January 15, 2021

Dear Ms. Weber,

I am submitting this written public comment to set forth my objection to page 82 of the 2021 draft Federal Transportation Improvement Program (“FTIP”).  I respectfully object and request that the FTIP revise the attached page 81 of the FTIP, which is incorrect and misleading.   I describe the basis for my objection to the use of the former Incline Village Elementary School (the “School Site”) as a transportation or mobility hub, so that the importance of my proposed revision can be fully understood by TRPA.  The draft FTIP describes the School Site on the attached page 81 of the FTIP, as if that site is the selected site in Incline Village, which is not accurate.   I believe that there needs to be a disclosure to the federal government of the widespread opposition of the Incline Village community to the use of the School Site as a transportation hub, and a disclosure that this site has not been implemented at all and has been put on hold by the Governing Board of the TTD pending public outreach in Incline Village and investigation of other potential sites.  THE 2021 DRAFT FTIP NEEDS TO BE REVISED TO FULLY AND ACCURATELY SET FORTH THE CURRENT STATE OF AFFAIRS TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND TO THE PUBLIC, SO AS TO ASSURE GENUINE PUBLIC OUTREACH TO INCLINE VILLAGE AND TO NOT TO UNFAIRLY PREJUDICE THE INCLINE VILLAGE COMMUNITY.  The basis for my public comment on the 2021 draft and my opposition to the development of the School Site is summarized in the five points below, for ease of reading as it is a lengthy public comment:

1. The Incline Village community objects to the School Site as the site for a transportation hub for a number of compelling reasons which are discussed in detail below.  (See Section I below.)
2. There was an attempt to keep the local Incline Village community uninformed that the School Site was a proposed site for a transportation hub, until after the property was purchased by the TTD, contrary to TRPA’s and the federal government’s policies of public engagement.  To date there has still not been public engagement in Incline Village. (See Section II below.)
3. The FTIP has described the School Site inaccurately in that it makes the School Site the selected site in Incline Village for a transportation hub. (See Section III below.)
4. Documents received in public record requests reflect that the School Site is being selected in order to address traffic problems caused by locations outside of Incline Village; therefore, the overwhelming public opposition in Incline Village to this site should be considered by the public agencies, and the alternative sites proposed by the Incline Village community should be considered in good faith by TRPA and TTD, even if the project location, size and financing needs to be modified.  (See Section IV below.)
5. To the extent that a transportation hub site is to be located in Incline Village, there are several available sites in Incline Village that are now available, which are described in this section. (See Section V below.)

I.   The School Site Location Is Not an Appropriate Location for a Transportation Hub,

a.   One of the primary concerns of the Incline Village community is that placing a transportation center with an additional 300 – 350 vehicles and buses in the middle of Incline Village, at one of the two busiest intersections in the village, endangers the public safety if there is a need for emergency or disaster exit from Incline Village.   The other locations in Incline Village recommended by the community would make emergency exit from the parking lot for the extra 300 – 350 vehicles, much safer for the local residents and businesses, and for the visitors because the alternative sites are at the outskirts of the village, not in the center of the village adjacent to the most densely packed residential area in the village still on highway 28.   As both TRPA and the TTD have been advised by residents of Incline Village in meetings discussing vacation rentals and the Tahoe Area Plan, emergency/disaster egress and ingress is currently a concern in Incline Village, due to the limited exit routes, and the concern is already exacerbated by the large number of vacation rentals.  This proposal to bring an additional 300 – 350 vehicles with an even larger number of visitors who would not otherwise be in the middle of the village during an emergency evacuation, is not sound disaster planning.

b.  The School Site is directly across the street (Southwood) from the highest density residential buildings in Incline Village, the location of hundreds of apartment renters and their children, and numerous condominium complexes and their owners/renters.  Planning a transportation hub project directly across the street from this dense residential area will pose health and safety problems for that residential area and its residents. If a bus hub is put at the School Site, this would make Southwood more dangerous for these hundreds of people. The residents across the street from the School site have already expressed safety and public nuisance concerns related to the limited summer bus service that operated at the School Site. The proposed transportation hub greatly increases these concerns.

