Tahoe Vista Recreation Area Accessory Parking. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Mitigated Negative Declaration

Transcription

1 Recreation Area Accessory Parking California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Mitigated Negative Declaration January 13, 2011

2

3 Table of Contents Section Page DETERMINATION. 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION. 2 STATEMENT OF FINDINGS. 4 LOCATION MAP. 6 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST 8 I. AESTHETICS... 8 II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES III. AIR QUALITY. 12 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES 14 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES.. 16 VI. GEOLOGY/SOILS and LANDSLIDES 17 VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS 19 VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.. 20 IX. HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY 22 X. LAND USE/PLANNING 25 XI. MINERAL RESOURCES 26 XII. NOISE 27 XIII. POPULATION/HOUSING 29 XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES 30 XV. RECREATION 31 XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. 32 XVII. UTILITIES/SERVICE SYSTEMS XVIII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE 37 LIST OF APPENDICIES A. BIOLOGICAL REPORT by North Fork Associates B. BOTOANICAL REPORT by Western Botanical Services C. CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT: by Susan Lindstrom, Ph.D. D. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: by Holdrege & Kull Geotechnical Engineers E. TRAFFIC, AIR, AND PARKING STUDY: by LSC Transportation Consultants Inc. F. HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY REPORT: by Tieslau Civil Engineering G. NOISE REPORT: by J.C. Brennan & Associates, Inc. LIST OF MAPS A. GRADING PLANS B. LANDSCAPE PLANS

4 North Tahoe Public Utility District Recreation Area Accessory Parking Mitigated Negative Declaration In accordance with Article V of the California Environmental Quality Act, The North Tahoe Public Utility District (NTPUD) has conducted an Initial Study to determine whether the following project may have a significant adverse effect on the environment, and on the basis of that study hereby finds: DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. Signature: Printed Name: Date: For: NTPUD Project Title Recreation Area Accessory Parking Lead Agency North Tahoe Public Utility District PO Box 139, CA Contact Person Suzi Gibbons Contracts and Planning Coordinator North Tahoe Public Utility District PO Box 139, CA Mitigated Negative Declaration / Initial Study Checklist Page 1

5 Project Location The property to be improved in this phase of the project is located at the Northwest corner of North Lake Boulevard (SR 28) and National Avenue in, California. The site is currently a wooded vacant lot consisting of 3.5 acres complimentary to lakeside parcels, which provide public boat launching facilities, beach/lake access and picnic facilities. Project Sponsor North Tahoe Public Utility District PO Box 139, CA General Plan Designation: The project site is within section 022 of the North Tahoe General Plan, which refers to the Commercial Community Plan. Zoning The property is within the Community Plan Special Area #2 (Commercial Core) as jointly adopted by Placer County and the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency in April Description of Project The proposed Accessory Parking Project is the final phase of a multi-year phased Tahoe Vista Recreation Area. This phase consists of a parking lot for automobiles and vehicles with boat trailers, landscaping, stormwater BMP s, and a paved walking/bike trail. The previous phases are located south of the current parcel across SR 28 and along Lake Tahoe s shoreline. Included in these phases was the construction of a paved plaza, pedestrian and bike paths, renovations to the existing boat launch area and improvements to the existing North Tahoe Public Utility District water treatment facility. Recreation Area has been designed as a holistic project but has been constructed in phases due to budgetary and environmental constraints. Traffic, air quality, noise, botanical, water quality, historical, and geotechnical studies were preformed prior to the design development to support informed decisions and design choices. Reduction of coverage within the lake front parcels was completed in order to achieve the layout and design of this proposed parking area along National Avenue. The proposed project seeks to provide adequate and safe parking in conjunction with designated pedestrian/bicycle access for the boat launch and recreation area located on the lakeshore. This site will provide parking and access to one of the few public boat launching facility on the North Shore. The next closest public launching facilities are either the Tahoe City Public Utility District site adjacent to the Coast Guard in Lake Forest or the Kings Beach Coon St. Boat Launch Facility. Mitigated Negative Declaration / Initial Study Checklist Page 2

