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
Mitigation measures are described in Chapter 4.12-Public Services and Utilities.
These measures include special event security, additional water rights dedication,
construction coordination, and safety planning during design. The two latter
measures are related to project design and do not affect operations. The two former
mitigation measures are funded by Boulder Bay. All trash, gas, electrical, and other
utility services are paid by Boulder Bay and no mitigation is needed for these
services as no significant impact to utilities will occur. As stated in Chapter 4.12, the
emergency service providers indicate that current staffing and equipment are
sufficient to serve this Project and no mitigation is needed other than additional
safety enforcement during special events (mitigation measure PSU-1A) which is
funded by Boulder Bay.
Comment 313-h: Comment Summary - Describe fiscal impacts of traffic, air quality, and sewage
mitigation measures and impacts.
As shown in Chapter 6-Mitigation and Monitoring Program, Boulder Bay, as the
implementing entity, is responsible for funding identified mitigation measures.
Please see response to comment 137-h regarding TRPA’s requirements for analyzing
funding costs and sources.
Comment 313-i: Comment Summary - Without answers to the questions above, I cannot support this
development and will use the legal process to stop it. Development has already
exceeded the carrying capacity of the road system around Lake Tahoe, which
seriously impacts the quality of other services and the lake itself.
This is not a comment on the content or adequacy of the DEIS. This information is
passed on to the Project proponent and decision maker(s) for consideration. No
further response to this comment in relation to the DEIS is warranted.
Comment Letter 316 – Welker, Bill, 02/03/2010
Comment 316-a: Comment Summary - Project should be downsized.
Please refer to Chapters 4.8 and 4.9 regarding traffic and air quality. This is not a
comment on the content or adequacy of the DEIS. This information is passed on to
the Project proponent and decision maker(s) for consideration. No further response
to this comment in relation to the DEIS is warranted.
Comment Letter 322 – North Tahoe Preservation Alliance, 02/03/2010
Comment 322-a: Comment Summary - The DEIS fails to address issues made during the scoping
process, and failed to include building elevations, project populations, location of
coverage reductions or additions, and massing volume comparisons.
Comments and concerns raised during the scoping process were addressed in the EIS
and helped provide a basis for the criteria and analysis. Building heights are included
in Chapter 4.5 Scenic Resources; however, due to the large volume of drawings that
would need to be included to show elevations of each building for each Alternative,
the drawings were made available to the public at TRPA offices. Chapter 4.5 also
includes visual simulations of the Alternatives to illustrate massing volume. Project
populations are included in Chapter 4.11 Socioeconomics, Population, and Housing.
In Chapter 4.11, Impact SPH-3 provides population numbers under each Alternative.
Coverage reduction is addressed in Chapter 4.2 Geology as well as DEIS Appendix
D. While a figure of coverage additions and removal is not provided, the text
indicates coverage will be removed within the existing parking lots, at the site
SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 81