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