6 Surrounding Land Use The parcels to the east and west of the project are residential and multi-residential (motel/condo). The Post office and restaurant are also located to the east. Across State Route 28 are residential parcels and the remainder of the subject project area including boat launching, recreation and public uses. Directly to the north of the parcel are residential uses. All of the surrounding parcels are within the Special Area 2 of the Community Plan. Other Public Agencies California Regional Quality Control Board-Lahontan North Tahoe Fire Protection District Placer County Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Mitigated Negative Declaration / Initial Study Checklist Page 3

7 Statement of Findings The environmental evaluation has identified potential environmental impacts and corresponding mitigation measures for the construction of the proposed parking facility as Phase II of the Recreation Area. The project will mitigate the current deficiency of parking for the recreation facilities located on the lakefront parcel constructed during the earlier phases of this project. Aesthetics: Existing vegetation including large pine trees and understory will be removed for the construction of the parking lot, multi-purpose trail, and storm water facilities. Tree removal is limited to proposed paved areas and storm water basins. The majority of tree removal is within the interior of the site in order to maintain existing perimeter vegetation. Parking lot islands and staggered parking spaces were designed to retain a significant amount of the existing vegetation, focusing on retention of healthy specimen conifers. The proposed landscape plan includes native plantings to replace removed vegetation, enhance the site aesthetics, and provide screening of the parking area from the scenic corridor and adjoining parcels. Air, Noise, Water Quality: Construction activities related to the project may create shortterm impacts to the noise, air quality, and water quality standards of site and adjacent parcels during the construction phase. Mitigation efforts including erosion control BMP s, storm water facilities, dust control measures, and limiting construction to daytime hours will reduce or eliminate any potential negative effects to the project site, the surrounding areas and the environment. No wetlands, riparian zone, stream environment zones are present on site. The project will not disturb any protected water resources. Biological Resources: The site is located in an area where two California Fish and Game Code (CDFG) bird species of concern that can possibly nest at the project area. The two species include yellow warbler and the northern goshawk. Site visits and field observations did not discover any evidence of nesting on site. In order to mitigate any potential disturbance a qualified biologist will examine the site 30 days prior to any proposed tree removal or construction activities to identify and insure protection of any active nests. Cultural Resources: The site does not have any known historical or cultural resources. The Washoe Tribe originally inhabited the Lake Tahoe basin. The cultural resource report states, No immediate Native American concerns regarding the project have been identified. A qualified archaeologist and/or a Washoe consultant will monitor initial ground disturbance activities. If any archeological artifacts are discovered during construction activities work will stop immediately and a qualified archaeologist and/or Washoe consultant will be contacted to assess the nature and significance of the find. Transportation/Traffic: Traffic is projected to increase along the SR 28/SR 267 intersection regardless of this project. However, at the intersection of SR28/National Avenue a modest increase to traffic volumes result from the proposed project. The projected future level of service at both intersections will continue to meet or exceed the goals of the Regional Transportation Plan Element. (Refer to Appendix E). Construction of a new Mitigated Negative Declaration / Initial Study Checklist Page 4

8 bus pullout, bus stop, and pedestrian/bicycle path will provide public transit options to and from the recreation area. The proposed project will have limited environmental impacts to the project site and adjacent properties. With the incorporation and implementation of identified mitigation measures, any potential impacts will be reduced or eliminated to a less than significant environmental impact. All impacts will be mitigated appropriately to either limit or eliminate any potential negative effects. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD: The public may review and comment on the Initial Study Checklist/Mitigated negative Declaration between January 13, 2012 and February 13, Copies of the Initial Study Checklist/Mitigated Negative Declaration are available for review at: North Tahoe Public Utility District Office at 875 National Avenue,, CA North Tahoe Event Center at 8318 North Lake Blvd., Kings Beach, CA Kings Beach Public Library at 301 Secline Street, Kings Beach, CA On-line at Written questions should be submitted to the NTPUD no later than 5:00 p.m. on February 13, Questions or comments may be addressed to Suzi Gibbons, Contracts and Planning Coordinator at (530) Public Meeting: The proposed project and the findings of the CEQA mitigated Negative Declaration will be presented at the NTPUD Board of Directors Meeting on Tuesday, January 17, 2012 at 10:30 a.m. and will take place at the North Tahoe Event Center located at 8318 north Lake Boulevard, Kings Beach, CA Paul Schultz, General Manager/CEO, North Tahoe Public Utility District Date Recorder s Certification Mitigated Negative Declaration / Initial Study Checklist Page 5

