FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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 means that that one heavy vehicle has the operating characteristics and results in the same acceleration/deceleration delay as two and a half passenger cars. Assuming the passenger car equivalent factor of 2.5 (200 x 2.5 = 500 passenger cars per day), the daily trips created by the Alternatives and reported in the DEIS are still more than the worst case construction traffic numbers, further indicating that the impact is less than significant. Comment 322-am: Comment Summary - TRANS-8 does not analyze Alt C for compliance with replacement conditions for road abandonment and realignment. Concerns over road width, egress points, slope, and snow removal are significant and need to be analyzed. Please see response to comment 93-q. The roadway abandonment and new roadway alignment will conform to appropriate Washoe County standards. The proposed roadway realignment improves the roadway delineation and circulation. Comment 322-an: Comment Summary -AIR-1 is flawed due to incorrect VMT assumptions and there is no differentiation between diesel and auto emissions. See Master Response 2 related to baseline transportation conditions. Urbemis air quality emissions software was used to evaluate mobile-source emissions associated with vehicle trips (both gasoline powered autos and diesel powered trucks during the construction phase). Comment 322-ao: Comment Summary - AIR-2 is flawed due to incorrect VMT assumptions. The DEIS indicates that Alternative C will generate less traffic/VMT than Alternative A, which was used as the baseline for traffic comparisons. Master Response 2 provides information related to an alternative existing baseline analysis. Comment 322-ap: Comment Summary - NOISE-1 mitigates the significant rating for Alt C through Alternative pavement treatment, but this treatment is only applied to one block. Impact is SU or mitigation should be applied to all other roadways. Also applies to NOISE-C2 and -C3. A significant increase in traffic noise was only identified along the one block area along Stateline Road. Therefore, the mitigation was only for that portion of Stateline Road. Comment 322-aq: Comment Summary - Extended hours for site grading will create objectionable early morning and evening noise levels. 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. 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 based upon restricting 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. qualifies PAGE 8- 90 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010
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 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 322-ar: Comment Summary - SPH-3 dilutes the impact of population growth by expanding it to the Regional level instead of the community level. At the community level, population increases 8 times. This is significant. The impact states: "Will the Project alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population planned for the Region?" This is taken directly from TRPA Initial Environmental Checklist (11.a). It is important to analyze population at a regional level because new permanent residents are primarily employees and employees are not confined to the Crystal Bay/Brockway community. As shown in Chapter 4.11 and discussed in the responses to comments 93-y and 171b, full time population within the NSCP could increase by up to 206 persons under Alternative C (whole ownership units and workforce housing units). This increase would be substantial if measured within the NSCP because the NSCP only includes a few existing residential units. Compared to the existing population in the Incline Lake/Kings Beach area, the potential population increase would be minimal. Comment 322-as: Comment Summary - PSU-1 Demand conclusions are inconsistent with a Tahoe Bonanza article claiming IVGID needs to spend $130M to ensure facilities maintain current levels. The DEIS doesn't analyze the impacts the project will add or who will pay for it. Conversations with IVGID do not indicate the Project will jeopardize facilities or facility maintenance. Standard development fees will be collected as a result of Project development. Comment 322-at: Comment Summary - The DEIS does not analyze the overall basin capacity for additional increases permitted for residential units, TAUs, CFA , recreational uses or other impacts in the Regional Plan, and doesn't analyze the project impact against those Regional limits. The transfer of TAUs and ERUs purchased by Boulder Bay will not increase basin capacity because these units are included in the existing conditions. Bonus units proposed for use in Alternative C were analyzed as part of the environmental review of the NSCP (for the NSCP bonus TAUs) and as part of the environmental review for the Regional Plan (for the bonus TAUs from the TRPA special project pool). There is no proposed transfer of CFA to the project area as part of Alternative C. The proposed CFA will come from existing CFA or GFA banked within the project area. Comment 322-au: Comment Summary - There is no assessment of project energy consumption. There is no energy consumption baseline or numbers to support Proposed Project energy consumption. Energy consumption baseline numbers are provided in the energy study prepared by ARUP North America Ltd. The study states the baseline electricity use is approximately 28,300,000 kBtu/year and the baseline gas use is approximately 34,500,000 kBtu/year. The energy use for the Project is estimated to be approximately 19,700,000 kBtu/year for electricity and 19,000,000 kBtu/year for gas. Comment 322-av: Comment Summary - How can tripling of residents and guests lead to energy consumption reductions, even with a 50% use reduction per guest? SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 91
Page 1 and 2:
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
Page 89: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187:
Page 190 and 191:
REVISIONS TO THE DEIS B o u l d e r
Page 192:
REVISIONS TO THE DEIS B o u l d e r
show all

FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?