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
and 11.1 - Expand bicycle paths and increase opportunities for safe bicycling.
Alternative C will help achieve each of these goals.
Comment 322-v: Comment Summary - Impact LU-2 should show Alt A as No Impact not LTS. This is
true throughout the DEIS (LU-3, GEO-3, GEO-C1, HYDRO-3, -4, and -5, BIO-1, -8,
and -C1, SR-C1, REC-1, -2, -3, and -C1, CUL-2 and -4, SPH-2 and -3, PSU-1, -2, -3,
and -C1).
Use of the terms No Impact and Less than Significant indicate that a significant
impact does not occur and that no mitigation is warranted. Impact LU-2 describes
Alternative A as Less than Significant instead of No Impact because the impact
statement applies to some degree. Consistency with adjacent land uses is something
that exists in this instance and existing land uses do not always comply with
surrounding land uses. Since the existing land uses comply, the impact is less than
significant. If no uses existed onsite, this impact would be No Impact. No Impact is
used when there is no potential for any level of impact. Less than Significant is used
when there may be some level of impact or when there are existing issues as in the
case of HYDRO-3 where BMPs will be utilized to address existing runoff issues
onsite. Since BMPs will be implemented for all Alternatives to bring the site into
compliance, this impact is less than significant, but not No Impact. Another example
is a case where no new impacts occur, but existing impacts persist. For HYDRO-4,
no new impact occurs, but an existing alteration to groundwater persists, resulting in
a less than significant impact instead of No Impact.
Comment 322-w: Comment Summary - Impact LU-2 for Alt. C should not be LTS but SU, with the
ERU/TAU transfers, changes to the Mariner Agreement, and changes to Code.
The transfer of Boulder Bay owned TAUs and ERUs to the project area and the
proposed amendment to the TRPA Code Chapter 22 (height) required for Alternative
C are included as part of the description of the proposed action. In addition, the
project description states that in order to obtain project approval from TRPA, the
existing Tahoe Mariner Settlement Agreement must be amended by TRPA and the
CA Attorney General's office. The analysis concludes that the transfer of
TAUs/ERUs and amendment of Code Chapter 22 and the Mariner Settlement
Agreement will not result in significant impacts under Alternative C. The comment
does not specify why Impact LU-2 under Alternative C should be considered
significant and unavoidable.
Comment 322-x: Comment Summary - Provide architectural drawings showing the elevations and size
of the buildings.
Building elevations were not provided in the DEIS because the visual simulations
illustrate the size and appearance of the buildings. TRPA has detailed elevations in
the project file as part of the project application that are available for public review.
However, building elevations are added to the FEIS in Appendix AH.
Comment 322-y: Comment Summary - Impact GEO-1 does not analyze actual building use coverage.
Provide the relative footprint of existing conditions as compared to the other
Alternatives. Alt. C building use footprint is greater, but the ratings do not reflect
this.
The Impact GEO-1 analysis follows processes outlined in TRPA Code Section
20.3.D. Land coverage is defined in TRPA Code Chapter 2 as a man-made structure,
improvement or covering that prevents normal precipitation for directly reaching the
surface of the land underlying the structure, improvement or covering. Therefore,
PAGE 8- 86 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010