Attachment 4. TRPA Environmental Documentation, IEC/MFONSE

Transcription

1 Required Findings for Certification of the Final Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and Initial Environmental Checklist/Mitigated Finding Of No Significant Effect (IS/MFONSE) TRPA Environmental Documentation, IEC/MFONSE Findings for Initial Environmental Checklist 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: B. The proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment but, due to the listed mitigation measures that have been added to the project, the project could have no significant effect on the environment and a mitigated finding of no significant effect shall be prepared in accordance with Rules of Procedure Section 6.7; All of the adverse environmental effects associated with the project may be avoided or reduced to a less-than-significant level with the adoption of the mitigation measures set forth in the IEC/MFONSE and incorporated in to permit conditions of approval. If the project is found to not have a significant effect if certain mitigation measures are incorporated into and made a part of the project, the project description shall be correspondingly modified and no further environmental documentation shall be required. California Environmental Quality Act, IS/MND (a) The Planning Commission has independently reviewed and analyzed the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration and other information in the record and has considered the information contained therein, prior to acting upon or approving the project, and The Planning Commission received a presentation on April 13, 2017 which reviewed the CEQA process, the draft IS/MND environmental impact analysis, the analysis findings, and proposed mitigation measures. The Planning Commission also received public input on the IS/MND during a public hearing at the meeting. The Planning Commission then received a presentation on May 11, 2017 on the Final IS/MND which includes responses to all comments and a mitigation monitoring and reporting plan. The Planning Commission has reviewed and analyzed the IS/MND, public input, and other project related information prior to acting on the project. (b) the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project has been completed in compliance with CEQA and consistent with state and local guidelines implementing CEQA, and In compliance with CEQA, the City prepared an IS which identifies and evaluates the potential environmental impacts of the project. The IS identified potential Page 1 of 11

2 significant impacts. Mitigation is proposed to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. As a result, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. The IS/MND was made available for public review and comment from March 21, 2017 through April 20, A Notice of Availability was published in the Tahoe Daily Tribune and mailed to all property owners within 300 of the project area. After the comment period, a response to all comments received was prepared as well as a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan. Prior to the May 11, 2017 Planning Commission hearing, a Notice of Intent to Adopt and Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Tahoe Daily Tribune and mailed to all property owners within 300. Prior to the preparation of the MND, consultation letters were sent to Native American tribes who had submitted requests to be on the City s notification list pursuant to AB 52. Consultation letter were sent to the United Auburn Indian Community and the Ione Band of Miwok Indians and no responses were received. (c) the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration represents the independent judgment and analysis of the City as lead agency for the Project. The IS/MND was prepared by City staff with the assistance of consultants under contract with the City. The IS/MND has been reviewed and analyzed independently by the City Planning Commission, representing the City as the lead agency for the project. TRPA Findings Required for Approval of the Project Chapter 4 - Findings Necessary to Approve Any Project To approve any project TRPA shall find, in accordance with Sections 4.2 and 4.3, that: A. The project is consistent with and will not adversely affect implementation of the Regional Plan, including all applicable Goals and Policies, plan area statements and maps, the Code, and other TRPA plans and programs; (1) Land Use: The proposed project is consistent with the relevant goals and policies of the Regional Plan and the Tourist Core Area Plan, and the findings for the Area Plan are herein incorporated by reference. The proposed uses are compatible with the surrounding uses and are consistent with the scale, density, intensity, and type of uses envisioned in the Regional Plan and the Tourist Core Area Plan. (2) Transportation: The IEC includes an analysis of traffic, parking, and circulation to assess potential impacts associated with the project. This analysis concluded that the proposed project is estimated to increase site generated daily vehicle trip ends (dvte) by 897 trips from existing land uses. Since the daily vehicle trip ends will increase as a result of the proposed Page 2 of 11

