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
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