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