FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS
B o u l d e r B a y C o m m u n i t y E n h a n c e m e n t P r o g r a m P r o j e c t E I S
(recession, gas prices). The Fehr & Peers study included in the DEIS does not adjust
for the 32% permanent decline in the proposed project conditions analysis; therefore,
analyzes the maximum traffic condition.
Comment 100-c: Comment Summary - The use of the theoretical baseline distorts analysis of VMTs
and leads to an erroneous conclusion that VMTs would be reduced with the project,
even though the project is clearly expected to generate more traffic than existing
facilities.
Please refer to Master Response 2, which compares the Proposed Project and
Alternatives to an alternative existing baseline.
Comment 100-d: Comment Summary - The understatement of VMTs and vehicle trips affects the
impact analysis in other sections, such as the effect of nitrogen emissions from cars,
road dust, and GHG emissions on Lake Tahoe algae growth, water quality, air
quality, and global warming.
Please refer to Master Response 2, which compares the Proposed Project and
Alternatives to an alternative baseline condition. As shown, VMT for the Proposed
Project (Alternative C) would also not exceed the baseline existing conditions using
the alternative methodology. As such, impacts in other sections, such as air quality
and water quality, do not require revision.
Comment100-e: Comment Summary: The DEIS underestimates the number of external trips that the
Project would generate; specifically, the likely trips by non-guests to the project, as
well as likely trips by guests away from the project.
External project traffic estimates (vehicle trips in/out of the project area) include trips
to the Project that are attracted to the onsite project amenities (non-guests) and trips
to/from the proposed hotel/residential/interval ownership uses on the project area to
other destinations such as recreation, shopping, etc. Master Response 3 provides
additional clarification on internal/external Alternative mode trips. Master
Response 4 provides additional detail on project trip generation associated with
accessory uses.
Comment 100-f: Comment Summary - The Project may not be able to assume the use of the 12,000 sf
CFA, 113,000 sf of land coverage, and 32 TAU from the Tahoe Mariner because
those commodities may have expired.
Paragraph 18 of the 1996 Second Amendment to the 1981 Settlement Agreement
(1996 Amendment) notes the existing development on the Property consists of
113,000 sf of land coverage, 12,000 sf of commercial floor area (CFA) and 32 tourist
accommodation units (TAUs). Paragraph 16 of the 1996 Amendment provides that,
in the event the timeshare project is not built, the Property Owners shall demolish the
existing structures, remove all existing land coverage and revegetate the site.
Paragraph 23 provides that if the timeshare project has not been approved by TRPA
by May 1, 1996, the parties agree demolition of the existing building shall occur no
later than October 15, 1997, and the deadline for banking the existing development
shall be October 15, 1999. Paragraph 18 of the 1996 Amendment also states the
parties agree that, to additionally insure implementation of BMP retrofit, no banking
or transfers of existing development shall be permitted unless the project area is
restored consistent with the provisions of Paragraph 16.
PAGE 8- 40 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010