile driving where feasible. Holes shall be predrilled to minimize noise impacts from pile driving, subject to the design engineer’s approval.
Special events often feature either recorded or live amplified sound. Special events with amplified sound are reviewed individually or as an event series under SLTCC 6.55.230, or against specific permit conditions when within a special event area. Events are reviewed to ensure amplified sound hours do not cause significant disturbances to neighboring uses. In some cases, mitigation measures are applied to an event to lessen noise impacts.
The Mid-Town Area Plan adopts community noise equivalent levels based on levels of the City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan and the TRPA Regional Plan. Where levels were inconsistent, the more stringent standard was adopted.
Environmental Analysis: Less than significant impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
b) Would the project result in generation of excessive ground borne vibration or ground borne noise levels?
Ground-borne vibration ranges from no detectable effects at the lowest levels to audible rumbling sounds and detectable vibrations at moderate levels and slight damage to nearby structures at the highest levels. In the most extreme circumstances, ground vibration may cause architectural damage to structures and, very rarely, structural damage. The effects of ground-borne vibration depend on the duration of the activity and the distance from the vibration source. 808
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 159 There are no federal, state, or local regulatory standards for vibration. However, various criteria have been established to assist in evaluating vibration impacts. For instance, Caltrans has developed vibration criteria based on human perception and structural damage risks. For most structures, Caltrans considers a peak-particle velocity (ppv) threshold of 0.2 inches per second (in/sec) to be the level at which architectural damage (i.e., minor cracking of plaster walls and ceilings) in normal structures may occur. Below 0.10 in/sec, there is “virtually no risk of ‘architectural’ damage to normal buildings.” Damage to historic or ancient buildings could occur at levels of 0.08 in/sec ppv. In terms of human annoyance, continuous vibrations in excess of 0.1 in/sec ppv are identified by Caltrans as the minimum level perceptible for ground-borne vibration.
Short periods of ground-borne vibration exceeding 0.2 in/sec ppv can be expected to result in increased levels of annoyance to people in buildings (Caltrans, 2002).
Construction activities are expected to continue within the plan area resulting in ground-borne vibration. However, the Area Plan incorporates Policy HNS-2.4 via Safety Goal 3, Policy 3.5, Groundborne Noise, requiring an analysis of potential vibration impacts to be conducted for all construction activities that include impact equipment and activities such as pile driving, soil compaction, or vibratory hammers that occur within 200 feet of existing structures. The analysis will address the potential for adverse vibration levels based on the criteria contained in Table 15 below. The City will ensure that construction operations are designed to avoid or mitigate for vibrations above 0.02 in/second (0.5 mm/second).
It should also be noted that TRPA Standard Conditions of Approval for Grading Projects and Standard Conditions of Approval for Residential Projects require projects to utilize sonic pile driving wherever feasible, and pre-drill pile driving holes to the extent feasible when approved by a design engineer.
Future projects are subject to Safety Goal 3, Policy 3.5, Ground-borne Noise, and TRPA standard conditions of approval to reduce ground-borne vibration; thus, this impact is less than significant.
Table 14: Effects of Vibration on People and Buildings
Peak Particle
Velocity
inches/second
Peak Particle
Velocity
mm/second
Human Reaction Effect on Buildings
0 -.006 0.15 Imperceptible by
people
Vibrations unlikely to cause
damage of any type
0..6 - .02 0.5 Range of threshold of
perception
Vibrations unlikely to cause
damage of any type
0.8 2.0 Vibrations are clearly
perceptible
Recommended upper level of
which ruins and ancient
monuments should be subjected
0.1 2.54 Level at which
continuous vibrations
begin to annoy people
Virtually no risk of architectural
damage to normal buildings
809
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 160
0.2 5.0 Vibrations are
annoying to people
and buildings
Threshold at which there is a risk
of architectural damage to normal
dwellings
1.0 25.4 Architectural damage
2.0 50.45 Structural damage to
residential buildings
6.0 151.0 Structural damage to
commercial buildings
Source: Caltrans, 1976
Environmental Analysis: Less than significant impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
Portions of the Mid-Town Area Plan are overlaid with safety zones and noise contour bands of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). Safety Zones 4 and 6 overlay portions of the plan area. Zone 6 is the Airport Traffic Pattern Zone, and is the least restrictive, and all uses are compatible. Safety Zone 4 is the Outer Approach/Departure Zone, with uses ranging from compatible to incompatible. Non-residential densities are limited per Table 4-2 of the ALUCP. Noise contour bands for 50-55 CNEL (dB) and 55-60 CNEL (dB) overlay portions of the Mid-Town plan area. All uses are compatible in the 50-55 dB range. Single-family dwellings, secondary residences, mobile home dwellings, schools, and threshold-related research facilities are conditionally compatible in the 55-60 dB range. Conditionally compatible uses will experience moderate noise interference during outdoor activities and with indoor activities when windows are open. The uses shall be allowed so long as outdoor activities are minimal, and construction features are included that reduce interior noise levels to 45 dB. Mitigation measures exist within the ALUCP, and the following are proposed with the Mid-Town Area Plan
• Policy 2.4 Compatible Uses As there is more intermixing of residential and commercial uses and properties, permit conditions should increasingly consider quality of life (noise, safety, health, etc.).
• Policy 3.1 Noise Mitigation for Residential Uses Residential projects fronting US Hwy 50/Lake Tahoe Blvd shall include features that mitigate transportation related noise pollution, such as vegetation buffers and air conditioning. • Policy 3.2 Airport Noise Review all projects against Noise Compatibility Criteria (Table 4-1) of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) to avoid establishing noise-sensitive uses in affected areas.
The ALUCP identifies an overflight notification area based on the flight tracks used to develop noise contours. An overflight notification document shall be recorded for residential parcels within the Overflight Notification Area of the Lake Tahoe Airport unless an avigation easement exists. With these existing and proposed policies in place, the effect is less than significant. 810
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 161 Environmental Analysis: Less than significant impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
6. NOISE (TRPA)
a. Will the proposal result in Increases in existing Community Noise Equivalency Levels (CNEL) beyond those permitted in the applicable Area Plan, Plan Area Statement, Community Plan or Master Plan?
The analysis for this item is the same as provided above for CEQA Question XIII.a.
Environmental Analysis: Yes, less than significant.
Required Mitigation: None.
b. Will the proposal result in exposure of people to severe noise levels? See analysis for CEQA Questions XIII.a, XIII.b. and XIII.c. above.
Environmental Analysis: Yes, less than significant.
Required Mitigation: None.
c. Will the proposal result in single event noise levels greater than those set forth in the TRPA Noise Environmental Threshold?
TRPA Code of Ordinances section 68.3.1 identifies the maximum permissible noise levels for the aircraft, watercraft, motor vehicles, off-road vehicles, and over-snow vehicles. Exemptions included in Section 68.9 address construction, maintenance, and demolition between the hours of 8 AM and 6:30 PM. Safety signals, warning devices, or emergency pressure relief valves, and other similar devices are exempt from the standards of the TRPA Code of Ordinances Chapter 68. The Regional Plan sets forth the following single-event maximum noise levels in decibels:
SINGLE NOISE EVENT NUMERICAL STANDARDS
a) Aircraft measured 6,500 m-start of takeoff roll 2,000 m-runway threshold approach:
a. N1) 80 dBA - between the hours of 8am and 8pm
b. N2) 77.1 dBA - between the hours of 8pm and 8am
b) Watercraft:
a. N3) Pass-By Test - 82 Lmax -measured 50ft from engine at 3,000rpm. b. N4) Shoreline test - 75 Lmax - measured with microphone 5 ft. above water, 2 ft., above curve of shore, dock or platform. Watercraft in Lake, no minimum distance. c. N5) Stationary Test - 88 dBA Lmax for boats manufactured before January 1, 1993; Microphone 3.3 feet from exhaust outlet - 5 feet above water. d. N6) Stationary Test - 90 dBA Lmax for boats manufactured after January 1, 1993; Microphone 3.3 feet from exhaust outlet - 5 feet above water. c) Motor Vehicles Less Than 6,000 GVW:
a. N7) 76 dBA – Travelling at speeds less than 35 MPH at a monitoring distance of 50ft b. N8) 82 dBA – Travelling at speeds greater than 35 MPH at a monitoring distance of 50ft.
811
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 162 d) Motor Vehicles Greater Than 6,000 GVW:
a. N9) 82 dBA – Travelling at speeds less than 35 MPH at a monitoring distance of 50ft. b. N10) 86 dBA – Travelling at speeds greater than 35 MPH at a monitoring distance of 50ft.
e) Motorcycles:
a. N11) 77 dBA – Travelling at speeds less than 35 MPH at a monitoring distance of 50ft.
b. N12) 86 dBA – Travelling at speeds greater than 35 MPH at a monitoring distance of 50ft.
f) Off-Road Vehicles:
a. N13) 72 dBA – Travelling at speeds less than 35 MPH at a monitoring distance of 50ft.
b. N14) 86 dBA – Travelling at speeds greater than 35 MPH at a monitoring distance of 50ft.
g) Snowmobiles:
a. N15) 82 dBA – Travelling at speeds less than 35 MPH at a monitoring distance of 50ft.
There is potential for the Mid-Town Area Plan to create or expand uses that include these types of motorized vehicles. New uses involving such vehicles would be required to meet all applicable TRPA Code of Ordinances regulations and standards. TRPA's monitoring work program as referenced in TRPA Code of Ordinances Section 68.6 ensures that such standards are met. With such programs in place alongside the existing and proposed noise mitigation policies, the impact is less than significant.
Environmental Analysis: Yes, less than significant.
Required Mitigation: None.
d. Will the project result in the placement of residential or tourist accommodation uses in areas where the existing CNEL exceeds 60 dBA or is otherwise incompatible? The only areas in the proposed Mid-Town plan area where the CNEL exceeds 60 dBA are within 300 feet of US Highway 50/Lake Tahoe Boulevard, where the existing and proposed CNEL is 65 dBA.