d.  There is no direct access off of highway 28 into the School Site and a right turn from highway 28 will need to be made onto Southwood, which is a very busy street, potentially backing up traffic on Highway 28, and then a second right turn will be quickly made into the parking lot.  To exit from the School Site, the buses will have to turn left onto the busy two-lane street, Southwood, in order to return to Highway 28.  A right turn would require a vehicle to drive for .7 miles through fully developed residential and commercial areas on Southwood, and then the vehicle would have to make a left turn on Village Blvd., and pose another traffic and safety problem.   There is no room for a second traffic signal at the exit from the School Site and so the backup inside of the site as buses and cars attempt to exit and turn left will be a problem.  Southwood is the street that serves our post office and one of our only two markets, and is very very busy, curvy street and with current traffic levels, Southwood often has significant traffic backups.  In the winter, snow is plowed from the streets and stored on the sides of all streets, and there is barely room for two-way car traffic, let alone a car going one way and a bus going the other way with snow storage, on Southwood Blvd.  It will be even more difficult if large buses try to turn left out of the School Site.  Remember that the unpermitted bus service operated by Mr. Hasty out of the School Site in the past did not operate during the snow periods.  The other sites in Incline Village recommended by some community members have topography which allows for easier ingress and egress, easier turns to get back to and to get from Highway 28, and safer two direction driving. 

e.  A transportation hub at this location will cause pollution as non-electric cars idle on Highway 28 and inside of the School Site while waiting in line to get into and then out of the School Site.  We are informed and believe that a widening of Tahoe Blvd. is being proposed to address this traffic back-up issue (based on statements made by surveyors who have been surveying for the widening), although the public has not been advised of this fact.  This project will cause significant traffic jams in Incline Village during the construction period, for a project that is not wanted by or for the benefit of Incline Village. Such construction and street widening are not needed at the other sites in Incline Village proposed by local residents.

f.  The overflow of vehicles from the transportation hub when the parking lot is filled will spill out onto Incline Village’s streets and the private parking lots of the commercial establishments located in this town center area, which are already at capacity.  This transportation hub just moves the overflow parking problem from Highway 28 to Incline Village’s streets, and is extremely unfair to Incline Village.

h.    A transportation hub for 300-350 vehicles will cause safety problems and increased traffic at one of the two busiest intersections in Incline Village.  For those knowledgeable about the location of Sand Harbor and the multi-use path, consider that 300-350 vehicles are proposed to be brought into the very center of the village, causing parking, pollution and other problems, for the sole purpose of parking and then taking them outside of Incline Village to venues at Lake Tahoe.  These 300+ vehicles would not enter the center of the village when coming from either Reno or Carson City of South Lake Tahoe to visit Sand Harbor and the Multi Use Path which are at the edge of and outside of the Village, but for the need to travel to and from this proposed parking lot.

i.       Some serious environmental contamination issues and some earthquake issues have been raised concerning the School Site by a resident who has procured documents from a number of public agencies.  I have identified and sent to TTD several TRPA and School Board documents in a separate email, with the hope that those documents will be provided to Converse Engineering to review and advise upon.  The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment by Converse Engineering of the School Site is a low cost, standard document when purchasing commercial property, and did not address the issues of concern that are raised here because the relevant documents were not provided to Converse Engineering.  The documents relate to: an extensive examination of the out of water earthquake fault by Gordon Seitz of San Diego State University that was not provided to Converse Engineering; documents and test reports showing traces of Toluene and Benzene identified in soil samples from vaults monitored by TRPA at the School site in 2016; and a report by Western Environmental Testing Laboratory which noted oil and grease noted in soil samples from vaults on and off the School Site in 2010.  Two of the other sites located in Incline Village, recommended by local residents have had environmental contamination cleaned up.

j.  A giant public parking lot filled with 300-350 vehicles that is immediately adjacent to and visible from Highway 28 should not meet the scenic concerns and regulations which TRPA requires for development in Incline Village. 

