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 Please see the response to comment 322-c. Although the number of residents and guests increases, the amount of energy consumption decreases due to greater use efficiency. The existing structures are old, poorly designed in comparison to modern energy efficiency models, and do not include energy efficient appliances and building materials (windows, insulation, roofing, heat transfer systems, etc.). Because the existing facilities are highly energy inefficient, replacement of the structures with more efficient units resulting in energy savings. Comment 322-aw: Comment Summary - Need to include energy consumption during construction and for the snowmelt system and analyze how the project reaches LEED certification. Please see responses to comments 93-u, 112-a, 286-as, and 313-f. Comment 322-ax: Comment Summary - What is the impact of road realignments and road abandonment under Alt. C? Please see response to comment 93-q. Comment 322-ay: Comment Summary - Analyze the proximity to services for work force and lowincome housing and the overall increased project density. The proximity of public services is shown in Chapter 4.12. Although there are not a large number of commercial services available in Crystal Bay, the NSCP indicates a need for affordable and employee housing and therefore, it is prudent to provide such housing under this Project. A transit stop is located at the Project site to improve access to other retail/commercial centers. Comment 322-az: Comment Summary - Analyze the availability of off-site work force and low-income housing and the environmental trade-offs of off-site vs. onsite options. Available off-site workforce and housing are described in the analysis of Chapter 4.11 on pages 4.11-12 through 13. The impacts from onsite housing and additional employees are analyzed in SPH-2 and 3 as well as through the analysis in the other analysis Chapters (Chapters 4.1 through 4.12. Impacts from employees living offsite are also analyzed in these chapters. It is not required to analyze conditions not proposed by the Project. Comment 322-ba: Comment Summary - The DEIS considers 69 different impacts, but this isn't enough and additional impacts should be included. The DEIS considers each of the impacts listed in the TRPA Environmental Checklist. Impact topics not applicable to the Project are noted for each evaluation criteria table in Chapter 4 (see Table 4.2-4 for an example). In other comments, the commenter indicates that the analysis fails to include basin capacity for residential units, TAUs, CFA and recreational uses. These are analyzed within Chapters 4.1 and 4.6. With units existing and transferred to the site, new capacity is not created except for bonus units, which is permissible under TRPA regulations. Other comments indicate the analysis fails to include an assessment of energy consumption. Energy consumption is addressed in Chapter 4.12 (see impact PSU-1), and includes the ARUP energy consumption study (please see responses to comments 322-c, 322-e, and 322-f). LEED silver certification is feasible as indicated by the LEED pilot project checklist (please see response to comment 322-f). The commenter also indicates the DEIS fails to analyze road realignments and abandonment, proximity to services for employee housing, and the environmental trade-off of onsite vs. off-site employee housing. Road realignments and abandonments are discussed in Chapter 4.8. Changes to the roadways conform to Washoe County standards, including issues PAGE 8- 92 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 pertaining to hazards. Employee housing is discussed in Chapter 4.11 and proximity to services is discussed in Chapter 4.12. The NSCP indicates a need for employee housing. Please see responses to comments 322-ay and 322-az for further response. Comment 322-bb: Comment Summary - Table 5.5-1 is inconsistent with the analysis as Alt. A should have far fewer SU impacts and an "as of right" Alternative should be analyzed which would have no SU impacts. Alt C should have many SU impacts (15+). Please see response to comment number 322-m. Two "as of right" Alternatives are analyzed (Alternatives B and E). As shown in Table 5.5-1, Alternative B results in four significant and unavoidable impacts and Alternative E results in two significant and unavoidable impacts. For Alternative B, these impacts are related to a lack of improvements to scenic quality and compliance with scenic guidelines and goals, land coverage, and land use goals as established in the NSCP. For Alternative E, these impacts are related to scenic quality and compliance with scenic guidelines and goals. Both of these "as of right" Alternatives result in fewer significant and unavoidable impacts than Alternative A, which results in five significant and unavoidable impacts. Although Alternative A maintains existing conditions, this does not mean that the existing conditions comply with existing standards, goals, policies, and guidelines. Alternative A does not comply with NSCP land use goals, it exceeds land coverage limits, it is subject to seismic hazard, and it does not comply with scenic resource guidelines and goals, resulting in significant and unavoidable impacts. Because Alternative A maintains existing conditions, the degree of mitigation needed to reduce the impacts to a less than significant level is not within TRPA's authority to require, and impacts remain significant and unavoidable. Alternative C does not result in significant and unavoidable impacts. Although significant impacts will occur under Alternative C, these impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level. The comment indicates that Alternative C would result in an excess of 15 significant and unavoidable impacts; however, the comment does not indicate which impacts would be included in this category and no further response can be made. Comment 322-bc: Comment Summary - The cumulative analysis is inadequate because it should show the impact on the North Shore and Tahoe Region. The relationship to other projects and to the new Regional Plan is missing. In addition, future project phases are excluded, understating the project. Cumulative impacts are analyzed in each section of Chapter 4 of the DEIS. Traffic and Air quality analysis include potential vehicle trip generation from other reasonably foreseeable projects located on the north shore of Lake Tahoe. The resulting traffic noise impact analysis also analyzes impacts of future cumulative traffic volumes. The hydrology and water quality analysis address the Project's potential impacts within the overall Crystal Bay watershed and include runoff from adjacent public roadways. There are no future phases identified in the project description. A proposal to utilized reserved development rights would require TRPA permitting action and a separate evaluation of potential impacts. Comment 322-bd: Comment Summary - Table 5.5-1 lists 54 related projects that contribute to traffic, noise, air, recreation, and utility impacts, but there is no quantification, estimates or projection analyses for these impacts, leaving the cumulative impact unknown. Potential impacts to transportation, air quality and noise are quantified based on assumptions of vehicular traffic associated with the cumulative project list. Where cumulative impacts cannot be quantified because of a lack of information on the SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 93
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:
Page 41 and 42: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
Page 91: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
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?