FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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
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 TRPA banked the existing CFA and TAUs on the Property on September 30, 1999, prior to the banking deadline prescribed in the 1996 Amendment. TRPA has continued to recognize the existence of the coverage rights associated with the property and has not treated the coverage as expired by virtue of the deadline in the 1996 Agreement. Since September 8, 2000 TRPA has approved numerous coverage transfers from the property. This is consistent with the intent of the deadline in the 1996 Agreement, which appears to have been designed to obtain timely restoration of the property, not the forfeiture of rights to existing development. Comment 100-g: Comment Summary - The assumptions of the use of Tahoe Mariner commodities affects the environmental impacts discussion, such as adding 70,000 sf of land coverage has resulting impacts on water quality. Please see response to comment 100-f. The verified existing land coverage on the former Tahoe Mariner site is documented in DEIS Appendix D containing the TRPA Land Capability, Coverage, and other Commodity Verification Files. Appendix AD is added to the FEIS to present land capability and land coverage by individual parcel within the project area to offer further documentation for land coverage calculations. The comment states that adding 70,000 sf of land coverage has impacts on water quality. The DEIS studied the impacts of changes to land coverage within the project area. For clarification, there is 70,229 square feet of LCD 1a land coverage that is banked on the Sierra Park parcels (former Tahoe Mariner site). Of this 70,229 square feet of LCD 1a banked land coverage, for Alternative C 7,600 square feet will be used for hiking trails and park uses (typically soft coverage), 54,174 square feet will be relocated to higher capability lands in LCD 2 and 4, while 8,455 square feet of LCD 1a land coverage will remain banked onsite. In total, Alternative C will result in a net reduction of 68,317 sq ft of existing and banked land coverage within the NSCP. Impact HYDRO-1 discusses the benefits of reductions in TRPA verified land coverage for surface water quality. Comment Letter 101 – Tornese, Judith, 12/15/2009 Comment 101-a: Comment Summary - Too large of scale and not compatible with the neighborhood. Impact LU-2 addresses the Project's compatibility with adjacent land uses. Comment 101-b: Comment Summary - Traffic analysis seems overly optimistic. The commenter expresses an opinion. This is not a comment on the content or adequacy of the DEIS. This information is passed on to the Project proponent and decision maker(s) for consideration. No further response to this comment in relation to the DEIS is warranted. Comment 101-c: Comment Summary - Better to stage development to determine whether there is enough market demand to accept such a large project. This is not a comment on the content or adequacy of the DEIS. This information is passed on to the Project proponent and decision maker(s) for consideration. No further response to this comment in relation to the DEIS is warranted. Comment Letter 102 – Cruz, Darrel, Washoe Tribe of California and Nevada, 12/16/2009 Comment 102-a: Comment Summary - The use of the past tense to describe Washoe is not accurate since Washoe are alive and in the region today. Remove the word "Currently" SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 41
Page 1 and 2: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
Page 39: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
Page 91 and 92:
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187:
Page 190 and 191:
REVISIONS TO THE DEIS B o u l d e r
Page 192:
REVISIONS TO THE DEIS B o u l d e r
show all

FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?