k.  TRPA and Washoe County have jointly prepared over a period of years, a draft of a very detailed revised Tahoe Area Plan, for the Incline Village Crystal Bay (“IVCB”) communities.  The Tahoe Area Plan promotes “environmental redevelopment “of Incline Village and Crystal Bay and their three town centers.  Even a brief reading of the Tahoe Area makes it clear that the intent is to develop and beautify Incline Village in an environmentally friendly way.  Placing a bus terminal, and parking for 300-350 visitor vehicles to other venues in the middle of our town will not beautify our village or contribute to its environmental development. 

II.  There was an attempt to keep the local Incline Village community uninformed as to this School Site project until after the fact, contrary to TRPA’s and the federal government’s policies of public engagement, and so the School Site should not be listed as if it is the selected site.

In response to a public record request to Washoe County, the following documents were provided, which clearly demonstrate that Mr. Hasty of the Tahoe Transportation District tried to avoid public engagement because he knew that Incline Village residents and businesses would object to the use of this site for a transportation hub.  Mr. Hasty has consistently worked with other governmental agencies and attempted to get the project through so that it would be too late for public objection, despite repeated requests for public outreach, initially from the former Washoe County Commissioner who was advised of the possible project, and later from the community when they learned of the proposed project.  Please note that at the time of this correspondence below, the local Incline community was completely unaware of this project, and there still has been no public outreach.

a.        Former Commissioner Berkbigler expressed opposition to a proposed project at the School Site as described and stated in her April 24, 2020 email to Messrs. Hasty and Solaro that: ” The residents of IV/CB should have some say in how this area is used since they will be impacted by the negative impacts of the Project.  Additionally, at least one and possibly two public fora must be done in IV/CB before a final plan is put together.”  No public meeting has been scheduled or noticed since this April 24, 2020 email.  Additionally, Ms. Berkbigler further expressed “HOWEVER, it is simply not acceptable for the old school yard to be used as a staging area.  This is in the middle of what is considered the “town center” in Incline, and the traffic in this area is very heavy.  Additional construction traffic for a staging site there would be seriously detrimental to the community and create serious traffic and parking problems…it is necessary to go back to the drawing board to relocate the staging center to some place outside of IV/CB…. I will oppose any County funds going to this project and to the purchase of the school property if this plan is not changed.”  A further review of the correspondence received from Washoe County demonstrated that after this objection, Former Commissioner Berkbigler was not invited to key meetings set by Mr. Hasty with Washoe County staff to promote the project, and was no longer sent copies of correspondence from Mr. Hasty on this project.

b.       Mr. Hasty contacted Pete Todoroff, head of the Incline Village Crystal Bay Community Forum on September 3, 2020 stating that he wanted to join the Community Forum zoom call on September 4, (the next day, too late for any public notice) to tell the people in attendance about the proposed elementary school site project stating “as I know it is of great interest.”.  The Community Forum meeting occurs every other Friday, and the meeting had “shoulder season” attendance which was less than 20 people.  Mr. Hasty told the small group in attendance about the project in less than a 5-minute presentation, and attendees expressed their many concerns about the project to Mr. Hasty, including asking him to look at several other proposed sites which had previously been identified to him.  At the meeting Mr. Hasty promised that he would look into the alternative sites, but did not do so.  Mr. Hasty said that he would be setting up public meetings in Incline to discuss local concerns and have open communication and that there would be plenty of time for the meetings and for discussing environmental concerns and transportation studies.  Mr. Hasty never mentioned that the very next Monday he was proposing to the TTD Board to authorize him to purchase the former school site!  Mr. Hasty has never set up a public meeting or provided any information about the proposed project.  I learned through a separate conversation with TTD consultant, Ms. Mullin that while she had not alternative investigated the sites, she had heard that the other project sites had been briefly considered three or four years ago, but no consideration of the other sites occurred in 2019 or 2020.