3 project, an air quality mitigation fee and/or other measures are required to offset potential traffic and air quality impacts. Overall parking demand for the project, was identified by applying a series of demand factors for proposed uses. The IEC considered all of the parking needs at the site and proposed parking, including the 88 spaces available in the existing parking garage. Parking demand reductions were applied for non-auto travel, pass by trips, and the potential for shared parking. Comparing the proposed parking supply (272 spaces) with peak parking demand (224 spaces), assuming shared parking among the two parking areas in the project area, the overall project would result in a peak parking balance. However, due to the distance between the 88 spaces in the garage and the western parking area, parking management mitigation measures will be implemented to ensure adequate parking during peaks within each parking area. (3) Conservation: The proposed project will be visible from a TRPA designated roadway travel unit, Lake Tahoe Roadway Unit 33, The Strip (City of South Lake Tahoe) which is not in attainment. With the demolition of the Knights Inn and associated buildings, the removal of older development and the redevelopment of new buildings will greatly increase the architectural quality of the built environment along this roadway unit. The current Knights Inn building is a two story building and was constructed between 1956 and The redevelopment of the site with separate buildings will open up the scenic views of the mountains from Hwy 50. The new buildings on the corner of Ski Run Blvd and Hwy 50 will be single story and will be constructed to meet the City and TRPA Design Guidelines, providing complimentary additions to the built environment. The improved aesthetics of the new buildings and elimination of the existing visual blight would improve the current rating for human-made features within this roadway unit. (4) Public Service and Facilities: As discussed in the IEC, the project will not create adverse impacts to public service and facilities as there is sufficient available water supply, wastewater treatment, fire, law protection and emergency medical services, public schools, natural gas, electric and telecommunications. (5) Implementation: The project will utilize CFA reserved for the development of the SW Corner from the Redevelopment Project #1 and on site existing CFA. CFA located on 3592 and 3596 Lloyd Avenue is eligible for bonus units at a ratio of 1:3 for transfer of development in an SEZ from outside to within a Town Center. The City has requested that additional RUUs and CFA from the TRPA bonus pool, for removing development from SEZ, be reserved pursuant to the TRPA Code of Ordinances Section The proposed project would utilize 43,000 sq. ft. of CFA, leaving 10,006 sq. ft. banked in the project area. The 110 TAUs and 3 RUUs would also be banked and available for transfer to other locations. Page 3 of 11

4 B. The project will not cause the environmental threshold carrying capacities to be exceeded; and The basis for this finding is provided on the checklist entitled Project Review Conformance Checklist and Article (V)g Findings in accordance with Chapter 6, Subsection 6.3.B of the TRPA Code of Ordinances. All responses in the checklist indicate compliance with the environmental threshold carrying capacities. Also, an IEC has been prepared for the proposed project, which is incorporated in full herein. There were no unmitigated significant impacts to thresholds identified in the IEC. A copy of the checklist and Final IEC/MFONSE have been made available to the Planning Commission and the public. C. Wherever federal, state, or local air and water quality standards apply for the region, the strictest standards shall be attained, maintained, or exceeded pursuant to Article V(d) of the Tahoe Regional Planning Compact. The basis for this finding is provided on the checklist entitled Project Review Conformance Checklist and Article (V)g Findings in accordance with Chapter 6, Subsection 6.3.B of the TRPA Code of Ordinances. All responses in the checklist indicate compliance with the applicable federal, state and/or local air and water quality standards. Also, an IEC has been prepared for the proposed project, which is incorporated in full herein. There were no unmitigated significant impacts to federal, state or local air and water quality standards applicable to the Region identified in the IED. A copy of the checklist and Final EIS have been made available to the Planning Commission and the public. Chapter 30- Coverage Relocation Findings (a) The relocation is to an equal or superior portion of the parcel or project area, as determined by reference to the following factors: (1) Whether the area of relocation already has been disturbed. (2) The slope and natural vegetation on the area of relocation. (3) The fragility of the soil on the area of relocation. (4) Whether the area of relocation appropriately fits the scheme of use of the property. (5) The relocation does not further encroach into a stream environment zone, backshore, or the setbacks established in the Code for the protection of stream environment zones or backshore. (6) The project otherwise complies with the land coverage mitigation program set forth in Section The project area consists of areas of Land Capability Districts (LCD) 7 and 1b (SEZ). Table D of the Staff Report provides a description of the existing coverage. There is a total of 178, 837 sq. ft. of verified existing coverage. 13,849 sq. ft. of that coverage is in LCD 1b. The project proposes a total of 175,083 sq. Page 4 of 11