Under the Mid-Town Area Plan, residential uses are allowed outright within 300 feet of US Highway 50/Lake Tahoe Boulevard. Tourist accommodation uses are also allowed within 300 feet of US Highway 50/Lake Tahoe Boulevard, though are more spatially limited than residential uses.
The following policies have been included within the Plan in anticipation of additional sensitive land uses near commercial centers and major transportation routes:
• Policy 2.4 Compatible Uses As there is more intermixing of residential and commercial uses and properties, permit conditions should increasingly consider quality of life (noise, safety, health, etc.).
• Policy 3.4 Residential Compatibility Structures with height over 26 feet shall reduce mass when adjacent to sensitive uses by placing additional height at a greater setback. 812
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 163 • Policy 3.6 Screening of Industrial Elements To the extent possible, industrial elements such as HVAC systems, dumpsters, storage areas, and the like shall be screened and blended with other site elements.
• Policy 3.1 Noise Mitigation for Residential Uses Residential projects fronting US Hwy 50/Lake Tahoe Blvd shall include features that mitigate transportation related noise pollution, such as vegetation buffers and air conditioning. • Policy 3.2 Airport Noise Review all projects against Noise Compatibility Criteria (Table 4-1) of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) to avoid establishing noise-sensitive uses in affected areas.
• Policy 3.3 Transportation Noise Require mitigation of new transportation noise sources to the levels shown in Table HS-2 of the City General Plan at all outdoor activity areas and interior spaces of existing noise-sensitive land uses.
• Policy 2.5 Thoughtful Design Mixed-use projects shall be designed with layouts that shield, protect, or otherwise buffer residential uses from sources of pollution, such as through locating residential units on upper floors or further from major travel routes than the commercial element of the project.
• Policy 5.1 Residential Air Quality Residential developments should consider health and wellbeing of residents by including air conditioning, screening, and shading of units, especially where homes are adjacent to high polluting roadways such as Lake Tahoe Boulevard.
The project allows residential or tourist accommodation uses in areas where the existing CNEL exceeds 60 dBA; however, the effect is less than significant, as mitigation measures have been included to minimize noise pollution.
Environmental Analysis: Yes, less than significant.
Required Mitigation: None.
e. Will the proposal result in the placement of uses that would generate an incompatible noise level in close proximity to existing residential or tourist accommodation uses? With the wide range of uses allowed under the Mid-Town Area Plan, there is a possibility that uses that generate noise may be located near sensitive noise receptors. All uses, however, are required to meet the community noise equivalent level (CNEL) as shown below and included in Chapter 12, Safety and Noise, of the Area Plan.
Table 15:Community Noise Equivalent Level
District/
Overlay
Sierra
Tahoe
Business
Harrison/
Sandy
Al Tahoe
Center
Public
Service LTCC Bijou Rec.
US Hwy
50 (overlay)
Shorezone
(overlay)
CNEL 60 60 60 55 55 55 65* 55
*This standard overrides the district CNEL levels for areas within 300 feet of US Hwy 50.
Projects undergoing design review will be assessed to ensure the site improvements are compatible with the proposed use and surrounding uses. Specific development standards are included for uses of a heavier nature, including maintenance, mechanical equipment, storage, and the like. See 813
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 164 analysis for item 6.d. above, which discusses screening measures to mitigate noise pollution for sensitive uses.
Additionally, with the addition of residential uses allowed throughout most of the plan area, some industrial uses have been removed including collection stations; vehicle dealers; building material and hardware; mail order and vending; and auto repair and service. These uses have been removed where they do not exist or are no longer aligned with the community vision for the space or have been limited to areas where such uses already exist.
Environmental Analysis: Yes, less than significant.
Required Mitigation: None.
f. Will the proposal result in exposure of existing structures to levels of ground vibration that could result in structural damage?
The analysis for this item is the same as that for CEQA Question XIII.b.
Environmental Analysis: Yes, less than significant.
Required Mitigation: None.
XIV. POPULATION AND HOUSING (CEQA)
a) Would the project induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
There is very little likelihood that the Mid-Town Area Plan will create unplanned population growth indirectly (for example, through the extension of roads or other infrastructure), as the plan area is within an urban region. All parcels are accessible via existing roads and can be serviced by existing utility providers. The South Tahoe Public Utility District (STPUD), which provides water and sewer services to the region, was a stakeholder in the development of the plan. City and STPUD staff discussed the capacity and limitations of the sewer and water systems throughout the plan area to ensure projects built to densities as allowed by the plan will not exceed service capacity.
Additionally, each project proposed within the plan area will require individual approval from STPUD.
The Mid-Town Area Plan proposes increasing multifamily residential densities throughout the area in addition to expanding where residential uses are allowed. There are 17 acres within the plan area where multifamily dwellings are not allowed under the existing community plan. The Mid-Town Area Plan proposes allowing multifamily dwellings in this area. Under existing conditions, the maximum multifamily density is 15 units per acre. The Area Plan proposes allowing multifamily residential developments with up to 65 units per acre when located on a parcel within the Town Center overlay.
Because the Area Plan is a joint City/TRPA document, density must also be consistent with TRPA Code of Ordinances Chapters 13 and 31. The Area Plan will allow up to 65 units per acre when and if these TRPA sections are amended to allow such densities. The densities as noted in the area plan are only allowed to the extent they are lower than the maximum densities as set by TRPA Code of Ordinances Table 13.5.3-1 or as subsequently amended. This existing Town Center overlay consists 814
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 165 of 65 acres and is proposed to be expanded to 404 acres under the Mid-Town Area Plan. The maximum multifamily density for parcels not within the Town Center overlay shall be as stated in TRPA Code of Ordinances Table 31.3.2-1. Currently, the maximum density is 15 units per acre. To maintain consistency with the 2011 City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan, Table LU-2 (Development Intensity Standards) must be amended to permit up to 65 residential units per acre in Town Centers, Neighborhood Centers, High Density Residential, and Recreation land use designations. General Plan Land Use Diagram LU-1 must also be amended to maintain consistency with changes to MTAP Zoning District boundaries.
The Mid-Town Area Plan would implement the mixed-use zoning concepts envisioned by the Regional Plan and the General Plan and analyzed in the RPU EIS (TRPA 2012a) and the GP EIR (CSLT 2010, page 4.2-12). The Mid-Town Area Plan would result in changes to the overall density and distribution of the region’s population and gradually increase the density within the Town Center while simultaneously phasing out lower-density development outside the centers. Although this represents a change in the density and distribution of the region’s population, such changes are not anticipated to result in environmental degradation. The transition to higher-density, compact, transit-oriented development is anticipated to reduce environmental impacts associated with traffic (vehicle miles traveled), air quality, cumulative land disturbance, infrastructure expansion, and other environmental issue areas and to provide opportunities for stream environment restoration and improved water quality control facilities, which would be beneficial. The proposed changesto land use zoning and development patterns associated with the Mid-Town Area Plan (increased density for residential and additional height in certain districts) would align with the location, distribution, and growth rate of the human population planned for the region consistent with the TRPA Regional Plan and the City General Plan. Growth within the MTAP would continue to be constrained to that which is allowed by the growth management system set forth in Chapter 50 of the TRPA Code.
The increased density standard may create growth within Mid-Town Area Plan; however, that growth would be measured and limited due to existing growth management restrictions and limited allocations, potential residential units of use, and residential bonus units available. Although population growth would be limited, it would still be consistent with the desired land use pattern of concentrating higher-density development within Town Centers in proximity to employment centers, recreation amenities, and transit options.
Developing every parcel in the Mid-Town Area Plan at its full maximum density potential is unrealistic and not feasible and does not align with historic development pattern seen in other area plans (i.e., Tahoe Valley Area Plan & Tourist Core Area Plan). This degree of residential development is unrealistic due to several factors including coverage, stormwater treatment requirements, and the nature of the use. The most limiting factor for most developments within the Tahoe Basin is coverage and coverage-intensive improvements such as parking and driveways. Developments generally dedicate 30 to 60 percent of the allowable coverage to vehicle and pedestrian access.
This limits a parcel’s development capacity, though additional height can be added without creating new coverage. As discussed in the analysis provided for geology, soils, and hydrology, all developed parcels are required to treat and infiltrate stormwater runoff onsite. Most parcels treat runoff through surface treatments that further limit a parcel’s buildable area. 815
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 166 The dominant land uses within the Mid-Town region are not consistent with high density housing.
The Mid-Town area is approximately 75% developed. For purposes of this section, a developed parcel is one with a primary use other than vacant or open space. Over half of the developed plan area is public service or recreation uses, all of which are unlikely candidates for high density housing. Housing developed on such parcels would likely be limited to employee or student housing not to exceed the uses’ unique demand. Approximately 95 of the 129 vacant acres in the plan area are owned by STPUD. These parcels are reserved for further wastewater treatment facilities for which housing is not a compatible use.
High density housing is allowed in the Lake Tahoe Community College (LTCC) District; however, it would be impractical to meet the maximum density standard. LTCC owns approximately 117 acres within the plan area. Approximately 24 acres are stream environment zones, limiting the area’s coverage and buildable area. Much of the project area’s coverage is used for education and athletic facilities. While LTCC has expressed a desire to construct additional student housing, this would be proportional to the demand created by the student population. LTCC has also expressed interest in a small number of housing units for those not associated with the college in order to make funding more accessible.
The Mid-Town Area Plan proposes allowing multifamily developments with a special use permit in the Bijou Recreation District at a maximum density of 4 units per acre, and at 15 units per acre where allowed under the Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan. A maximum of 15% of this district may be developed as multi-family housing, as Bijou Park, golf facilities, and the cemetery are highly unlikely to be replaced.