c.       Mr. Hasty stated in his April 30, 2020 email in describing a mobility hub: “So, what is meant by the mobility hub?  It means a user has pedestrian access, bike access, transit access and auto access to commercial, residential and recreations uses within the neighborhood and to the trail system.  Beyond that a mobility hub can be designed to fit into the community or neighborhood that it is located.  Acquisition of a property is one process, developing a project concept with the community is another, and such a process will follow a successful property acquisition.”  But still no meeting was set up even after Mr. Hasty, on behalf of the TTD, contracted with the School District.     It is a standard requirement for the grant from the Federal Transportation Administration that there to be public outreach meetings before the funds are committed.  I spoke with Guinevere Hodby of Multi-modal at NDOT (775-227-6025) on October 19, 2020 to object that the Title 6 process, namely the Policy of Public Notification, required public meetings, outreach and education, and none have been held on this proposed acquisition of the School Site, prior to the grant.  Ms. Hobdy said that NDOT supports local agencies who apply for Federal Transportation Administration funds to check compliance with all guidelines, and in this case, an application was made to the Federal Transportation Administration for a “categorical exclusion” from the standard procedures to be allowed to do things out of order, so that the TTD be allowed to purchase the property first, before any public input, because of the representation that the purchase was urgently required because “Washoe County said that they were getting rid of the property and it would go to another purchaser”.   Ms. Hodby confirmed that under ordinary circumstances Mr. Hasty would have been required to have public outreach and education in Incline Village in advance of the grant approval and purchase. I was told by Ms. Hobdy that although the request to purchase the property out of order, without prior public hearings was granted, there will have to be public outreach at a later time.  What good will the public hearings be later after the property has already been purchased?  And why, with all the time that Mr. Hasty has had, has there been no public outreach?  I have asked in a public records request for the documents submitted by the TTD to the Federal Transportation Commission to get the categorical exclusion, but the request was denied based on the litigation privilege.

e.       On August 11, 2020, local resident, Ronda Tycer wrote a lengthy email to Sara Schmitz, IVGID Trustee and Former Commissioner Berkbigler detailing the problems with and questions about the proposed site use and recommending several alternative sites.  At least as of the December TTD Board meeting, none of these alternative sites have been seriously looked at by Mr. Hasty, who merely stated on one occasion to Commissioner Berkbigler that they were “not as good a financial deal as the school site”.   In response to Former Commissioner Berkbigler’s sending Ms. Tycer’s email to Mr. Hasty, telling him that Ms. Tycer’s opinion is shared by Pete Toderoff and others in his group, Mr. Hasty replied “I do not expect a public process to be easy, but there are potential ideas that can come together for the site given some wherewithal and concerted effort.”  Still Mr. Hasty did not set up public meetings or workshops or share any of his ideas.

f.        Former Commissioner Berkbigler repeatedly asked Mr. Hasty to hold public meetings in IVCB and tell the Incline Village community what he is proposing to do and why, and to work on outreach with the community, to hear our concerns and to discuss our recommendations on alternative sites, and he has utterly failed to do so. 

g.  Two materially incorrect statements have been made by Mr. Hasty and his consultant, Karen Mullin, to other governmental entities to get funding.   In addition to the representation to the Federal Transportation Administration in obtaining the categorical exclusion described above, a misrepresentation was made to the County about having the support of our General Improvement District, IVGID.  In an email from Karen Mullen, consultant to the TTD, to David Solaro, Assistant General Manager of Washoe County dated September 9, 2019, Ms. Mullen represented in a purported update that “Indra says that we will have IVGID support for transportation at this site.”  As soon as this inaccurate representation was made to Mr. Solaro concerning IVGID, Mr. Solaro approved in concept allocating $300,000 from park funds destined for Incline Village, and providing the funds as Washoe County’s share of the purchase price for the School Site.  That representation to Mr. Solaro and to the County was false.  Indra Winquist is the General Manager of IVGID, and has stated in an email dated October 27, 2020 when asked if this alleged representation by Ms. Mullen was accurate that it was false, and stated in his email: 