5 ft. of coverage, all within LCD 7. The project will include the relocation of coverage from the LCD 1b area to the LCD 7 area and a reduction of 3,754 sq. ft. of hard coverage in the project area. All of the LCD 7 area has been previously disturbed with past development and current development proposed for demolition. The LCD 7 area contains a grade change of approximately 8-10 feet due to fill that has been placed on the SW Corner parcels. The LCD 7 area is relatively flat, is not on a hillside, and has very little natural vegetation. The LCD 7 area is along Hwy 50 and has been identified in the TCAP as an area appropriate for commercial redevelopment. Existing coverage in the SEZ setback will remain, however all coverage within the LCD 1b will be removed and relocated to LCD 7. Existing excess coverage on the site will be mitigated through the removal of on-site coverage, removal of off-site coverage, a mitigation fee or a combination of the three options. (b) The area from which the land coverage was removed for relocation is restored in accordance with Subsection As required by TRPA Code, the area from which the land coverage is proposed for removal for relocation would be restored in accordance with Subsection and 61.4 and in accordance with the proposed Restoration and Revegetation Plan submitted as a required condition of approval. A majority of areas where coverage would be removed and banked would be revegetated with appropriate plant species for LCD 1b and the soil would be stabilized. The primary SEZ benefit would be the net reduction in 1b coverage, restoration of SEZ on LCD 1b land, reestablishment of Bijou Park Creek and a day lit water feature through the site, reestablishment of functioning SEZ soils and vegetation and habitat in the area that will occur as part of the project. (c) The relocation is not to Land Capability Districts 1a, 1b, 1c, 2 or 3 from any higher numbered land capability district. Coverage will be relocated from LCD 1b to LCD 7. Therefore, no high land capability coverage will be relocated to LCDs 1a, 1b, 1c, 2 or 3. (d) If the relocation is from one portion of a stream environment zone to another portion, there is a net environmental benefit to the stream environment zone. For projects involving the relocation of more than 1000 square feet of land coverage within a stream environment zone, a finding, based on a report prepared by a qualified professional, that the relocation will improve the functioning of the stream environment zone and will not negatively affect the quality of existing habitats. The project will not relocate coverage from one portion of SEZ to another. Coverage relocation will occur from LCD 1b to LCD 7. Chapter 37 - Findings for Additional Height Page 5 of 11

6 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 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 , Additional Visual Magnitude, or Appendix H, Visual Assessment Tool, of the Design Review Guidelines. Maximum building heights of structures proposed with the project are between 30 and 31 feet. As demonstrated in the IEC building mass simulations, these building heights are well below the tree heights on surrounding properties and will not extend above the forest canopy or the impair views of the ridgeline in the East Peak and Heavenly Ski Resort area. The project area is not within the shoreland Finding 2. When outside a community plan, the additional height is consistent with the surrounding uses. The project area is located within the Tourist Core Area Plan and PAS 93 (Bijou). The project does not include any structures in the PAS 93 area. The single story, foot buildings are consistent with other buildings in the surrounding area, including the Ski Run Shopping Center to the east, commercial buildings to the west and the Tahoe Beach and Ski Club to the north 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. The buildings have been designed to comply with the Tourist Core Area Plan Development Standards (Appendix C), the City of South Lake Tahoe Design Guidelines, and City-Wide Design Standards (City Code Title 6). The orientation and location of each building provides the maximum views through the site. The removal of the Knights Inn hotel will eliminate a two story structure that runs the length of the parcel, opening up views to the SEZ area at the south end of the site. Existing views on the Knights Inn parcel will be improved. Building mass on the east side of the project area is proposed to be broken up in to three separate buildings with two at the corner to anchor the intersection as described in the Tourist Core Area Plan. These buildings are single story in order to minimize impacts on views of the mountain ridgeline to the south 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. Page 6 of 11

7 The proposed project will be visible from a TRPA designated roadway travel unit, Lake Tahoe Roadway Unit 33, The Strip (City of South Lake Tahoe) which is not in attainment The proposed project includes extensive landscaping and incorporates design and architecture features in the proposed buildings that are consistent with the Tourist Core Area Plan and City Code development and design standards. The project uses sloped roofs, natural exterior materials, natural earth tone colors and architectural features to create interesting buildings that are compatible with the surrounding natural and urban environment and reflect a mountain style architecture. The project also incorporates several recommendations from the adopted City Design Guidelines such as eve brackets, roof overhangs, and dormers Finding 8. The maximum building height at any corner of two exterior walls of the building is not greater than 90 percent of the maximum building height. The maximum height at the corner of two exterior walls is the difference between the point of lowest natural ground elevation along an exterior wall of the building, and point at which the corner of the same exterior wall meets the roof. This standard shall not apply to an architectural feature described as a prow. The buildings have been designed to meet the Tourist Core Area Plan standard that requires the height of the sloped roof to be a minimum 40% of the height of the building (TCAP Development Standards, Table 7). This design will also comply with the requirement that building walls are not greater than 90% of maximum height 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. Maximum building heights of structures proposed with the project are between 30 and 31 feet. As demonstrated in the IEC building mass simulations, these building heights are well below the tree heights on surrounding properties and will not extend above the forest canopy or the impair views of the ridgeline in the East Peak and Heavenly Ski Resort area. Chapter 61- General Tree Removal Findings (a) Before tree-related projects and activities are approved by TRPA, TRPA shall find, based on a report from a qualified forester, that the project or activity is consistent with this chapter and the Code. TRPA may delegate permit issuance to a federal, state, or other qualified agency through a memorandum of understanding. There are several large trees present in the project area. Due to the locations of the trees, the majority of them will be required to be removed in order to develop Page 7 of 11

