FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
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 />
The analysis of cumulative noise focused on the increase in traffic and resulting<br />
traffic noise levels. Once again, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA RD77-<br />
108) traffic noise prediction model was used to evaluate the cumulative traffic noise<br />
impacts. Direct inputs to the model were based upon traffic volumes provided by the<br />
project traffic consultant. Mitigation measures are based upon research conducted<br />
for Alternative Pavements.<br />
TRPA approved construction activities are considered exempt from the Chapter 24<br />
Noise Ordinance, provided that they are restricted to the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 6:30<br />
p.m. Because construction noise would not occur permanently as part of Boulder<br />
Bay operations, it was not included in the cumulative analysis of traffic and<br />
operational noise sources.<br />
The construction noise control program prepared for Boulder Bay by SMC<br />
Contracting, Inc. (see Chapter 2.5) proposes construction activities outside of the<br />
exempt hours of operation contained within the TRPA noise ordinance. Construction<br />
noise levels outside of the exempt hours that exceed Plan Area CNEL standards will<br />
result in significant noise impacts.<br />
Mitigation is proposed that would restrict the hours of operation within the TRPA<br />
noise ordinance hours of operation, unless the TRPA finds that some construction<br />
activities, such as concrete pours, can occur between 6:30 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. because<br />
they qualify as “emergency work” to minimize traffic impacts. In addition, shielding<br />
of equipment and appointing a noise complaint coordinator on the site were included<br />
to minimize the noise levels.<br />
Comment 93-y: Comment Summary - SPH-3 and SPH-C1: Alt. C population could double or triple.<br />
Applicant won't supply more population figures other than Alternative D, which is<br />
2448. Crystal Bay/Brockway contains approx. 350 homes.<br />
Chapter 4.11 provides population numbers for each Alternative. These numbers<br />
include the number of employees per Alternative, the number of guest units per<br />
Alternative, and the number of onsite residents per Alternative (worst-case). Guests<br />
and most employees are not permanent residents onsite. As stated under SPH-3 on<br />
page 4.11-13, the full time resident population of the whole-ownership units may<br />
increase by up to 149 persons under Alternative C (59 units), 53 persons under<br />
Alternative D (21 units), and 83 persons under Alternative E (33 units). This would<br />
be a worst-case scenario as most whole-ownership units would be sold to second<br />
homeowners, who are not permanent residents. In addition to the multi-family units,<br />
affordable housing units are proposed under Alternatives C (14 units) and D (9 units),<br />
adding up to 57 and 41 permanent residents, respectively. Therefore, permanent<br />
resident populations could increase by 206 persons for Alternative C and 94 persons<br />
for Alternative D. Population growth under Alternative E would not exceed 83<br />
persons.<br />
Comment Letter 100 – Siegel, Daniel L., State of California Department of Justice,<br />
12/15/2009<br />
Comment 100-a: Comment Summary- Actual observed existing traffic levels should be used (1,835<br />
trips), not theoretical "full capacity and operating conditions" (5,581 trips) as the<br />
baseline for existing conditions for comparing project-related traffic impacts.<br />
Please refer to Master Response 2, which compares the Proposed Project and<br />
Alternatives to an alternative existing baseline.<br />
SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 37