“Absolutely not.  Om furious with Karen Mullen for stating that.  I simply told her that Duffield was not interested in allowing use of his property and I would support a hub only in at the right location.  She  falsely represented what I said.  To be clear, I am adamantly opposed to a transit hub at the old wcsd site.  This is why I want to formally let TTD know…”

h.  After being directed at both the November and December 2020 TTD Board meetings to have public outreach, Mr. Hasty scheduled an aborted December public meeting on one day’s prior notice to the press.  No notice was given to the Incline Village public, to any of us who have expressed opposition in numerous emails (which contained our email addresses, to the hundreds of people who live adjacent to the School Site, to IVGID or any of its trustees or our then Washoe County Commissioner who opposed the project!  He did not even clear the proposed meeting date with them and scheduled the meeting on the same evening as a previously scheduled IVGID Board meeting.  After much public outcry that one day’s notice to a few people from the press was insufficient, Mr. Hasty cancelled the meeting, but has not re-set it.

i.  After being directed at the November 2020 meeting to take a step back and look at other potential sites and hold a public meeting, instead, Mr. Hasty went to Washoe County and asked the County to put on their early December Board meeting agenda a request for approval of the $300,000 funding from Washoe County, without even telling the County what had happened at the November TTD Board meeting.  Nor did he tell any of the Incline residents who were in opposition that he had scheduled this meeting.  When local residents advised the County as to what had occurred at the November Board meeting, the County took the matter off calendar.

j.  We have just discovered another instance where the possibility of public input on this transportation hub project at the School Site has been eliminated.  The Tahoe Area Plan has been noticed for public hearing before the Board of Commissioners of Washoe County on January 26, 2021, and we saw that map 2.4 “Incline Village Commercial Concept Plan, has changed the zoning designation of the School Site to “Public Service” without notice to the public of the change, and contrary to the prior representations by Washoe County at the one public meeting at the Chateau that discussed the Tahoe Area Plan.  At that meeting the Plan was described and the town centers were described, and the representation was made that there were no zoning changes being made in the Tahoe Area Plan other than a very few that were identified at the meeting (not this one).  Zoning maps were shown of the town centers at this meeting and an unannounced presentation at our CAB that were different from map 2.4.  Those maps show the School Site zoned identically to the adjacent sites.  I do not know when this change to designate the site as “Public Service” was made, but I know that at the Planning Commission presentation of the Tahoe Area Plan, the County’s map remained the same as prior maps.  This change was made to avoid the need for TTD to request a Special Use Permit for the use of the School Site as a transportation hub, and thus for TTD to avoid the need to present its project to our Incline Village Crystal Bay Citizen Advisory Board and Board of Adjustment.

The TTD Board was displeased with the lack of public disclosure and outreach in its November and December, 2020 meetings, and the breach of the public confidence, and has directed public outreach and analysis of alternative sites.  The School Site project should not be labelled as an ongoing project and the selected site in Incline Village until that has fully and fairly occurred.

III.  The FTIP Inaccurately describes the Incline Village School Site as the Selected Site in Incline Village.

a. I understand that the TRPA’s FTIP document is a requirement for federal funding and that the timing of producing the document is set.  But that does not allow for a misleading or inaccurate document to be submitted to the federal government.   While TRPA needs to report to the federal government, it must report accurately, and should not incorrectly represent to the public and to the federal agencies that this site has been selected

b. At both the November, and then at the December, 2020 TTD Board Meetings the Board made it clear that other sites in Incline Village should be looked at, that there needed to be public outreach in Incline Village (which has still not occurred) and that this is not a final approved site.  Another property is coming on the market on Tahoe Blvd. in a commercial district which is not in the center of Incline Village and which is close to the Multi Use Path. 