8 the site without compromising the health of trees, if they were to remain. The project area does include a group of trees in the SEZ area, several of which may be able to be preserved, pending the detailed engineering and design of the SEZ restoration and creek daylighting portion of the project. As a condition of project approval, the permittee will be required to implement tree protection measures that are set forth in a report prepared by a certified arborist or forester to preserve all remaining trees during final design and construction of the project. As a part of this report, the forester will determine if the proposed project s tree removal plan is consistent with the TRPA Code, is in compliance with TRPA thresholds as well as the standards and regulations in Code Chapters 61 and 62. Chapter 66- Scenic Quality Standards Roadway and Shoreline Unit Scenic Quality. The project shall not cause a decrease in the numerical ratings assigned to roadway or shoreline units, including the scenic quality rating of the individual resources within each unit, as recorded in the 1982 Scenic Resources Inventory and shown in Tables 13-3, 13-5, 13-8, and 13-9 of the Study Report for the Establishment of Environmental Threshold Carrying Capacities, October The criteria for rating scenic quality as identified in the referenced study report shall be used to determine if a project will cause a decrease in the numerical rating. The proposed project will be visible from a TRPA designated roadway travel unit, Lake Tahoe Roadway Unit 33, The Strip (City of South Lake Tahoe) which is not in attainment. With the demolition of the Knights Inn and associated buildings, the removal of older development and the redevelopment of new buildings will greatly increase the architectural quality of the built environment along this roadway unit. The current Knights Inn building is a two story building and was constructed between 1956 and The redevelopment of the site with separate buildings will open up the scenic views of the mountains from Hwy 50. The new buildings on the corner of Ski Run Blvd and Hwy 50 will be single story and will be constructed to meet the City and TRPA Design Guidelines, providing complimentary additions to the built environment. The improved aesthetics of the new buildings and elimination of the existing visual blight would improve the current rating for human-made features within this roadway unit Roadway and Shoreline Unit Travel Routes. The project shall not cause a decrease in the 1982 roadway or shoreline travel route ratings as shown in Tables 13-6 and 13-7, respectively, of the Study Report for the Establishment of Environmental Threshold Carrying Capacities, October The criteria for rating travel routes as identified in the referenced study report and as further explained in the report entitled A Scenic Analysis of Principle Travel Routes In The Lake Tahoe Region, 1970, shall be used to determine if a project will cause a decrease in the numerical rating. For projects in the shoreland, Section 66.3 shall be used to determine if it will contribute to a decrease in the numerical rating for a shoreline travel route rating. Page 8 of 11