9

10 CEQA Environmental Checklist ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project. Please see the checklist beginning on page 3 for additional information. Aesthetics Agriculture and Forestry Air Quality Biological Resources Cultural Resources Geology/Soils Greenhouse Gas Emissions Hazards and Hazardous Materials Hydrology/Water Quality Land Use/Planning Mineral Resources Noise Population/Housing Public Services Recreation Transportation/Traffic Utilities/Service Systems Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required Signature: Printed Name: Date: For: Mitigated Negative Declaration / Initial Study Checklist Page 7

11 CEQA Environmental Checklist Dist.-Co.-Rte. P.M/P.M. E.A. This checklist identifies physical, biological, social and economic factors that might be affected by the proposed project. In many cases, background studies performed in connection with the projects indicate no impacts. A NO IMPACT answer in the last column reflects this determination. Where there is a need for clarifying discussion, the discussion is included either following the applicable section of the checklist or is within the body of the environmental document itself. The words "significant" and "significance" used throughout the following checklist are related to CEQA, not NEPA, impacts. The questions in this form are intended to encourage the thoughtful assessment of impacts and do not represent thresholds of significance. Initial Study Checklist I. AESTHETICS: Would the project: Potentially with Mitigation No a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Question I.a Note that the project will not be visible from Lake Tahoe. When viewed from the recreation area and Roadway Unit 20, the parking area and trail will be visible, but existing and proposed vegetation will screen a majority of the parking area and associated vehicles from the roadway. According to the 2006 threshold update, this Mitigated Negative Declaration / Initial Study Checklist Page 8

12 travel unit is presently in attainment. The proposed project will not cause a decrease in this threshold rating. No mitigation efforts are necessary. Question I.b-c The site is located in a developed area and does not contain any rock outcroppings or historic buildings. Existing vegetation including diseased or dying trees, trees less than 14 diameter breast height (dbh), and understory have been removed for fuel reduction purposes. Other existing vegetation including large pine trees and understory will be removed for the construction of the parking lot, trail, and storm water facilities, but will not affect the view from the Highway 28. The project will not adversely affect the visual character of its surroundings and will enhance the site with proposed plantings and signage. The project proposes enhanced landscaping consisting of native plantings. Question I.d The site will be most visible from traffic traveling west along SR 28. Existing trees and additional plantings will reduce any glare or reflection produced from parked vehicles from vehicular passengers and pedestrians traveling along SR 28. The project will provide parking for vehicles during daylight hours, however vehicle may still have their lights on and may produce temporary glare offsite. Proposed safety lighting will be installed throughout the site. Mitigation Efforts Tree removal is limited to proposed paved areas and storm water basins. The majority of tree removal is within the interior of the site while all attempts to maintain existing perimeter vegetation were made. Parking lot islands and staggered parking spaces were designed to retain a significant amount of the existing vegetation. Proposed planting along the western and southern boundaries will reduce glare of vehicle lights. Shrubs planted on the edges of the parking areas will help to filter and reduce light and glare affecting off-site properties (See Map B). All proposed safety lighting will be directed downward and will comply with TRPA Ordinance Section Mitigated Negative Declaration / Initial Study Checklist Page 9

13 II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state s inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project; and the forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: Potentially with Mitigation No 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? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 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))? d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? Mitigated Negative Declaration / Initial Study Checklist Page 10

