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 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
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 come from existing but unused water rights. Water use at the project area would not affect water supplies available to other water service providers. Comment Letter 335 - Grassi, Ron, Tahoe Area Sierra Group, 02/04/10 Comment 335-a: Comment Summary - The TRPA cannot approve a project that increases VMTs and vehicle trips because existing impacts from traffic (road dust, NOx emissions), exceed TMDLs and other thresholds for water quality impacts. Please refer to Master Response 2, which compares the Proposed Project and Alternatives to an alternative existing baseline. The additional analysis supports the conclusions in the DEIS that vehicle trips will not be increased under Alternative C compared to the No Project Alternative. Comment 335-b: Comment Summary - The traffic impact conclusions for Alts. C and D are not accurate because they use an inappropriate baseline for existing conditions, i.e., theoretical vs. actual existing trips and VMTs, and reduction of casino floor space based on former (and now vacant) uses instead of current uses. Please refer to Master Response 2, which compares the Proposed Project and Alternatives to an alternative existing baseline. Comment 335-c: Comment Summary - The trip generation assumptions are based on other destination resorts that are located at ski areas or other amenities. As Boulder Bay is located away from ski areas, additional trips would be generated. The trip generation analysis for the Boulder Bay Project is based on trip generation rates provided in the TRPA Trip Table, ITE Trip Generation, 8 th Edition, and casino trip generation information provided in the DEIS. The analysis is performed for summer months, in accordance with TRPA’s standard analysis procedures. Traffic volumes in the Tahoe Basin are higher in summer months than winter months. Comment 332-d: Comment Summary - The EIS needs to quantify expected numbers of residents, guests, and employees at buildout; and parking provided, housing in the vicinity to quantify impacts to traffic and parking. Table 8.5-8 summarizes the number of residents, TAU guests, employees and parking spaces provided for each project Alternative. The basis for the resident and employment information can be found in the DEIS in Chapter 4.11. SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 143
Page 1 and 2:
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
Page 141: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
Page 187: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?