9 The southwest corner of the proposed project will be visible from a scenic resource point located at the intersection of Lake Tahoe Boulevard and Ski Run. The resource is described as the viewshed looking towards East Peak and Heavenly Ski Resort. However, the scenic resource is not expected to be impacted by the propped project. The project proposes only one story structures with maximum building heights between 30 and 31 feet. As demonstrated in the IEC building mass simulations, these building heights are well below the tree heights on surrounding properties and will not extend above the forest canopy or the impair views of the ridgeline in the East Peak and Heavenly Ski Resort area Roadway and Shoreline Unit Travel Routes. The project shall not cause a decrease in any numerical subcomponent threshold rating or total threshold rating assigned to a scenic resource identified in the 1993 Lake Tahoe Basin Scenic Resource Evaluation. Prior to approving a project that may potentially affect an identified scenic resource, TRPA shall find that the project is consistent with applicable recommendations for preserving scenic quality of the affected recreation area or bicycle trail found in the 1993 Lake Tahoe Basin Scenic Resource Evaluation. The proposed project is not visible from any scenic resource identified in the 1993 Lake Tahoe Basin Scenic Resource Evaluation. Chapter 21 Special Use Findings (a) The project to which the use pertains, is of such a nature, scale, density, intensity and type to be an appropriate use for the parcel on which, and surrounding area in which, it will be located. The proposed structures in the project area lie within the Tourist Core Area Plan Tourist Center Gateway and Tourist Center Mixed Use districts. Commercial uses proposed within the project include general retail and eating and drinking establishments. General retail is a permissible use in both districts. Eating and drinking establishments is permissible in the Tourist Center Gateway district and a special use in the Tourist Center Mixed Use district. The Eating and drinking establishment use is proposed in the smaller buildings ranging from 3,000 to 7,000 sf. The structures and use is consistent with the scale, density, intensity and type of uses on the surrounding commercial properties. Eating and drinking establishments of similar size currently exist to the north, east and west of the project area. (b) The project to which the use pertains, will not be injurious or disturbing to the health, safety, enjoyment or property, or general welfare of persons or property in the neighborhood, or general welfare of the region, and the applicant has taken reasonable steps to protect against any such injury and to protect the land, water, and air resources of both the applicant s property and that of surrounding property owners. Page 9 of 11

10 The potential environmental impacts of the project have been evaluated in the IEC/MFONSE. Compliance with mitigation measures related to noise and construction activities, as well as compliance with City Code and TRPA Code regulations will ensure that the eating and drinking establishment use will not be injurious or disturbing to the neighborhood or region. (c) The project, to which the use pertains, will not change the character of the neighborhood detrimentally affect or alter the purpose of the applicable planning area statement, community plan and specific or master plan, as the case may be. The proposed project is the redevelopment of parcels that historically contained commercial and tourist accommodation uses. These parcels have been designated for commercial use by the TRPA Regional Plan, City General Plan and the Tourist Core Area Plan Granting of use permits. City Findings Required for Approval of Project The Planning Commission may grant a use permit; provided, that it is found that the use applied for is: 1. Necessary or desirable on a specific parcel; Eating and drinking establishments are a beneficial component to creating the pedestrian oriented, destination center that provides high quality experiences which is envisioned in the Tourist Core Area Plan. The proposed location at the corner of Ski Run Blvd provides the opportunity for residents and visitors from the surrounding neighborhood and tourist accommodation properties to walk or bike to the site. The eating and drinking establishment use is proposed in the smaller buildings ranging from 3,000 to 7,000 sf. Eating and drinking establishments of similar size currently exist to the north, east and west of the project area. 2. Not injurious to the neighborhood; Eating and drinking establishments in the proposed location will not be injurious to the neighborhood. Uses in the surrounding area are primarily retail, restaurant, and recreation. There are residential uses to the south of the proposed site, however, the separation, required retaining wall, required fence and lighting regulations will ensure that noise and nuisance impacts will be minimized. The proposed use will provide an additional dining opportunity within walking distance of the residential neighborhood to the south. Page 10 of 11

11 3. Consistent with the intent of this chapter; and As discussed in Finding 1, the proposed eating and drinking establishment use is consistent with the Tourist Core Area Plan, which establishes land use regulations and development standards for the area. 4. Consistent with the permitted uses in such plan area. Other uses permitting in the Tourist Center Mixed Use district include general retail, personal services, and tourist accommodation uses. These uses are compatible with and complimentary to eating and drinking establishments in that they create active commercial centers that are destinations for visitors and residents. Consistency with the Tourist Core Area Plan and City-wide Design Standards As described in the staff report and these findings, the project, with implementation of mitigation measures and conditions of approval, is consistent with the Tourist Core Area Plan and City-Wide Design Standards contained in Title 6 of the City Code. Tourist Core Area Plan Standards TCAP Appendix C requires 50% of each building frontage to be placed at the street setback line. All of the buildings are place on or within 2 feet of the street setback line except Building 1. The TCAP allows for the Director of Development Services to waive this requirement if: Entry courtyards, plazas, entries, or outdoor eating areas are located between the building-to line and building, provided that the buildings are built to the edge of the courtyard, plaza, or dining area. The site plan includes a dining patio between Building 1 and the build to line and the building is placed at the edge of the dining patio. Page 11 of 11