14 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 forestland to non-forest use? Questions II.a-b The site is a forested vacant parcel within a developed area surrounded by residential and commercial uses. No agricultural lands or agricultural uses will be affected by the proposed site development. Question II.c The project site is located within the Community Plan Special Area #2 (Commercial Core). The project does not conflict with the current zoning. Question II.d Western Botanical Services, Inc completed a site survey and report titled Threatened, Endangered, Sensitive Plant Species and Noxious Weeds Survey on July 15, 2005 (Refer to Appendix B). The report notes that the current site has diverse and vigorous vegetation, with a high percentage of forbs. Existing vegetation including diseased or dying trees, trees less than 14 diameter breast height (dbh), and understory have been removed for fuel reduction purposes. The proposed plan will remove existing vegetation for the new improvements. Question II.e Although the project site is currently wooded it is not considered forestland and there are no impacts to Agricultural Resources. Mitigation Efforts The parking lot was designed with islands to preserve existing trees wherever possible. A landscape plan has been prepared to re-vegetate all disturbed areas with native plantings and will not change the diversity or distribution of species currently on site (See Map B). Due to the possibility of noxious weeds entering the site from season to season via people, animals, wind and other transportation methods a botanical field survey will be completed prior to any site disturbance to identify, treat, and contain the spread of potentially noxious weeds. A qualified arborist shall be consulted prior to construction to provide proper procedures to be used if an existing tree root zone is encountered during excavation for BMP s or utility trenches. The arborist shall inspect any disturbed roots prior to backfilling to ensure the contractor utilizes the proper mitigation efforts. Mitigated Negative Declaration / Initial Study Checklist Page 11

15 III. AIR QUALITY: Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is nonattainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Potentially with Mitigation Mitigated Negative Declaration / Initial Study Checklist Page 12 No Question III.a-b According to the revised Recreation Area Phase 2 Traffic, Air Quality, and Parking Study prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc (See Appendix E) the project is located in the Lake Tahoe Air Basin and the portion of Placer County met (or was unclassified for) all the National Standards. The Lake Tahoe Air Basin, however, was in non-attainment for particulate matter (PM10) for California state standards. It should be noted that almost every county in California was also in non-attainment with the state PM10 standard. Based on the 2006 Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Threshold Evaluation Report, areas of Lake Tahoe were in non-attainment for Ozone, Carbon Monoxide, and Particulate Matter (PM10). Questions III.c-e No considerable net increase of particulate matter is anticipated. No sensitive receptors will be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations. Mitigation Efforts Pursuant to Chapter 93.3.C of the TRPA Code of ordinances, an air quality mitigation fee, assessed at a rate of $36.20 per daily vehicular trip-end (DTVE) is assessed to offset the potential traffic and air quality impacts associated with the project. Per the report a

16 potential increase of 309 DTVE at the site access points will be addressed with an air quality mitigation fee. During construction activities dust control measures including watering and vehicle cleaning will be utilized to mitigate any substantial air pollutant emissions. Mitigated Negative Declaration / Initial Study Checklist Page 13

17 IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially with Mitigation No 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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 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? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Mitigated Negative Declaration / Initial Study Checklist Page 14

18 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? Question IV.a According to the November 12, 2011 Habitat Constraints Analysis prepared North Fork Associates (See Appendix A) the project is located in an area where two special species could occur. The northern goshawk (Accipiter gentilis) and yellow warbler (Dendroica petechia brewsteri) are both CDFG species of concern. The report states, While no raptor nests were observed during field observations, taller trees on the project site provide appropriate nesting habitat for raptors. Question IV.b There is no riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service. Question IV.c-d There are no federally protected wetlands present on the site and the project will not interfere 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. Question IV.e-f The project does not Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Neither is it in conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan Mitigation Efforts Per the recommendations contained in the Habitat Constraints Analysis (See Appendix A Page 8) To avoid disturbance of active nests, trees should be removed outside the typical breeding season. The breeding season for the northern goshawk is from March 1 to August 31 and April 15 to August 15 for the yellow warbler. A qualified biologist should conduct a preconstruction survey if construction or tree removal will occur at any time during the typical nesting season. Preconstruction surveys should be conducted no more than 30 days prior to initiation of proposed construction activities or tree removal. Survey results should be submitted to CDFG. If active raptor nests are found on or immediately adjacent to proposed construction areas, consultation should be initiated with CDFG to determine appropriate avoidance measures. Depending on the species at issue, protective measures could include establishing an appropriate buffer zone around each active nest, and subsequent monitoring of the nest until it becomes inactive. Mitigated Negative Declaration / Initial Study Checklist Page 15

