FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS<br />
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<br />
pertaining to hazards. Employee housing is discussed in Chapter 4.11 and proximity<br />
to services is discussed in Chapter 4.12. The NSCP indicates a need for employee<br />
housing. Please see responses to comments 322-ay and 322-az for further response.<br />
Comment 322-bb: Comment Summary - Table 5.5-1 is inconsistent with the analysis as Alt. A should<br />
have far fewer SU impacts and an "as of right" Alternative should be analyzed which<br />
would have no SU impacts. Alt C should have many SU impacts (15+).<br />
Please see response to comment number 322-m. Two "as of right" Alternatives are<br />
analyzed (Alternatives B and E). As shown in Table 5.5-1, Alternative B results in<br />
four significant and unavoidable impacts and Alternative E results in two significant<br />
and unavoidable impacts. For Alternative B, these impacts are related to a lack of<br />
improvements to scenic quality and compliance with scenic guidelines and goals,<br />
land coverage, and land use goals as established in the NSCP. For Alternative E,<br />
these impacts are related to scenic quality and compliance with scenic guidelines and<br />
goals. Both of these "as of right" Alternatives result in fewer significant and<br />
unavoidable impacts than Alternative A, which results in five significant and<br />
unavoidable impacts. Although Alternative A maintains existing conditions, this<br />
does not mean that the existing conditions comply with existing standards, goals,<br />
policies, and guidelines. Alternative A does not comply with NSCP land use goals, it<br />
exceeds land coverage limits, it is subject to seismic hazard, and it does not comply<br />
with scenic resource guidelines and goals, resulting in significant and unavoidable<br />
impacts. Because Alternative A maintains existing conditions, the degree of<br />
mitigation needed to reduce the impacts to a less than significant level is not within<br />
TRPA's authority to require, and impacts remain significant and unavoidable.<br />
Alternative C does not result in significant and unavoidable impacts. Although<br />
significant impacts will occur under Alternative C, these impacts can be mitigated to<br />
a less than significant level. The comment indicates that Alternative C would result<br />
in an excess of 15 significant and unavoidable impacts; however, the comment does<br />
not indicate which impacts would be included in this category and no further<br />
response can be made.<br />
Comment 322-bc: Comment Summary - The cumulative analysis is inadequate because it should show<br />
the impact on the North Shore and <strong>Tahoe</strong> Region. The relationship to other projects<br />
and to the new <strong>Regional</strong> Plan is missing. In addition, future project phases are<br />
excluded, understating the project.<br />
Cumulative impacts are analyzed in each section of Chapter 4 of the DEIS. Traffic<br />
and Air quality analysis include potential vehicle trip generation from other<br />
reasonably foreseeable projects located on the north shore of Lake <strong>Tahoe</strong>. The<br />
resulting traffic noise impact analysis also analyzes impacts of future cumulative<br />
traffic volumes. The hydrology and water quality analysis address the Project's<br />
potential impacts within the overall Crystal Bay watershed and include runoff from<br />
adjacent public roadways. There are no future phases identified in the project<br />
description. A proposal to utilized reserved development rights would require TRPA<br />
permitting action and a separate evaluation of potential impacts.<br />
Comment 322-bd: Comment Summary - Table 5.5-1 lists 54 related projects that contribute to traffic,<br />
noise, air, recreation, and utility impacts, but there is no quantification, estimates or<br />
projection analyses for these impacts, leaving the cumulative impact unknown.<br />
Potential impacts to transportation, air quality and noise are quantified based on<br />
assumptions of vehicular traffic associated with the cumulative project list. Where<br />
cumulative impacts cannot be quantified because of a lack of information on the<br />
SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 93