Likewise, the development potential of properties within the Public Service Center District, Town Center overlay is limited by the extent of existing uses. Much of the area is part of the 56-Acres Master Plan site and owned by El Dorado County or the City of South Lake Tahoe. This site would most likely accommodate a single residential development of 75-80 units. The Lake Tahoe Unified School District (LTUSD) owns approximately 50 acres within this district. LTUSD has expressed interest in building housing to accommodate teachers and staff, though they have not committed to a specific site. Housing development by LTUSD would be limited to meeting needs of existing staff in unstable housing conditions and new staff moving into the region. The US Postal Service at 1046 Al Tahoe Blvd. is located on a 5.75-acre lot. Housing is not generally provided onsite for such uses.
The institutions discussed above own large portions of the plan area. They are well developed with very low likelihood of being transitioned to commercial or residential developments. While many institutions have contributed to or expressed interest in housing, housing development is not their primary function. Combined, infrastructure and open space account for 20.7 acres. Neither of these uses are compatible with residential uses. As discussed in CEQA Question XVII.b, the anticipated maximum potential change in residential units is approximately 700 multi-family dwelling units. The anticipated number of new residential units aligns with existing growth trends found in the Tahoe Valley Area Plan and Tourist Core Area pan which has a growth rate of approximately 500 residential units (proposed, constructed, or under review). . This estimate includes market-rate, deed-restricted (including income and occupancy), and student housing units. While the potential for new residential units may increase, the plan is not expected to 816
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 167 increase the projected growth rate of South Lake Tahoe or demand for housing. The California Department of Finance (DOF) identifies itself as the official source of demographic data for state planning and budgeting; however, DOF projections are only calculated at the state and county level.
The El Dorado County growth rate used by South Tahoe Public Utility District in its 2020 Urban Water Management Plan is 0.37% per year (Jenks, 2021). There are no elements of the Mid-Town Area Plan that are likely to inflate this estimate. Population growth rates are primarily influenced by births and deaths, migration patterns, employment opportunities, housing availability and affordability, and local and regional policy decisions. An area plan may influence the pattern of growth within a defined area by establishing specific land use regulations; however, it does not by itself create population growth. External factors such as climate, regional accessibility, employer capacity, and global market and financial trends operate independently of an area plan. Projected population growth is usually driven less by a single trend and more by how these factors interact, creating an environment where projected growth may underperform even when only one factor is not conducive to population growth. The Mid-Town Area Plan is primarily anticipated to impact where and how growth may be accommodated as discussed below.
Changes proposed by the Mid-Town Area Plan will not impact regional development capacity. All new developments within the Tahoe Basin are built within parameters of TRPA’s growth management system. This system requires that each new residential unit obtains a residential unit of use. Any units that are built would be accounted for under this program by utilizing a residential unit of use or bonus unit. Rather than population growth, the Mid-Town Area Plan has the potential to gradually increase the density of the population within centers and simultaneously phase out lower density uses outside these centers. Encouraging this kind of growth pattern is consistent with smart growth practices and is consistent with mixed-use zoning concepts envisioned by the Regional Plan and the General and analyzed in the RPU EIS (TRPA 2012a) and the General Plan EIR (City of South Lake Tahoe, 2010, pp. 4.1-25; 4.2-13). Although this represents a change in the density and distribution of the region’s population, such changes are not anticipated to result in environmental degradation. The transition to higher-density, compact, transit-oriented development is anticipated to reduce environmental impacts associated with traffic (vehicle miles traveled), air quality, land disturbance, infrastructure expansion, and other environmental issue areas and to provide opportunities for stream environment restoration and improved water quality control facilities which would be beneficial. Growth within the Mid-Town plan area would continue to be constrained to that which is allowed by the growth management system set forth in Chapter 50 of the TRPA Code. Based on the development caps of the region and limited vacant parcels, the potential for substantial unplanned population growth is not significant.
Environmental Analysis: Less than significant impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
b) Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? The Mid-Town Area Plan aims to create new housing opportunities in central South Lake Tahoe. As of 2026, there is not a significant amount of housing units within the plan area. There are 10 parcels with residential uses, including condominiums, multifamily units, single-family units, and mobile home units. Several of the single-family dwellings operate as short-term rentals and therefore do 817
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 168 not contribute to the local housing stock. The mobile home park contains 21 units. These serve as de facto affordable units. Should a project be proposed that would demolish these units, mitigation measures will be explored at that time. The City’s 2011 Housing Element includes the following programs aimed at retaining existing housing stock, especially properties that are naturally affordable. Implementation of these programs is ongoing. • Program 3-6: Replacement of Lost Units From Residential Demolitions: In accordance with California Government Code Section 65583.2(g), the City will require replacement housing units subject to the requirements of California Government Code Section 65915(c)(3) on sites identified in the sites inventory when any new development (residential, mixed-use, or nonresidential) occurs on a site that has been occupied by or restricted for the use of lowerincome households at any time during the previous five years. • Program 3-10, Mobile Home Park Preservation: The City shall promote the longevity and quality of life at existing and new mobile home parks by:
o Codifying regulations for mobile home park conversions. o Evaluating TRPA’s restrictions on the reuse of any residential units of use that originate from a mobile home park, and considering their reuse for workforce housing.
o Reviewing City regulations for new and enlarged mobile home parks to consider adding design, fencing, and amenity requirements and requiring an affordability assessment.
o Conducting an inventory of mobile home parks to identify those that are most desirable or feasible for long-term preservation.
o Work with HCD Mobilehome and Special Occupancy Parks Program to gather and maintain data on resident complaints, inspections and code violations. o Targeting mobile home parks for park-wide infrastructure improvements or select coach rehabilitation or replacement.
The Mid-Town Area Plan echoes these programs in Policy 1.10 Housing Preservation, to require replacement housing units subject to California Government Code Section 65915(c)(3) on sites identified in the sites inventory conducted alongside the Housing Element, consistent with Housing Element Program 3-6, Replacement of Lost Units from Residential Demolitions. The Mid-Town Area Plan’s no net loss provision enforces these policies. When a parcel containing multiple residential units is redeveloped to a lower density or to non-residential use, the units not rebuilt on site shall be redeveloped elsewhere in the plan area and shall be equivalent in size and number of bedrooms as those being replaced. A deed restriction shall be placed on any resulting single-family dwelling, including condominiums, prohibiting use as a vacation home rental as defined in City Code Section
3.50.370. Not only does the prevent the loss of housing, it promotes mixed-use developments and maintains density in Town Centers.
The Mid-Town Area Plan is not expected to displace people or housing stock without providing comparable replacement housing units. With the policies and programs as discussed, there will be no significant impact. Furthermore, the Mid-Town Area Plan will allow a greater number of bonus units to be used in the plan area. The Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan was limited to receiving 20 residential bonus units. The Area Plan will not limit the number of bonus units that may be provided to projects. Upon adoption of the Mid-Town Area Plan, the City, TRPA, and LTCC will coordinate the 818
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 169 transfer of 21 bonus units by TRPA to LTCC in accordance with permit ERSP2022-1992. The City will be returned the 21 multi-family residential units of use originally provided, which will be returned to the City pool for additional housing projects (MTAP Policy 1.8 Student Housing).
Environmental Analysis: Less than significant impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
12. HOUSING (TRPA)
a. Will the proposal affect existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing?
1. Will the proposal decrease the amount of housing in the Tahoe Region? See CEQA Questions XIV.a and b.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
2. Will the proposal decrease the amount of housing in the Tahoe Region historically or currently being rented at rates affordable by lower and very-low-income households? See CEQA Questions XIV.a and b.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
11. POPULATION (TRPA)
a. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population planned for the Region?
See CEQA Questions XIV.a and b. Allowing higher density in Mid-Town could shift development from surrounding areas into Town Centers.
Environmental Analysis: Yes, less than significant.
Required Mitigation: None.
b. Will the proposal include or result in the temporary or permanent displacement of residents?
See CEQA Questions XIV.a and b.
Environmental Analysis: Yes, less than significant.
Required Mitigation: None.
XV. PUBLIC SERVICES (CEQA)
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental 819
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 170 impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection?
South Lake Tahoe Fire Rescue has three fire stations throughout the City. Fire Station One, which also serves as the Battalion Headquarters, is at the intersection of Ski Run Blvd. and Pioneer Trail.
Fire Station One houses paramedic engine one, battalion 3, and brush 1. Fire Station Two, located within Mid-Town, houses truck 2. Fire Station Three and the administration headquarters are at 2101 Lake Tahoe Blvd. Paramedic engine 3 and brush 3 are stationed at Fire Station Three.
The Mid-Town Area Plan includes policy directions to explore relocating Fire Station Two to a site where operations can be expanded. This is an existing long-term goal of the City and is not driven by any need created through the Area Plan. A proposed location is neither identified nor required directly by the Plan, nor indirectly through development that may occur because of the Plan. The viability of potential parcels for Fire Station Two’s new location would be assessed based on numerous factors, including response time, traffic, nearby uses, environmental sensitivity, and site capacity. The effects of a relocated fire station would be analyzed according to CEQA for that specific project.
There are no proposed changes to roadways therefore, there would be no negative effect on emergency service routes or response times. The Mid-Town Area Plan advocates installing emergency signals and clear zones at South Lake Tahoe Fire Station 2 to increase the safety of drivers and pedestrians at this location, as well as shorten response times. Individual projects are analyzed for effects on traffic and vehicle miles traveled. See items XVII and 13 for further analysis of traffic and circulation.
By increasing density, height, and coverage within appropriate areas, the Mid-Town Area Plan may incentivize more development in Town Centers. Because of TRPA’s growth management system and cap on new units, more units and uses located within Town Centers naturally reduce the potential for such uses to be developed elsewhere. Town Centers have existing firefighting infrastructure in place (e.g., fire hydrants, water mains), are located adjacent to major evacuation routes, are closer in proximity of emergency services, and are less susceptible to wildfires.
Environmental Analysis: Less than significant impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
b) Police protection?