19 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially with Mitigation No a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to ? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Question V.a Susan Lindström PH.D., a consulting archaeologist, prepared a Heritage Resource Inventory for this project in December 2005 (See Appendix C). The survey disclosed no prehistoric or historic sites, features or artifacts. The study also states that it is possible that buried or concealed heritage resources could be present and detected during project ground disturbance activities. Question V.b According to the Heritage Resource Inventory (See Appendix C) the area has had a rich history, but no significant events or persons have been found that directly relate to the project site. Questions V.c-d According to the Heritage Resource Inventory (See Appendix C) this area was originally inhabited by the Washoe Tribe, who were consulted with during the initial site survey and writing of the report. The report states, No immediate Native American concerns regarding the project have been identified. Mitigation Efforts No Mitigation Efforts are necessary at this time, however if any historic sites, features or artifacts are discovered during construction activities the project sponsor will consult a qualified archaeologist for recommended procedures. A Washoe Tribe will have the opportunity to monitor the project during the initial ground disturbance activities. Mitigated Negative Declaration / Initial Study Checklist Page 16

20 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS: Would the project: Potentially with Mitigation No a) Expose people or structures to 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? ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? Questions VI.a (i-iii) According to the Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared by Holdrege & Kull Consulting Engineers and Geologist (See Appendix D), The site is located in Seismic Zone 3 of the 2001 California Building Code (CBC) Seismic Zone Map. Based on site conditions, which include variable topography, potentially expansive fin-grained soil, and variably weathered rock in the subsurface, the soil profile was classified as Sc, dense soil and soft rock. The report concluded, that the site may experience moderate ground shaking caused by earthquakes occurring along offsite faults. Earthquakes may cause cracking of concrete slabs, building walls, and pavement at the site. Mitigation Efforts No mitigation efforts are proposed. Mitigated Negative Declaration / Initial Study Checklist Page 17

21 Landslides Potentially with Mitigation No b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 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? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) 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? Question VI.b Bare earth susceptible to erosion will be exposed during the construction of parking area. Due to the 2-4% slope across the site no substantial soil erosion is foreseen. Question VI.c The site is not located on a geological unit or soil that is unstable, or that may become unstable as a result of the project. Question VI.d According to the Geotechnical Engineering Report prepared by Holdrege & Kull Consulting Engineers and Geologist, (See Appendix D) no highly compressible or potentially expansive soil conditions were encountered in our exploratory test borings during subsurface exploration. Mitigation Efforts During preliminary grading and construction topsoil will be stockpiled onsite for later use on site, including enhancement of new planting beds. Temporary and permanent Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be utilized to contain and mitigate any potential soil erosion during construction activities and prior to complete site stabilization. Mitigated Negative Declaration / Initial Study Checklist Page 18

22 VII. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS: Would the project: Potentially with Mitigation No a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Questions VII a-b Potential Green House Gas (GHG) emissions from construction activity associated with the project include carbon dioxide, methane (CH4) and nitrous oxide (NO2). According to the revised Recreation Area Phase 2 Traffic, Air Quality, and Parking Study prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc (See Appendix E) levels of Ozone, CO and NO2 recorded at the Tahoe City, Lake Forest Road monitoring station in 2004 are below all existing federal, state, and TRPA standards (Table 8 in Appendix E). The report concludes, the maximum growth is expected to be 7.6 percent. As a 7.6 percent proportionate increase in ambient conditions would still yield ambient conditions that are below any of the Federal, State, or TRPA CO standards, it can be concluded that there is no possibility that future ambient conditions would exceed any standards with the proposed project. Therefore, it is not necessary to conduct ambient air quality modeling for the proposed project. Mitigation Efforts No mitigation efforts are proposed. Mitigated Negative Declaration / Initial Study Checklist Page 19

23 VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS: Would the project: Potentially with Mitigation No a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? 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? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 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 for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? Mitigated Negative Declaration / Initial Study Checklist Page 20

24 g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Questions VIII.a-h There is no proposed use of hazardous materials for the construction or continuing maintenance and use of the site Mitigation Efforts No mitigation efforts are needed or proposed. Mitigated Negative Declaration / Initial Study Checklist Page 21

