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 />
Comment Letter 264 – Elias, Bonnie, 02/03/2010<br />
Comment 264-a: Comment Summary - An impact study needs to be done. How will it effect the natural<br />
setting of the area and the traffic in Kings Beach as well as Incline?<br />
The impacts of the Boulder Bay Project have been analyzed in the DEIS. Potential<br />
effects to the natural setting are described in Chapters 4.2 - Geology, 4.3 - Hydrology<br />
and Water Quality, 4.4 - Biological Resources, and 4.5 - Scenic Resources. Potential<br />
effects to traffic in Kings Beach and Incline are described in Chapter 4.7 -<br />
Transportation.<br />
Comment Letter 269 – Giorgianni, John, 02/03/2010<br />
Comment 269-a: Comment Summary - North shore does not have the roadways to handle a large<br />
inflow of traffic.<br />
The traffic impact from the Boulder Bay Project is modeled along with traffic of<br />
other North Shore projects and communities in the cumulative traffic analysis, which<br />
is presented on pages 4.8-65 through 4.8-77. The cumulative impacts levels were<br />
determined to be less than significant after mitigation through measure TRANS-C1:<br />
Implement Intersection Improvements. Mitigation measure TRANS-C1 is detailed in<br />
Chapter 6 of the DEIS.<br />
Comment 269-b: Comment Summary - Project is too large.<br />
This is not a comment on the content or adequacy of the DEIS. This information is<br />
passed on to the Project proponent and decision maker(s) for consideration. No<br />
further response to this comment in relation to the DEIS is warranted.<br />
Comment Letter 274 – Hathaway, Wayne, 02/03/2010<br />
Comment 274-a: Comment Summary - Wants guarantees from developer.<br />
This is not a comment on the content or adequacy of the DEIS. This information has<br />
been passed on to the Project proponent and decision maker(s) for consideration.<br />
The developer will secure construction financing prior to construction. Building<br />
inspections ensure that the structures are built according to the stamped plans.<br />
TRPA, as the monitoring agency, and other agencies with jurisdiction over the<br />
particular resource, ensure that mitigation and monitoring program is complete. No<br />
further response to this comment in relation to the DEIS is warranted.<br />
Comment Letter 284 – Miller, Joyce, 02/03/2010<br />
Comment 284-a: Comment Summary - Opposes project as too big and not economically viable, and<br />
due to impacts to traffic and pollution; requests rebuilding with same number of<br />
existing units.<br />
Please refer to Chapters 4.8 and 4.9 regarding traffic and air quality. The DEIS<br />
analyzed two Alternatives (A and B) that would maintain the existing number of<br />
tourist units. This is not a comment on the content or adequacy of the DEIS. This<br />
information is passed on to the Project proponent and decision maker(s) for<br />
consideration. No further response to this comment in relation to the DEIS is<br />
warranted.<br />
SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 65