Police service is provided by the City of South Lake Tahoe Police Department. The South Lake Tahoe Police Department has a jurisdictional area of approximately 23 square miles, 6.4 of which include waters of Lake Tahoe. The department is located at 1352 Johnson Boulevard and currently has 44 full-time sworn officers. Supporting the sworn positions are 32 civilian personnel. (Email Comm.; Chief Jeff Roberson, 7/20/2026). The current staffing level at the South Lake Tahoe Police Department is approximately 2.09 officers per 1,000 residents, based on a Census population of 21,022 (City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan Annual Progress Report, 2026). According to U.S.
Bureau of Justice Statistics Agency Characteristics (US Bureau of Justice, 2026), municipal police 820
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 171 departments with a population of 50,000 to 249,999 residents employed an average of 1.6 full-time officers per 1,000 residents.
Dispatch service is provided by the Operations Division of the police department. The dispatch center logs when a call is made to report a crime, when an officer is dispatched, when the officer arrives at the scene, and when the officer leaves the scene. Average response time for all calls (emergency and non-emergency) is approximately 9 minutes.
The Mid-Town Area Plan would not require new or expanded police facilities; however, the plan identifies policy directions to explore improvements that allow for additional training opportunities, secure storage, and administrative offices with room for growth. The fitness of potential parcels for additional facilities would be assessed based on numerous factors, including response time, traffic, parcel size, nearby uses, environmental sensitivity, and site capacity.
By increasing density, height, and coverage within appropriate areas, the Mid-Town Area Plan may incentivize more development in Town Centers. Because of TRPA’s growth management system and cap on new units, more units and uses located within Town Centers naturally reduce the potential for such uses to exist elsewhere. The concentration of higher density will result in reduced response time for more individuals.
Environmental Analysis: Less than significant impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
c) Schools?
The Lake Tahoe Unified School District (LTUSD) serves a 10.1 square mile area that includes the entire City of South Lake Tahoe. LTUSD operates eight schools in the City. This includes four elementary schools, one middle school, one high school, and two transitional school.
For the 2025/2026 school year, the LTUSD had an enrollment of 3,363 students (California Department of Education, 2026). Enrollment in LTUSD has declined over the last decade, with enrollment decreasing 633 students since the 2015/2017 school year. With the limited growth allowed by the TRPA Regional Plan that results in a projected growth rate of 10.8% for the next twenty years or 0.58% a year (TRPA 2012a, page 3.12-12) the implementation of the Mid-Town Area Plan would result in the need for new or physically altered schools, therefore there is no possibility of significant environmental impacts in order to maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives.
In recent years the Lake Tahoe Unified School District (LTUSD) has experienced a decrease in enrollment, mirroring the City of South Lake Tahoe’s decrease in population. The population decline is generally the loss of working-age individuals, ages 20 to 65 years old (Matthews, Fuentes, Smith, & Wildemuth, 2025). This is the age group that also most commonly has school-age children. As discussed in CEQA Question XIV and TRPA Question12, there are no elements of the Mid-Town Area Plan that would impact the rate of population growth as projected for El Dorado County. LTUSD would plan to expand/improve facilities as necessary with projected growth rates. Per LTUSD Local Control and Accountability Plan, funding has been designated for modernization of existing facilities (Lake Tahoe Unified School District, 2026). Under current conditions, there is space to 821
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 172 accommodate moderate increases in attendance due to the offset of the recent decrease in attendance. The Mid-Town Area Plan will have no significant impact on schools.
Environmental Analysis: No impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
d) Parks?
The analysis for this item is the same as discussed for CEQA Questions XVI.a. and XVI.b. below, which concludes no significant impact.
Environmental Analysis: Less than significant impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
e) Other public facilities?
The City maintains a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) addresses the City’s needs for public and infrastructure improvements, including the acquisition, expansion, rehabilitation, and replacement of long-lived assets. CIPs include a wide range of projects, from large to small, including new facilities, fence replacements, and road paving. This is a mechanism that allows coordination of financing and the timing of improvements to maximize the return to the public and preserve assets.
The City’s Preserving Capital Investments Policy states the following:
The City invests in capital assets such as property, plant, equipment, facilities, and infrastructure. Preservation of such investments through regular maintenance and a longterm renovation plan is necessary to preserve their value. The city must also plan for the replacement of capital investments (particularly vehicles and equipment). The following policy requirements are intended to ensure the proper accounting and preservation of capital investments and to provide a sound economic base for their replacement. 1) The budget should provide sufficient funding for adequate maintenance, renovation, and the orderly replacement of capital assets such as equipment, fleet, facilities, streets, and parks.
2) All capital assets should be maintained at a level that protects capital investment and minimizes future maintenance and replacement costs. 3) A five-year schedule of equipment replacement and maintenance needs, as well as facilities, streets and parks renovation and maintenance needs should be prepared on an annual basis. Expenditures consistent with such plans shall be included in annual budget appropriations.
The Area Plan will not create unplanned growth as discussed in TRPA Questions 12, 11, and CEQA Question XVI. City facilities and public services within the City currently serve a greater population than that within the City’s boundary. Any changing development patterns as a result of the Area Plan would not result in additional population or additional demand for services, but would bring potential development closer to services.
822
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 173 As the City pursues new service facilities and upgrades, service demand is considered. As discussed in previous items, all other public facility projects would undergo project-level environmental review. The design and development standards proposed by the Mid-Town Area Plan consider the importance of public services and the unique design criteria that sometimes accompany specialized operations and equipment. Any standard may be waived by the Director of Development Services when strict application would interfere with the use of specialized equipment, unique operations, or create an unsafe environment. This provision is meant to facilitate the development of such facilities to maintain public health and safety.
Environmental Analysis: No significant impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
14. PUBLIC SERVICES (TRPA)
Will the proposal have an unplanned effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas?
a. Fire protection?
See CEQA Question XV.a. above.
Environmental Analysis: Yes, less than significant.
Required Mitigation: None.
b. Police protection?
See CEQA Question XV.b. above.
Environmental Analysis: Yes, less than significant.
Required Mitigation: None.
c. Schools?
See CEQA Question. above.
Environmental Analysis: No.
Required Mitigation: None.
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
The analysis for this item is the same as discussed for CEQA Questions XVI.a. and XVI.b. below, which concludes no significant impact.
Environmental Analysis: Yes, less than significant.
Required Mitigation: None.
e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
823
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 174 See discussion for CEQA Question XV, Public Services. See CEQA Question XV.e., which discusses the City’s Capital Improvement Program. The CIP is used to prioritize projects, maximizing timelines and funding efficiency.
Environmental Analysis: Yes, less than significant.
Required Mitigation: None.
f. Other governmental services?
See discussion CEQA Question XV.e above, regarding other public services.
Environmental Analysis: Yes, less than significant.
Required Mitigation: None.
XVI. RECREATION (CEQA)
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
The Mid-Town Area Plan identifies long-term goals for recreational facilities such as Bijou Golf Course, Bijou Community Park, and Lakeview Commons Beach, though does not provide details or a timeline for specific improvements. Upgraded facilities would likely lead to increased use proportional to the upgrade, though it is unlikely to reach a point of deterioration. Alongside proposed improvements to City assets, consideration is given to the needs of upkeep and maintenance to avoid overcommitments. The South Lake Tahoe City Council will consider staffing needs, recurring maintenance requirements, and associated costs prior to project approval. This is demonstrated by the new Recreation and Aquatics Center. Ongoing maintenance and staffing were considered in all stages of project implementation. The structure has the capacity to serve more users than the prior facility. It is likely the Recreation and Aquatics Center may help to alleviate overuse of other recreation facilities should it occur.
Area Plan policies facilitate existing and future maintenance needs. Policies are included to explore locations for a new park maintenance facility that would be central to primary service locations.
This would ensure proper attention and care are paid to existing facilities, while serving as a control center for Citywide maintenance.
Each improvement, as discussed above, would be subject to its own environmental review at a project-specific level prior to permitting.
Environmental Analysis: No impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? The project area includes recreational facilities such as Bijou Golf Course, Bijou Community Park, and Lakeview Commons Beach. The Area Plan discusses expansion scenarios, with no specific 824
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 175 direction or required action. As such, no environmental impacts of development and operation of these amenities and improvements can be directly quantified at this time. The expansion scenarios are considered the policies below.
• Policy 2.8 Recreation Diversification and Enhancements Continue working with the community to identify desired uses for Bijou Park as a whole, as well as enhancements to individual uses. Should tradeoffs occur, work with the affected community to mitigate losses, be they spatial, historic, or other.
• Policy 5.1 CTC Land Exchange Continue parcel exchange efforts with the California Tahoe Conservancy to increase opportunities for beach access. • Policy 5.2 Lakeview Commons Maintain Lakeview Commons as a community hub while exploring mechanisms to increase area available for recreation. • Policy 5.3 Accessible Improvements Ensure beach recreation areas are accessible by walking, riding, or rolling.
These policies echo earlier City outreach and planning efforts and address recreation and access demands that already exist within the community. Improvements to Lakeview Commons were a large factor in the 56 Acres Master Plan development, which the CTC land exchange was partially initiated in response to. The major project discussed for Lakeview Commons is the Alta Mira Public Access Improvements, an extension to Lakeview Commons aimed at improving public lake access, open space, view corridors, shoreline stability, and water quality. This project is led by the California Tahoe Conservancy, which has initiated comprehensive planning and project-level environmental review. Development in the shorezone requires compliance with development standards described in TRPA Code 83.9.1A. The Mid-Town Area Plan contains approximately half of Shorezone Tolerance District 4 where all projects are required to contribute to backshore stabilization efforts. New shoreline access points shall be restricted to stabilized paths.