c. If TRPA revises the FTIP with the disclosure that the listed monies are to be used for public outreach to discuss this as a potential site and to do public outreach, that would be accurate.  Also, TRPA’s discussion should not be “enhancement of an existing transit facility” as this is not correct.  That facility has never been permitted by Washoe County as a transportation site for Mr. Hasty’s operation of his bus service in the summer.  I note that the TTD recognized this objection by the community when on 12/10/2020, the day before the TTD Board meeting on 12/11, the name of the project was changed from the “East Shore Transit Service Facilities Upgrade” to “Incline Village Mobility Hub.”  A name change does not change what it is.  A giant parking lot for 300+ vehicles for the Sand Harbor and Multi Use Paths.  At https://www.laketahoeinfo.org/Project/Detail/1684 the project is described as: “This project is part of the improvements proposed in the SR28 Corridor Management Plan.  The Project will enhance the east shore Express transit service and connections to other multimodal systems.  The Mobility Hub is proposed at Southwood Blvd. and Tahoe Blvd. (SR28) in Incline Village, Washoe County, Nevada.”  It also lists $300,000 from Washoe county, the funding of which was held up after objection of local residents, and the decisions being made at the TTD Board meetings in November and December.  It also states: “No accomplishments to report for Year 2020.   Project not implemented.”

d. A more accurate statement in the FTIP would be: “Although the Federal funding has been approved for purchasing this site, due to no public outreach and extensive local opposition, there have been no accomplishments to report for Year 2020 and the project has not been implemented, and it is anticipated that there will be public outreach sometime in 2021 and other sites will be looked at in Incline Village as well as the School Site.  There has been no Washoe County permit ever applied for or granted for operation of an East Shore Express transit service from the School Site, there has been no Special Use Permit applied for or approved for the site.”

IV.  The public documents show that the need for the “transportation hub” is not to meet the needs of Incline, but to solve the problem caused by the huge influx of visitors from elsewhere to the TRPA Multi-Use Path and to the Nevada State Parks Sand Harbor Beach.

a.       In Mr. Hasty’s April 30, 2020 email to Commissioner Berkbigler and others he attempts to explain why the TTD should acquire the elementary school site, and explains that it is part of the TTD’s plan to “…address congestion and capacity with Tahoe’s heavy visitation in the millions and largely rural highway network.  While Tahoe’s resident population sees little growth, the surrounding communities of north western Nevada and the greater Sacramento area continues to have plenty with Tahoe an easy drive to come visit if even for the day.”  While his email explains why the TTD needs the site, it demonstrates that Incline Village residents who are not the source of the need, should have some input into this decision which will affect us for the next 30 years.

b.       In Ms. Mullen’s March 5, 2020 email to Messrs. Solaro and Crump of Washoe County, she explains why several other jurisdictions will benefit from the transportation site being placed in Incline village stating: “Nevada State Parks has been looking at going to a reservation system at Sand Harbor which will place pressure on transit as you no longer have turnover in the park or it is limited turnover.  The turnover then shifts to transit or the shared use path.  So, the old school site is critical as a mobility hub for all visitors and residents to the trails and beaches but it is equally important to Sand Harbor so they can have future options on how to manage the demand at Sand Harbor and can correct the que onto SR 28.”  Again, no reference to the benefit to Incline Village.

c.       In Mr. Hasty’s email to Kristina Swallow he discusses acquiring the elementary school site for a mobility hub explaining that it is one of the locations in our long-range transit plan for a mobility hub to be used for public transit and other alternative modes year around” likening it to the Placer County hub.   He describes it as “an anchor location” which is “part of the planned mobility and traffic congestion solution for the SR 28 corridor…and part of the defined solutions that came out of the SR 28 corridor plan process eight years ago.”  If the School Site has been discussed for 8 years, shouldn’t the local Incline Village citizens who will potentially be adversely impacted by the project have been included in the decision process.

d.       In Karen Mullen’s April 15, 2020 email to Joanie Schmitt, she explains that the elementary school site will be a permanent location for parking to the trailhead”.

I am not suggesting that TRPA, TTD and Washoe County should ignore all of the parking problems in these other venues, or that some of the solution cannot be in Incline Village.  But I am stating that the School Site is not the correct site, and Incline Village residents and businesses who/which are going to be directly adversely affected, should be involved in the decision as to the location, as there are other available locations in Incline Village which are smaller. 

