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
providers during construction to ensure roadway access. Impact PSU-C1 discusses
emergency situations and evacuations. Mitigation PSU-C1will designate the project
area as an emergency shelter and/or staging area. Please see response to comment
322-ja for additional response on emergency vehicle access and roadway adequacy.
Comment 332-bg: Comment Summary - The cumulative impacts analysis on p. 5-15 needs to consider
the size and unit type differences between the sending area (TAUs, South Lake
Tahoe) and receiving area (ERUs, Crystal Bay).
Please see response to comment 322-dg regarding unit size. Page 5-15 of the DEIS
addresses the potential growth inducement that may occur from the transfer of
existing development rights from the south shore to the north shore of Lake Tahoe.
Under Alternative C, Boulder Bay is proposing to transfer 73 TAUs and 56 ERUs to
the project area from the south shore. The comment is correct that the project
proposes to transfer 42 units previously used as TAUs in the south shore, and convert
them to ERUs for use in the Boulder Bay project area under Alternative C. This
transfer means units occupied by tourist in the south shore may instead be used by
permanent residents on the north shore. As documented on page 4.1-25 of the DEIS,
the loss of TAUs from the south shore will result in an approximate one percent
reduction in the Stateline/Ski Run Community Plan TAU pool under Alternative C.
The transfer of 73 TAUs to the Boulder Bay project area under Alternative C will
increase existing or banked TAUs in the NSCP area by approximately 10 percent.
The transfer of 56 ERUs to the Boulder Bay project area under Alternative C will
increase existing ERUs in the NSCP area by over 200 percent. It should also be
noted that 139 TAU located at the Tahoe Inn within the NSCP are proposed to be
transferred out of the NSCP to the west shore Homewood project.
Comment 332-bh: Comment Summary - The cumulative air quality impact analysis needs to consider
north and west shore VMTs.
The analysis indicates that Alternative C does not contribute to cumulative VMT
impacts because it has reduced VMT compared to the baseline conditions. The DEIS
indicates that Alternative C will generate less traffic/VMT than Alternative A and the
alternative existing baseline existing condition, which was used as the baseline for
traffic comparisons. Master Response 2 provides information related to the
alternative baseline existing conditions analysis.
Comment 332-bi: Comment Summary - The cumulative biology impact analysis needs to consider all
tree removal along north and west shores.
The removal of trees is not a criterion for determining significance of impacts. Loss
of habitat associated with the tree removal is the criteria used to determine
environmental impacts. However, there is no habitat within the Boulder Bay project
area that is considered to be suitable for sensitive wildlife species. As a result, the
tree removal proposed for the Boulder Bay project does not contribute to cumulative
impacts to suitable habitat for sensitive species.
Comment 332-bj: Comment Summary - The cumulative water supply impact analysis needs to consider
water demand for all north and west shore projects.
Cumulative water demand is discussed on page 4.12-19. As stated, water supplies to
each site are highly monitored by the water agency with jurisdiction over the site.
Each project is required to show adequate water supplies are available. For sites
within IVGID's jurisdiction, each site is contracted a limited water supply that must
PAGE 8- 142 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010