Changes to Bijou Community Park and Golf Course are discussed, with an emphasis on balancing park improvements with open space and stream environment zones. Further outreach should be done to understand user demand to determine appropriate footprints for program elements, as well as how to best develop the spaces for specific user group needs. Any population growth or relocation to the region driven by the Area Plan may be considered through these further outreach efforts. Along with population change, the popularity of sports and activities will be a driving force behind final design proposals. The following policies are included under Recreation Goal 3:
• Policy 3.1 Stream Environment Zones In expansions or modifications to Bijou Park and Golf Course, consider alternatives that reduce encroachment into or increase functioning of stream environment zones.
• Policy 3.2 Open Space Maintain sufficient open space areas for community and environmental benefit.
The implementation of the Mid-Town Area Plan may result in the construction or expansion of recreational facilities. However, because each individual project would require its own environmental review and is subject to the existing City and TRPA development and design standards, it is not expected to have an adverse effect on the environment. Thus, the impact is less than significant.
825
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 176 Environmental Analysis: Less than significant impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
19. RECREATION (TRPA)
a. Will the proposal create additional demand for recreation facilities? Due to the more flexible residential standards in the Mid-Town Area Plan, there is a possibility that new demand for recreational facilities may be generated. It is more likely however that the Area Plan causes development that addresses an existing demand for recreational facilities that is not met with today’s facilities. The Mid-Town area is already a recreation hot spot for those throughout the City and the surrounding El Dorado County neighborhoods. Additionally, many of the visits to Lakeview Commons are from tourists from outside of the Tahoe Basin. Bijou Community Park also receives a moderate number of users that travel from outside of the Tahoe Basin in the summer months. Visitation trends are largely independent of specific activities or development within the plan area and the Mid-Town Area Plan is not expected to increase recreational demand.
The Area Plan includes design standards to ensure that residents have a degree of recreation opportunities onsite. Appendix A of the Area Plan contains community space requirements for all projects containing residential units. Developments of 6 units or more are required to provide community space that is open to all residents. This may include playground equipment, workout areas, picnic areas, or shade structures for outdoor gatherings. Such improvements are intended to provide residents with easily accessible and no cost amenities like those enjoyed by those occupying single-family dwellings.
See CEQA Questions XVI.a. and XVI.b. for discussion of conceptual improvements to increase and expand recreation opportunities within Mid-Town.
Environmental Analysis: No Impact.
Required Mitigation: None.
b. Will the proposal create additional recreation capacity? The proposal will not directly create additional recreation capacity; however, the Area Plan discusses conceptual improvements to Bijou Community Park, Bijou Golf Course, and Lakeview Commons in a manner that would create additional recreational opportunities. In recognition that the Mid-Town Area Plan may create additional recreation opportunities, the following policy has been included:
• Policy 2.8 Recreation Diversification and Enhancements Continue working with the community to identify desired uses for Bijou Park as a whole, as well as enhancements to individual uses. Should tradeoffs occur, work with the affected community to mitigate losses, be they spatial, historic, or other.
• Policy 5.1 CTC Land Exchange Continue parcel exchange efforts with the California Tahoe Conservancy to increase opportunities for beach access. • Policy 5.2 Lakeview Commons Maintain Lakeview Commons as a community hub while exploring mechanisms to increase area available for recreation. 826
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 177 • Policy 5.3 Accessible Improvements Ensure beach recreation areas are accessible by walking, riding, or rolling.
The impacts of such a project are discussed in TRPA Question 19 and CEQA Question XVI.a; however, each improvement would be subject to its own environmental review at a project-specific level prior to permitting.
Environmental Analysis: Yes, less than significant.
Required Mitigation: None.
c. Will the proposal have the potential to create conflicts between recreation uses, either existing or proposed?
The Mid-Town Area Plan was developed through extensive community outreach, including focused discussions about recreation assets. Concepts A and B serve as examples of how Bijou Community Park and Golf Course could be maximized to meet growing community needs. They identify existing uses that should be maintained and enhanced, as well as new and alternative uses. Concerns were raised about design scenarios developed for Bijou Community Park (as seen in Concepts A, B, and C of Chapter 13, Bijou Recreation District: Site Design and Vision) regarding changes to the existing disc golf course. The Mid-Town Area Plan does not identify a preferred concept but rather presents these diagrams for consideration as future park planning efforts unfold. Before major components of any concept are implemented, further outreach would be conducted with the public and specific user groups who were engaged in developing these concepts.
There is recognition that new uses and reconfiguration of recreational facilities may result in the reduction or elimination of uses, for which the following policy has been included:
• Policy 2.8 Recreation Diversification and Enhancements Continue working with the community to identify desired uses for Bijou Park as a whole, as well as enhancements to individual uses. Should tradeoffs occur, work with the affected community to mitigate losses, be they spatial, historic, or other.
With this policy in place and the additional outreach that would be conducted, there will be a less than significant impact on conflicting recreation uses.
Environmental Analysis: Yes, less than significant.
Required Mitigation: None.
d. Will the proposal result in a decrease or loss of public access to any lake, waterway, or public lands?
No, the proposal will not result in a decrease or loss of public access to any lake, waterway, or public lands. The Area Plan intends to increase public lake access to all, as well as improve existing access points so that they can be accessed by those using mobility devices.
The Area Plan supports the California Tahoe Conservancy’s (CTC) Alta Mira Public Access Improvements to create more usable space along the south shore of Lake Tahoe. One of the parcels on which this project is proposed is being considered for transfer to the City from CTC. Two other 827
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 178 parcels considered for exchange within the plan area have also been identified as possible locations for beach access or supporting infrastructure.
The following policies are included under Recreation Goal 5 – Increase accessibility and experiences of beach recreation.
• Policy 5.1 CTC Land Exchange Continue parcel exchange efforts with the California Tahoe Conservancy to increase opportunities for beach access. • Policy 5.2 Lakeview Commons Maintain Lakeview Commons as a community hub while exploring mechanisms to increase area available for recreation. • Policy 5.3 Accessible Improvements Ensure beach recreation areas are accessible by walking, riding, or rolling.
Environmental Analysis: No.
Required Mitigation: None.
XVII. TRANSPORTATION (CEQA)
a) Would the project conflict with a program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities? The Area Plan would be consistent with policies in the adopted TRPA Regional Plan and City General Plan, which encourage a land use pattern that promotes the use of alternative modes of transportation. The Area Plan proposes an increase in maximum residential densities that could be developed in the Al Tahoe Center, Tahoe Sierra Business, Public Service Center, Harrison/Sandy, and Lake Tahoe Community College districts, which would vary between 62 units per acre for multiperson dwelling, nursing and personal care, residential care and 65 units per acre for multiple family dwellings and single family residential (condos only). The changes in density for each district that are proposed by the Area Plan compared to existing conditions are summarized in the MidTown Area Plan Districts section in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” of this document.
Implementation of the Area Plan would result in a net increase in residential units within the Town Center and thus would presumably result in an increase in demand for transit services and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The potential impacts on transit facilities and service and bicycle and pedestrian facilities are discussed separately below.
Transit Facilities and Service
The Tahoe Transportation District (TTD) provides fixed-route transit service in the plan area and Lake Link offers free on-demand, microtransit service throughout the Area Plan. Implementation of the Area Plan would result in a net increase in residential units and an increase in development density within the Town Center, which could result in increased demand for transit facilities and service.
However, according to the Governor’s Office of Land Use and Climate Innovation (LCI) (formerly known as the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research [OPR]) Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA, when evaluating impacts on multimodal transportation networks, the addition of new transit users generally should not be treated as an adverse impact, as infill development typically add destinations, improving proximity and accessibility (California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, 2018, p. 19). The Area Plan would concentrate residential units within a walkable town center where daily needs, services, and amenities can be 828
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 179 accessed without a vehicle, and thus the anticipated increased transit demand would be modest.
In addition, the plan area is served by three TTD fixed-bus routes (Routes 50, 51, and 55) and Lake Link that have sufficient capacity to accommodate any marginal increase in ridership. Furthermore, consistent with the TRPA Regional Plan and City of South Lake Tahoe General Plan, the Area Plan policies call for increased coordination with transit providers (Policy 5.1) to prevent conflicts with programs, plans, policies and ordinances related to transit facilities and service. For these reasons, the Area Plan would not disrupt existing or planned transit facilities and services and would not conflict with a program, plan, or ordinance, or policy addressing such facilities.
Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Implementation of the Area Plan would result in a net increase in residential units and an increase in development density within Town Centers; and thus, could result in increased demand for bicycle and pedestrian facilities. The South Tahoe Beach Bike Path is a Class I shared-use path that spans approximately 1 mile within the plan area and connects the Tahoe Sierra Business District to the Harrison/Sandy District along the lake side of Lake Tahoe Boulevard. There is also a Class I shared-use path along Al Tahoe Boulevard that spans approximately 1.2 miles within the plan area and connects Lake Tahoe Boulevard to Pioneer Trail. There are Class II bicycle lanes along both sides of Lake Tahoe Boulevard that span approximately 2 miles within the plan area from River Drive to Johnson Boulevard. As shown in Figure TC-3 of the Transportation and Circulation Element, the plan area is served by an established network of Class I multi-use paths and Class II bicycle lanes that can accommodate increased active transportation activity anticipated with implementation of the Area Plan.
Area Plan policies call for pursuit of active transportation improvements to address gaps in the transportation network (Policy 1.01 and Policy 1.02). The addition of dedicated paths for walking and biking would further enhance the active transportation network and promote the efficient movement of people in the plan area. The Mid-Town Area Plan would also require frontage improvements or alternative contributions for all major redevelopments or new construction (Policy
1.08) and exploration of opportunities to separate pedestrian and bicycle travel from roadway travel lanes (Policy 1.05), thus enhancing the transportation network. Further, General Plan Policy TC-3.2 calls for the development of a cohesive and continuous public bicycle and pedestrian network, and General Plan Policy TC-3.3 states that the City shall maintain and implement the Bicycle Master Plan and improve bicycle and pedestrian connections between all neighborhoods and land uses.