V.  Several Other Proposed Sites in Incline Should be Evaluated.

a. There are two vacant lots for sale on highway 28, with direct access from highway 28, on corner lots with additional exits on side streets, but these were not being considered in 2020.  It is correct that these two vacant parcels the local community has proposed are not large enough to allow 350 parking spaces, as they only have combined coverage of 40,438 square feet.  947 Tahoe Blvd. has grandfathered covers of 22, 438 sq feet.  A bus hub and building on the corner with access to parking at the rear of 941 Tahoe Blvd. would work well, and have community support.  The 40,438 sq feet of coverage available there is equivalent to the 40,000 sq. feet of coverage currently used for the shuttle service at the old elementary school. 

b.  Also, the lumber store site on highway 28 in the commercial district in Incline Village may be coming on the market for sale.  Other properties owned by Washoe County in more appropriate locations in Incline Village have been suggested for consideration, such as the County lot at Highway 28 and the 431.  While Mr. Hasty stated to Former Commissioner Berkbigler in passing that these proposed sites in Incline Village are too expensive and too small and that the School Site is the best value, that should not be the only reason to acquire it for this purpose. 

c. Although there has been talk of the benefit of developing the transportation hub at the School Site because it is large enough to put in some public buildings like a courthouse and the sheriff’s office, I respectfully request that the TTD first analyze how much space is needed in order to develop 350 parking spaces, as those parking spaces, room for the buses, and necessary buildings and roads will likely not leave any space for these other uses, if the School Site complies with TRPA coverage requirements and TRPA and Washoe County parking requirements.  Even using 45-degree parking spaces, there must be at least 12 feet to back up, and therefore the calculations of required space shows that 86,100 square feet of coverage will be required to park 350 vehicles.  Each space with a 45-degree design will require 144.5 square feet (17 feet x 8.5 feet).  The road system and the one-way road system behind is space will take another 102 square feet (12 feet x 8.5 feet).  There will be at least 8 triangle shapes created that are not accounted for in the calculation of the amount of area required for the parking spaces.  Handicap spaces will be required and they are a little larger.  Each parking space will require a sidewalk access in front of it.  Washoe County parking standards will require areas of screening that require connective roads from one group of parking spaces to another.  As we calculate it 350 spaces would require 86,100 square feet of total coverage.  This is calculated as follows:

17 ft. x 8.5 spaces = 144.5 square feet.

Road behind, one way = 8.5 fee x 12 feet = 102 square feet

Each space needs 144.5 + 102 square feet = 246 sq feet

246 square feet x 350 spaces = 86,100 square feet

Also, the topography of the former elementary school site would require the intake of the cars to be very close to the exiting of the cars, which would set up major grid-lock for turning in and backing out issues.

VI.  Conclusion

The Incline Village community has attempted to work with the TTD by suggesting alternative sites in Incline Village for its transportation or mobility uses.  Whatever the project is called, it is a project to park 300-350 automobiles and to house buses to transport visitors to venues around Lake Tahoe.  It is not for the benefit of Incline Village.  The School Site is not currently the final approved site, and should not be listed as and described as the site that is definitely going forward or as the selected site in the 2021 FTIP.  Other sites should be looked at and considered, and even if less optimal for TRPA and TTD, the deleterious impact of the School Site on Incline Village should be given great weight in balancing the competing interests.  With all of the actions to avoid public engagement described in Section II above, Incline Village residents and businesses, at least deserve the respect and opportunity of full public engagement in this proposed project.  The School Site is not a sound site choice from a safety, emergency exit, traffic, environmental, or scenic point of view.  The Incline Village community strongly opposes the use of this valuable site as a giant parking lot to solve the parking overflow problems of Lake Tahoe.

Please correct your FTIP to accurately state the current facts. Thank you for your consideration.

Very truly yours,

Diane Becker, Local Incline Village Resident