25 IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY: Would the project: Potentially with Mitigation No a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) 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? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? Mitigated Negative Declaration / Initial Study Checklist Page 22

26 g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow Question IX.a-b The site currently has a natural drainage plan consisting mostly of sheet flow migrating north to south towards a State Route 28 drainage system, which then conveys stormwater to Lake Tahoe.. Runoff from paved areas is conveyed to multiple infiltration basins placed throughout the site. Basins are designed as such to provide groundwater recharge, attenuate peak flows, treat stormwater and maintain site discharge consistent with pre-project conditions. Question IX.c-d Temporary and permanent water quality BMP s will be constructed, which includes stormwater basins, infiltration trenches, advanced stormwater treatment structures, swales and sediment traps. The proposed drainage plan will modify the existing drainage but will have a zero sum effect on release of storm water runoff. There is no existing stream course on site. Post project runoff rates are at or below pre-project conditions. Questions IX.e The project is designed with stormwater conveyance structures to attenuate peak flows. Peak stormwater flows leaving site are at or below existing conditions. Downstream facilities will not be impacted by this project. Question IX.f The project will not degrade water quality due to proposed treatment vaults and infiltration basins. Question IX g-j The site is not located within a 100-year flood hazard area. Mitigation Efforts In order to mitigate any reduction in water quality due to the proposed quantity of impervious surfaces, the project is providing on site stormwater BMP s including vegetated swales, storm water basins, advanced stormwater treatment structures, sediment trap inlets with sumps and concrete curbing. The BMP s are designed to capture, settle and release any runoff at a rate and quality consistent with preconstruction conditions. Temporary and permanent water quality BMP s will be Mitigated Negative Declaration / Initial Study Checklist Page 23

27 constructed, which includes stormwater basins, infiltration trenches, advanced stormwater treatment structures, swales and sediment traps. The proposed BMP s are designed to contain the 20 yr. 1hr storm runoff. Mitigated Negative Declaration / Initial Study Checklist Page 24

28 X. LAND USE AND PLANNING: Would the project: Potentially with Mitigation No a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Questions X.a The project will not divide an established community. The plan proposes a new pedestrian/bicycle path that will enable residents to safely travel along the length of the property. It also directs pedestrians to a signalized crosswalk in order to access the lake front facilities associated with the early phases of the project. Questions X.b The project is not in any conflict with any land use plan, policy or regulation of Placer County or the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency. Question X.c The site is not within a habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. Mitigation Efforts No mitigation efforts are proposed. Mitigated Negative Declaration / Initial Study Checklist Page 25

29 XI. MINERAL RESOURCES: Would the project: Potentially with Mitigation No 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? 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? Questions X.a-b There are no known or recorded mineral resources on the project site. The development of the site will not result in any loss of locally important mineral resource recovery site. Mitigation Efforts No mitigation efforts are proposed. Mitigated Negative Declaration / Initial Study Checklist Page 26

30 XII. NOISE: Would the project result in: Potentially with Mitigation No a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 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 expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Question XII.a-d Noise may be in excess of standards established for the area during the course of construction only. Per the Environmental Noise Assessment prepared by J.C. Brennan and Associates (See Appendix G) the closest residential receivers to the west are approximately 70 feet from the center of the propose parking lot. Therefore, the predicted noise levels are 46dB CNEL and 51 db CNEL Leq. These levels would comply with the Placer County Daytime 55dB Leq exterior noise level standard and the TRPA 55 db CNEL exterior noise level standard. Mitigated Negative Declaration / Initial Study Checklist Page 27

31 Question XII.e-f The project is not located within an airport land use plan and is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Mitigation Efforts Per Placer County standards, construction noise emanating from any construction activity is prohibited on Sundays and federal holidays, and shall only occur: Monday through Friday, 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. during daylight savings, 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. during non-daylight savings, and Saturdays, 8:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m to reduce any noise impacts to the surrounding area during the construction phase. Mitigated Negative Declaration / Initial Study Checklist Page 28