General Plan Policy TC-3.19 requires new projects to provide connections to existing and planned pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure. Consistent with the TRPA Regional Plan and City General Plan, implementation of the Area Plan would enhance the pedestrian and bicycle network.
Environmental Analysis: Less than significant.
Required Mitigation: None.
b) Would the project conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
The Town Center is an area intended to provide a mix of commercial, public service, light industrial, office, and residential uses, and is targeted for redevelopment in a manner that creates a more sustainable and less auto-dependent development pattern. The Area Plan would expand the Town 829
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 180 Center Overlay, increase allowable density for some multi-family residential parcels, and increase allowable building heights for all land uses within the expanded town center. With implementation of the Area Plan, multi-family residential would be permitted in all districts within the Town Center except the Bijou Recreation District and allowable density of these parcels would be increased from 15 to 65 dwelling units per acre; maximum building heights would vary by district.
With implementation of the Area Plan, permissible commercial and public service land uses would be expanded across new districts. However, because the type, size, and location of these land uses would differ, potential development outcomes would vary widely but the Area Plan is intended to incentivize redevelopment in the plan area, including higher densities, and thus it would be reasonable to expect walkability and non-personal vehicle trips to be enhanced. However, the variability makes it difficult to reliably estimate trip generation and VMT impacts. Accordingly, the analysis herein only addresses the transportation impacts of changes in allowable density and building height as applied to permitted uses. In addition, although they do not currently generate any trips, for a conservative VMT assessment, vacant parcels designated as residential, commercial, public service, and recreation are included in the analysis. VMT associated with each of these parcel types is discussed separately below.
Multi-Family Parcels VMT Analysis
Table 17 presents the net increase in multi-family residential dwelling units under existing conditions and under the proposed Area Plan.
Table 16: Net Increase in Allowable Multi-Family Dwelling Units Area Existin
g
Acres1
Current
Maximum
Allowable
Density
(MFDU/acre)2
Total
Allowable
MFDU Under
Existing
Conditions
Proposed
Maximum
Allowable
Density
(MFDU/acre)3
Total
Allowable
MFDU under
Proposed
Plan
Net
Increase in
Allowable
MFDU
Tahoe Sierra
Business
District
2.5 15 38 65 163 125
Harrison/San
dy District
1.0 25 25 65 65 40
Lake Tahoe
Community
College
1.0 15 15 65 65 50
Public Service
Center
0.7 15 11 65 46 35
Total4 5.2 NA 89 NA 339 250 1 Existing acres include vacant parcels with a land use designation of residential. 2With the current Bijou/Al Tahoe Community Plan, the multifamily parcels shown are currently outside of the designated Town Center.
3 With implementation of the proposed Mid-Town Area Plan, the multifamily parcels would be inside the expanded designated Town Center.
4 Numbers may not sum due to rounding.
Notes: MFDU/acre = multi-family dwelling units per acre; MFDU = multi-family dwelling units; NA = not applicable.
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2026.
Table 18 presents the trip generation, estimated VMT per multi-family dwelling unit, and total VMT for multi-family residential under the proposed Area Plan. The Institute of Transportation Engineers 830
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 181 (ITE) 12th Edition of the Trip Generation Manual (Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2025) was used to determine daily trip generation rates. The TRPA Project Impact Assessment (PIA) Guidelines (Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 2025) were used to determine the VMT per resident and average trip length for the applicable PIA Zone and the average number of residents per unit was determined using the TRPA model and PIA tool. Notably, the PIA Guidelines do not provide VMT per capita for Zone 18 because there are no residential units within this zone. Therefore, VMT per capita was calculated across the other zones within the Mid-Town Area Plan (Zones 10, 12, 13, and 15) and the average of 10.86 VMT per resident was applied to PIA Zone 18. Residential VMT was calculated using the following equation: Residential project-generated VMT = PIA Zone VMT per resident * number of proposed residential units * regional average residents per unit (TRPA 2025a: Table 5).
Table 17: Vehicle Miles Traveled Associated with Multi-Family Dwelling Units Area Daily Trip
Generatio
n Rate1
Net
Increase in
Allowable
MFDU
Vehicl
e Trips
VMT
PIA
Zone
PIA Zone
VMT per
Resident 2
Average
Resident
s per
Unit
Estimate
d VMT
per
MFDU
Total
Residenti
al VMT
Tahoe Sierra
Business
District
6.21 125 776 15 10.76 2.30 24.8 3,094
Harrison/Sand
y District
6.21 24 149 10 11.95 2.30 27.5 660
Harrison Sandy
District
6.21 16 99 12 10.31 2.30 23.7 380
Lake Tahoe
Community
College
6.21 50 311 18 10.86 2.30 25.0 1,249
Public Service
Center
6.21 35 217 10 11.95 2.30 27.5 962
Total3 - 250 1,553 - - - - 6,345 1 Daily trip generation rates are based on Category 220 Multi-family Housing (Low-Rise) in the ITE Trip Generation Manual. 2 PIA Zone 18 does not have a stated VMT per resident. Zone 18 VMT per resident was calculated by averaging the other zones within the Mid-Town Area Plan. 3 Numbers may not add up due to rounding.
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2026.
As shown in Table 18, the maximum potential change in multi-family residential VMT upon adoption of the Area Plan would be 6,345 daily VMT. Because the Lake Tahoe Region is approximately 95 percent built out, due to supply and demand, most redevelopment or new development relies on transfers of development from one property to another (Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 2021).
Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that under the proposed Area Plan, the extension of the Town Center boundary and corresponding increase in allowable density would draw future growth from other locations within the basin as opposed to generating new units above and beyond the development limits. Because these units are already planned for within the Tahoe Basin, this analysis evaluates the net VMT impact relative to where the residential units would have otherwise been located (i.e., dispersed across the City of Lake Tahoe or dispersed throughout the entire Tahoe Basin). Also, to the extent that development right transfer occurs from outlying neighborhoods into Town Center settings, it is reasonable to expect the number and length of distant trips to be reduced between residences and commercial uses and public services. The VMT associated with these two scenarios and the proposed Area Plan are shown in Table 19. 831
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 182 Table 18: Multi-Family Parcel VMT Analysis – Net Impact Area Net Increase
in Allowable
MFDU
Average VMT
per Resident
Average
Residents
per Unit
Total
Residential
VMT
Total VMT with
Town Center
Non-Auto
Reduction
Net Impact of
Area Plan on
VMT
Mid-Town
Area Plan
96 11.19 2.30 2,398 2,278 N/A
City of
South Lake
Tahoe
96 10.85 2.30 2,395 N/A -117
Tahoe Basin 96 16.12 2.30 3,558 NA -1,280
Notes: MFDU = multi-family dwelling units; VMT = vehicle miles traveled; NA = not applicable; TRPA = Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. Numbers may not add up due to rounding.
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2026.
As shown in Table 19, the total residential VMT associated with the Area Plan would be a net reduction than if these units were located within the City of South Lake Tahoe or within the TRPA Basin. However, the TRPA PIA tool does not account for additional mode shift associated with higher-density town center environments, which benefit from greater access to non-auto travel options. Thus, a 5 percent non-auto mode reduction is applied to account for increased walking, cycling, and transit use within the Town Center environment and based on non-auto travel percentage comparisons between Town Center and non-Town Center locations.
Applying the reduction for non-auto travel in the Town Center setting to the maximum theoretical impact yields an adjusted VMT impact of 6,028 daily VMT. Thus, when compared to the theoretical baselines for the City of South Lake Tahoe and the TRPA Basin, the proposed Area Plan would result in a decrease of approximately 210 and 3,241 daily VMT, respectively. The maximum theoretical impact of 6,345 daily VMT should be understood as a conservative upper bound. When considered in the context of the basin’s allocation system and factoring in the travel benefits of Town Center living, adoption of the proposed Area Plan would result in a reduction of multi-family residential VMT.
Mixed-Use/Commercial Parcels VMT Analysis
In mixed-use buildings, commercial uses occupy the ground floor and upper floors are available for residential use. Maximum building heights under current and proposed standards support multistory buildings. Therefore, the net change in gross floor area (GFA) between current and proposed standards is directly tied to a change in multi-family housing units. An average size of 1,000 square feet was assumed for all multi-family dwelling units. The GFA associated with the upper floors of the maximum allowable building was divided by 1,000 square feet to calculate the number of allowable multi-family dwelling units per parcel. This was then converted to multi-family dwelling unit per acre and compared against maximum allowable density to confirm compliance with the allowable maximum. Once determined compliant, the multi-family dwelling unit per parcel was multiplied by the total number of parcels in each subarea to determine the total allowable multifamily dwelling units by subarea. This calculation was performed for both current and proposed standards, and the difference between the two represents the net change in multi-family dwelling units by sub area. The VMT for mixed-use commercial parcels was calculated using the same formula described above. Table 19 depicts the VMT associated with mixed-use commercial parcels. 832
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 183 Table 19: Vehicle Miles Traveled Associated with Mixed-Use Commercial Parcels Area Daily Trip
Generatio
n Rate1
Net
Increase
in
Allowabl
e MFDU
Vehicl
e Trips
VMT
PIA
Zon
e
PIA Zone
VMT per
Resident
Average
Resident
s per Unit
Estimate
d VMT
per
MFDU
Total
Residential
VMT
West of Lodi
Avenue and
East of Link
Road (In Town
Center)
6.21 -48 -295 15 10.76 2.30 24.8 -1,176
Between Lodi
Avenue and
Link Road
6.21 324 2,012 15 10.76 2.30 24.8 8,018
Between Tulare
Avenue and
Edgewood
Circle
6.21 -12 -73 12 10.31 2.30 23.7 -280
West of US 50 6.21 2 15 12 10.31 2.30 23.7 58
East of Rufus
Allen Boulevard
6.21 3 19 10 11.95 2.30 27.5 83
South of Al
Tahoe
Boulevard
6.21 9 56 10 11.95 2.30 27.5 248
North of Al
Tahoe
Boulevard
6.21 171 1,062 10 11.95 2.30 27.5 4,700
Total1 NA 450 2,796 NA NA NA NA 11,651
Notes: MFDU = multi-family dwelling unit; VMT = vehicle miles traveled; NA = not applicable. 1 Numbers may not add up due to rounding.