32 XIII. POPULATION AND HOUSING: Would the project: Potentially with Mitigation No a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Questions XIII.a-c No new housing is proposed or required for this recreation project. The parcel is currently a vacant lot and the construction of the project will not displace any existing housing or people. The project does not require the replacement of housing elsewhere, nore does it require affordable or employee housing given the proposed uses. Mitigation Efforts No mitigation effort are proposed or needed. Mitigated Negative Declaration / Initial Study Checklist Page 29

33 XIV. PUBLIC SERVICES: Potentially with Mitigation No a) 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: 1. Fire protection? 2. Police protection? 3. Schools? 4. Parks? 5. Other public facilities? Question XIV.a (1-5) The project is located within several established services districts including the North Tahoe Fire Protection District, Placer County Sheriff Office, Tahoe-Truckee School District, as well as other governmental services that currently serve the project site and surrounding area. The project is also owned by the North Tahoe Public Utility District, which will provide maintenance and utility service to the site. Mitigation Efforts No mitigation effort are proposed or needed. Mitigated Negative Declaration / Initial Study Checklist Page 30

34 XV. RECREATION: Potentially with Mitigation No 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? 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? Questions XV.a-b This phase of the project will compliment the earlier phases by providing more parking and dedicated biking and pedestrian access to the lakefront segment of the project area. The earlier phases have provided expanded and improved public lake access and recreation facilities. It will not create substantial physical deterioration of the lakefront facility. The existing recreation facilities (i.e. public plaza areas, restrooms, boat launch, docks on lakefront parcel) do not create an adverse physical effect on the environment as previously determined. This phase of the project will improve circulation and eliminate existing hazardous parking conditions. Mitigation Efforts No mitigation effort are proposed or needed. Mitigated Negative Declaration / Initial Study Checklist Page 31

35 XVI. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC: Would the project: Potentially with Mitigation No a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Mitigated Negative Declaration / Initial Study Checklist Page 32

36 Question XVI.a The plan is not in conflict with any ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. Question XVI.b The original study completed on February 29, 2008 Recreation Area Phase 2 Traffic, Air Quality, and Parking Study (Appendix E) prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. was recently updated and revised on November 11, The report finds that the project is expected to generate about 460 daily one-way vehicle trips at the upland parcel driveways, 75 of which would occur during the PM peak hour (34 inbound and 41 outbound). However, the report concludes Applying the reduction for pass-by trips and the credit for existing trips yields a net increase of about 309 new daily trips and 50 new peak hour trips (22 inbound and 28 outbound) generated on regional roadways (such as SR 28) with the proposed project. Question XVI.c The project is expected to increase the overall parking availability for the public beach access and boat launch facility. The report also states that the project will reduce the number of vehicles parking along SR 28 and National Avenue, and will also reduce the impact of the Recreation Area on private property and the post office parking area. All parking demand is expected to be accommodated with reduced potential for impact on adjacent properties. Question XVI.d All design elements including parking space dimensions, aisle widths, turning radii and ingress/egress points are designed per Placer County standards. There are no incompatible uses proposed for the site. Question XVI.e The plan proposes two (2) points of ingress and egress, which will provide adequate emergency access. Question XVI.f By providing a dedicated biking/pedestrian path along National Avenue and relieving current parking on the highway and street shoulders, the project will improve public safety for the existing facilities and the surrounding community. The project will provide a bus pullout and sheltered bus stop to accommodate existing public transit facilities. Crosswalks and a traffic signal at the intersection of SR 28 and National Avenue, which were previously constructed, provide safety for vehicular motions and the connection between the upland and lakefront recreation facilities. Mitigation Efforts Per Recreation Area Phase 2 Traffic, Air Quality, and Parking Study (Appendix E) prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. was recently updated and revised on November 11, 2011 the following mitigation measures will be implemented The final landscaping plans for the upland parcel should provide a clear line of sight from the South Site Access to the SR 28/National Avenue intersection. The gates at the proposed driveways should remain open during the boating season. It is also recommended that the gates be relocated farther away from the bike path, in order to decrease the potential for a bicyclist to hit a pilaster. Install Do Not Enter signs on each side of the North Access driveway at a point Mitigated Negative Declaration / Initial Study Checklist Page 33