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2026.
Across all districts, total allowable multi-family dwelling units increases from 1,778 multi-family dwelling units under current standards to 2,228 under the proposed Area Plan, a net increase of 450 multi-family dwelling units on mixed-use commercial parcels. As with multi-family residential parcels, a 5 percent non-auto mode reduction was applied to account for increased walking, cycling, and transit use within the Town Center environment and based on non-auto travel percentage comparisons between Town Center and non-Town Center locations.
Table 20: Mixed-Use Commercial Parcel VMT Analysis – Net Impact Area Total Residential
VMT
Total VMT with Town Center
Non-Auto Reduction
Net Impact of Area
Plan on VMT
Mid-Town Area Plan 11,651 11,068 NA
City of South Lake Tahoe 11,234 NA -166
Total TRPA Basin 16,688 NA -5,620
Notes: MFDU = multi-family dwelling units; VMT = vehicle miles traveled; NA = not applicable; TRPA = Tahoe Regional Planning Agency.
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2026.
When compared to the theoretical baselines for the City of South Lake Tahoe and the TRPA Basin, the proposed Area Plan would result in a decrease of approximately 166 and 5,620 daily VMT, respectively, as shown in Table 20, for mixed-use commercial parcels. 833
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 184 Public Service Parcels VMT Analysis
The Area Plan contains several public service parcels that would be subject to changes in maximum allowable building height under the proposed Area Plan. Some of these parcels do not contain buildings (e.g., parking lots) and are therefore excluded from analysis, and no vacant parcels were found to be designated as public service parcels. The relevant parcels and associated land uses include a church, government buildings, community college, public utility buildings, and fire station. All identified public service parcels are destination-driven, meaning visitors travel to them based on need rather than building size or capacity. For example, increasing the allowable height of a post office or fire station would not generate additional trips as demand is independent of building dimensions. Similarly, upper-floor residential uses would not be expected for any identified public service land uses. For these reasons, it can reasonably be concluded that the proposed changes in allowable building height would not result in a meaningful change in trip generation or VMT for public service parcels within the proposed Plan Area.
Recreation Parcels VMT Analysis
The Area Plan contains several recreation parcels that would be subject to changes in maximum allowable building height under the proposed Area Plan. Some of these parcels do not contain buildings and are therefore excluded from analysis. The buildings on parcels warranting further consideration include a recreation and aquatic center, ice arena, and sports club; all of which are destination-driven uses where trip generation is governed by membership, programming, and occupancy rather than building height or floor area. For the reasons described above, an increase in allowable building height would not translate to a meaningful change in the intensity of use, and upper-floor residential use would not be appropriate for any of these land uses. In addition, the South Lake Tahoe Recreation and Aquatics Center recently opened in April 2026 and the Athletex fitness club underwent a full interior remodel in early 2026, demonstrating that redevelopment of these two buildings in the near-term is unlikely. Although the ice arena is older, it is associated with the new recreation complex and is similarly unlikely to be redeveloped in the near-term. For these reasons, it can reasonably be concluded that the proposed changes in allowable building height would not result in a meaningful change in trip generation or VMT for recreation parcels within the plan area.
Summary
The maximum potential changes to VMT resulting from implementation of the Area Plan are summarized in Table 22.
Table 21: Mid-Town Area Plan Vehicle Miles Traveled Summary Parcel
Designation
Maximum
Potential Change
in Residential
Units (within Plan
Area)
Maximum Potential
Change in VMT (within
Plan Area) with Town
Center Non-Auto
Reduction
Maximum
Potential Change
in VMT (within City
of South Lake
Tahoe)
Maximum
Potential
Change in VMT
(within Tahoe
Basin)
Multi-Family
Residential
250 6,028 6,238 9,269
Mixed-Use 450 11,068 11,234 16,688
Public Service 0 0 0 0
Recreational 0 0 0 0
Total 700 17,096 17,472 25,957
834
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 185 Net Impact on VMT NA NA -376 -8,861
Notes: NA = not applicable; VMT = vehicle miles traveled.
Source: LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. 2026.
Adoption of the proposed Area Plan would have a maximum potential change in residential units of approximately 700 multi-family dwelling units, resulting in a maximum increase of 17,096 daily VMT across the entire Area Plan. This figure represents a cumulative area-wide maximum, not a projectspecific finding. Any future development project would be required to compare its VMT against applicable TRPA screening criteria and/or standards of significance to determine compliance.
Because no new residential units may be introduced to the Tahoe Basin, only distributed from one location to another, the units drawn into the Town Center under the proposed Area Plan would have otherwise been developed elsewhere in the Basin. As shown in Table 22, the overall VMT impact would be higher if the same units were located within a different area of the Tahoe Basin. When the baseline VMT associated with those units at their prior dispersed location is accounted for, the net effect of concentrating them within the Mid-Town Center is an estimated decrease of approximately 376 from within the City of South Lake Tahoe and an estimated decrease of approximately 8,861 daily VMT within the Tahoe Basin. Future development projects would be required to compare individual project-generated VMT against applicable TRPA screening criteria and standards of significance to determine compliance. Projects that exceed the applicable land use standards of significance would be required to implement project-level mitigation to reduce VMT and pay a TRPA mobility mitigation fee, which would prevent substantial effects from changes in VMT. This impact would be less than significant.
Environmental Analysis: Less than significant.
Required Mitigation: None.
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? Subsequent projects affecting Caltrans right-of-way along US 50 would be subject to Caltrans review and approval through the encroachment permit process and would be required to comply with applicable State highway design, traffic safety, and traffic control standards. These requirements include adherence to the Caltrans Traffic Safety Systems Manual for the design and application of roadway safety features and the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (CA-MUTCD) provisions governing temporary traffic control during construction activities.
Similarly, construction activities occurring within City of South Lake Tahoe rights-of-way would require issuance of an encroachment permit and compliance with the City's Public Improvement and Engineering Standards, which establish requirements for work within public rights-of-way.
Through the permit review process, the City may require temporary traffic control measures to maintain safe operation of the transportation network during construction activities.
Implementation of the Area Plan would be consistent with policies identified in the adopted TRPA Regional Plan and City General Plan, which encourage a land use pattern that promotes the use of alternative modes of transportation. Consistent with the TRPA Regional Plan and City General Plan, implementation of the Area Plan would enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety. Figure TC-3 of the Transportation and Circulation Element of the General Plan include the existing and planned 835
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 186 bicycle and pedestrian facilities within City limits including the Mid-Town plan area. Further, General Plan Policy TC-3.2 calls for the development of a cohesive and continuous public bicycle and pedestrian network, and Policy TC-3.3 states that the City shall maintain and implement the Bicycle Master Plan and improve bicycle and pedestrian connections between all neighborhoods and land uses. General Plan Policy TC-3.19 requires new projects to provide connections to existing and planned pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure.
Area Plan policies call for the construction of active transportation improvements to enhance connectivity (Policy 1.01 and Policy 1.02), implementation of vision zero countermeasures (Policy
3.5), and increased coordination with transit providers (Policy 5.1). Adding dedicated paths for walking and biking and enhancing transit options would improve safety conditions and allow efficient movement of people in the Mid-Town plan area. The Mid-Town Area Plan would also require frontage improvements or alternative contributions for all major redevelopments or new construction (Policy 1.08) and explore opportunities to separate pedestrian and bicycle travel from roadway travel lanes, thus reducing the potential for conflicts between motor vehicles, bicyclists, and pedestrians. Specifically, by virtue of adding sidewalks, dedicated bike paths, enhanced transit, and other amenities, safety conditions would be improved and the potential for conflict would be reduced. Furthermore, all transportation facilities proposed in the Area Plan would conform to the appropriate federal, state, and local roadway, sidewalk intersection design standards (e.g., ASHTOO, CA-MUTCD, Caltrans Highway Design Manual, City Public Improvement and Engineering Standards, and City Project Design Guidelines).
Subsequent projects associated with Area Plan implementation would undergo project-level environmental review by the City and TRPA and would be required to demonstrate compliance with applicable design, transportation, and safety standards during construction and operations. For these reasons, the Area Plan would not result in a substantial increase in transportation hazards.
This impact would be less than significant.
Environmental Analysis: Less than significant.
Required Mitigation: None.
d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? See the discussion for CEQA Question XX.a under Section XX, “Wildfire,” which concludes that implementation of the Area Plan would not adversely affect emergency evacuation plans or access.
The Area Plan does not propose any project or policy that would lessen the roadway capacity of evacuation routes through the plan area nor does it propose new land uses or developments that would reduce existing access.
South Lake Tahoe Fire Rescue provides emergency fire, rescue, and medical aid service in the city.
Subsequent projects developed under the Area Plan would be designed in accordance with City design standards and required to comply with California Fire Code standards as adopted by reference in Chapter 5.05, “California Fire Code,” of the City of South Lake Tahoe City Code. The California Fire Code establishes minimum requirements for emergency access, which includes minimum roadway width and turning radii for fire apparatus. Area Plan Policy 2.3 requires all project sites to provide adequate emergency access. Projects associated with the Mid-Town Area Plan 836
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 187 would undergo project level environmental analysis and be subject to review by City of South Lake Tahoe staff and emergency service agencies to ensure the design of each project meets applicable safety standards to provide physical access for emergency vehicles.
Environmental Analysis: Less than significant.
Required Mitigation: None.
13. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION (TRPA)
a. Will the proposal result in generation of 650 or more new average daily Vehicle Miles Travelled?
See analysis for CEQA Question XVII.b.
When the baseline VMT associated with those units at their prior dispersed location is accounted for, the net effect of concentrating them within the Mid-Town Center is a decrease of approximately 376 within the city to 8,861 daily VMT within the Tahoe Basin. Future development projects would be required to compare VMT against applicable TRPA screening criteria and standards of significance to determine compliance. Projects that exceed the applicable land use standards of significance would be required to implement project-level mitigation to reduce VMT and pay a TRPA mobility mitigation fee. This impact would be less than significant.
Environmental Analysis: Yes, less than significant.
Required Mitigation: None.
b. Will the proposal result in changes to existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? In accordance with Section 13.5.3.B.2 of the TRPA Code, the Area Plan would carry forward shared and areawide parking strategies that support reductions in land coverage and make more efficient use of land for parking and pedestrian uses. As described in Chapter 2, “Project Description,” the Area Plan incorporates a flexible parking management approach intended to reduce reliance on personal vehicles and support transit use, active transportation, and shared mobility options.
Because all commercial and residential parcels are located within one-half mile of a transit stop, all uses may implement up to a 30 percent reduction in required parking. The plan would allow applicants the option to provide a parking demand analysis, for review and approval by the review authority, to determine the need to build more or fewer parking spaces than otherwise required. The applicant may also implement alternative transportation methods such as shuttles for staff/patrons; incentives for nearby accommodation; car/bike share; or other means that reduce reliance on individual vehicles; enter a formal shared parking agreement with a secondary parcel; provide significant contributions to the active transportation network or other public transportation improvements, beyond those required by TRPA or City Code in order to justify a different parking demand. In addition, the Area Plan includes a pilot program that eliminates minimum parking requirements for Nursing and personal care; Group facilities; Residential care; Outdoor recreation concessions; Outdoor amusements, Participant sports facilities; Colleges; Recreation centers; Transit stations and terminals; Boat launching facilities; Beach recreation; and Amusement, recreation, and entertainment facilities, provided the proposed parking supply is supported by project-specific characteristics and approved by the review authority. 837
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 188 The Town Center is an area intended to provide a mix of commercial, public service, light industrial, office, and residential uses and is targeted for redevelopment in a manner that improves environmental conditions, creates a more sustainable and less auto-dependent development pattern, and provides economic opportunities. Within the expanded Town Center, multi-family residential parcels will have an increase in allowable density from 15 to 25 dwelling units per acre.
Any subsequent projects allowed within the Area Plan would be subject to permitting by TRPA and/or the City of South Lake Tahoe. Each future project would continue to be reviewed for consistency with the applicable parking standards and would be reviewed through a projectspecific environmental review (TRPA Code Chapter 3) to ensure the proposed project would not significantly degrade parking conditions.
By concentrating more housing in centers located in proximity to transit, with higher parcel-level densities, there would be a reduced overall demand for parking associated with the Mid-Town Area Plan. Additionally, the Town Center offers more opportunities to provide shared parking agreements and other parking management strategies to better utilize existing parking resources, and, by supporting deed-restricted affordable, moderate, or achievable housing developments near transit and other multi-modal transportation options, the overall demand for parking could be reduced.
Implementation of the Mid-Town Area Plan and associated parking reductions would support a parking supply model and land use pattern that is reflective of mixed-used parking demand and would continue to move development within the plan area toward meeting the parking and transportation objectives of the Regional Plan. Additionally, all future project proposals would be evaluated at the project level through environmental and permitting review to determine effects on parking and ensure they do not result in significant impacts; and, where significant impacts are found, mitigation measures would be developed to reduce them to the extent practicable.
The proposed Area Plan would have a less-than-significant impact on parking because development would be concentrated more centrally in the Town Center with opportunities for access to transit and multi-modal forms of transportation, the TRPA Code includes shared and areawide parking strategies to more efficiently use land for parking, and project-level review of the parking impacts would continue to be required for all future projects that would result in identification of mitigation related to parking impacts, if necessary.
Environmental Analysis: Yes, less than significant.
Required Mitigation: None.
c. Will the proposal result in substantial impact upon existing transportation systems, including highway, transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities? The Regional Plan and RTP seek to promote a more compact land use pattern with walkable and bikeable town centers and reduced development in outlying areas and sensitive lands. Primary objectives of the Area Plan are to implement the Regional Plan land use strategies and to promote a comprehensive transportation network that is focused on transit, pedestrian, and non-motorized transportation opportunities consistent with the Regional Plan and RTP. Because the proposed Area Plan would not change regional growth potential beyond what was evaluated in the 2012 RPU EIS and 2025 RTP, the impacts associated with the Area Plan would be consistent with those evaluated 838
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 189 in the 2012 RPU EIS (TRPA 2012: 3.3-1 through 3.3-52) and the Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist prepared for the 2025 RTP (TRPA 2025b).
The 2012 RPU EIS evaluated the effects of build-out of all development authorized under the Regional Plan, including within the plan area, on roadway segment operations (TRPA 2012: 3.3-40 through 3.3-44). This analysis found that there would be no significant impact on roadway operations within the plan area. The 2012 RPU EIS also evaluated effects on intersection operations (TRPA 2012: 3.3-44 through 3.3-46), which determined that build-out of the Basin would not result in significant impacts to intersection operations within the plan area. The 2012 RPU EIS concluded that there would be a significant impact on some roadway segment operations outside of the plan area. Regional Plan Update Mitigation Measure 3.3-1 was included to reduce the magnitude of impacts on level of service (LOS) to a less-than-significant level. This measure was incorporated as part of the Regional Plan. It required that TRPA develop and implement a program for the phased release of land use allocations in 4-year cycles in conjunction with future updates of the Regional Plan and RTP, monitoring of LOS, and a suite of responsive measures, if monitoring indicates a decrease in LOS. The RPU EIS concluded that impacts on LOS were reduced to a less-thansignificant level (TRPA 2012: 3.3-44). This requirement of the Regional Plan Update EIS was incorporated into TRPA Code Section 50.4.3 and is being implemented.
The Mid-Town Area Plan proposes to shift residential development to be further concentrated in the Town Center, which would be closer to employment and service centers and would have better connections to transit, sidewalks, and bicycle facilities, the net effect of which would likely be no VMT increase beyond that which was contemplated in the 2012 RPU EIS. By increasing density within the Town Center, the Mid-Town Area Plan would have a potentially beneficial effect on existing transit systems by concentrating development in lower VMT-generating areas than areas further away from centers throughout the Tahoe Basin. Likewise, bike trails and pedestrian paths in centers are part of the transportation infrastructure with capacity to accommodate trips that have the potential to shift from vehicles to biking and walking; this would also have a beneficial impact on transportation infrastructure by more equitably distributing trips among various modes of transportation.
Additionally, as discussed above under CEQA Question XVII.b, the Area Plan would not increase VMT because, as described above, the Area Plan as a whole, or individually through future projectlevel analysis and mitigation, as needed, would not increase regional VMT. For these reasons, the Area Plan would have a less-than-significant impact on transportation systems.
Environmental Analysis: Yes, less than significant.
Required Mitigation: None.
d. Will the proposal result in alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and/or goods?
As discussed in CEQA Question XVII.b, no new residential units may be introduced to the Tahoe Basin, only redistributed from one location to another. Because of the Tahoe Basin residential unit allocation system, the units built in the Town Center would redistribute trips that would otherwise 839
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 190 have occurred elsewhere within the Tahoe Basin. For these reasons, the Area Plan would not alter patterns of circulation, and this impact would be less than significant.
Environmental Analysis: Yes, less than significant.
Required Mitigation: None
e. Will the proposal result in alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? The Area Plan does not propose any alterations to waterborne, rail, or air traffic. There are no railways or airports located in the plan area. Any future proposals related to waterborne, rail, or air traffic would be subject to project-level planning, design, and environmental review process. There would be no impact on waterborne, rail, or air traffic.
Environmental Analysis: No.
Required Mitigation: None.
f. Will the proposal result in Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians?
See analysis for CEQA Question XVII.c.
The Area Plan does not include or approve specific transportation elements or land uses that inherently would increase the potential for transportation hazards. Subsequent projects associated with Area Plan implementation would undergo project-level environmental review by the City and TRPA and would be required to demonstrate compliance with applicable design, transportation, and safety standards during construction and operations. For these reasons, the Area Plan would not result in a substantial increase in transportation hazards. This impact would be less than significant.
Environmental Analysis: Yes, less than significant.
Required Mitigation: None.
XIX. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS (CEQA)
a) Would the project require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
See discussion for CEQA item XIV.a. The Mid-Town Area Plan is determined to have a less than significant impact on population growth and will not require expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities.
Stormwater drainage and treatments are constructed independently as well as alongside new construction, remodels, and smaller projects on both private and public property. Public entities such as the City and Caltrans construct stormwater conveyance and treatment systems to clean runoff from public spaces, specifically high-volume roadways. The City holds a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued by Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control 840
Mid-Town Area/Specific Plan Initial Study/Initial Environmental Checklist/Negative Declaration 191 Board (Lahontan). This permit holds the City responsible for meeting load reduction targets, which are reevaluated every five years. In 2016, the City submitted to Lahontan the City’s Lake Tahoe TMDL Baseline Pollutant Load Update Report which was subsequently incorporated into the City’s NPDES permit. The City’s load reduction requirement through 2026 under the NPDES permit is shown in Table 5.
The City completed development of a Pollutant Load Reduction Plan (PLRP), defining feasible and cost-effective pathways to compliance with the requirements to reduce pollutant loading to Lake Tahoe from urban stormwater runoff. In September 2021, the City Council received a draft of the 2021 City of South Lake Tahoe PLRP which documents the City’s proposed approach and timeline for meeting the 2026 load reduction targets as set forth in the City’s NPDES permit. The PLRP was submitted to Lahontan in October 2021 and updated in September 2023 as required by the NPDES permit. The City is currently on track to reach the required Lake Clarity Credits (credits). Credits are the singular unit used to track and report load reductions, accounting for multiple pollutant types.