FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency 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 Off-site land coverage reductions will occur within the NSCP on parcel APN 090- 305-016 (15,000 square feet) and within the State Route 28 ROW (9,476 square feet) as a part of Alternative C. See Appendix AD for land coverage characteristics by parcel. Comment 322-en: Comment Summary - What is Hwy 28 ROW? Is state owned land used as a credit for coverage reduction for a private development? The State Route 28 Right-of-ways (ROWs) is the strip of land that is granted, through an easement or other mechanism, for transportation purposes such as a highway, bike lane, or utility conduits. A right of way is reserved for the purpose of maintenance or expansion of existing services with the ROW. In the case of an easement, it may revert to original owners if the facility is abandoned. For the Boulder Bay Project, portions of the ROW will be incorporated into the project area (Alternatives C and D) and land coverage will be permanently retired. See response to comment number 322-z for further discussion of ROWs and TRPA land coverage calculations. Comment 322-eo: Comment Summary - Is Washoe County ROW included in the project area and will the land coverage be removed and permanently retired or banked for future use? What is the land capability of the ROW? LCDs 4 and 1a comprise the Washoe County ROW. Please see response to comment number 322-z that addresses TRPA land coverage calculations in relation to public ROWs. Comment 322-ep: Comment Summary - Excluding ROW, how much coverage is actually reduced on and off-site? See Table 4.2-6 in the DEIS. The net land coverage reduction onsite equals 43,841 square feet. With reconfiguration of public ROWs and the construction of the Stateline mini park, net land coverage reduction offsite equals 24,476 square feet. Of the 24,476 square feet of offsite land coverage reduction, 15,000 is located outside of ROW lands. Comment 322-eq: Comment Summary - How can coverage be reduced with a reconfiguration of County roads? Provide a coverage breakdown including the total proposed coverage, coverage removed, and how large the project area is/what parcels are included and what is the ultimate coverage reduction. Reconfiguration of Washoe County Roads allows for removal and restoration of land coverage for a reduction in total project area land coverage for Alternatives C and D. The amount of land coverage assigned to onsite public roadways is reduced under Alternatives C and D, therefore, the land coverage associated with public ROWs is reduced under Alternatives C and D. TRPA prohibits the inclusion of land coverage in ROWs in calculations for allowable base coverage but requires the inclusion of existing land coverage in ROWs in calculations for excess land coverage. As stated in Table 4.2-6 of the DEIS, ultimate land coverage reduction including land coverage currently located in public ROWs is 68,317 square feet for Alternative C and 38,314 square feet for Alternative D. Land coverage characteristics broken down by parcel are detailed in Appendix AD. Comment 322-er: Comment Summary - 4.2-16: any land coverage associated with ROW should be a credit to a land bank or to the public. Removed coverage should be permanently retired not banked or transferred. PAGE 8- 108 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 Please see response to comment number 322-z, which addresses TRPA land coverage calculations in relation to public ROWs. Alternatives C and D propose to remove and permanently retire a portion of land coverage within the ROW. TRPA Code does not permit the use of land coverage in public ROWs for the benefit of private development. If the land coverage were banked instead of permanently retired, then the land coverage would be available for future development. According to TRPA staff, permanently retiring land coverage is preferred to payment of the excess coverage mitigation fee and banking of land coverage and assists TRPA towards achieving environmental thresholds. The project applicant has agreed to permanently retire the maximum amount of land coverage available within the NSCP following TRPA’s selection of an Alternative. Comment 322-es: Comment Summary - 4.2-16: states land coverage reduction is not directly reflected in the calculation of excess coverage - what does this mean and what does this refer to? Appendix AD provides additional details on how the land coverage calculations were made for the project area and public ROWs located within and outside of the project area. The Project includes modifications to land coverage within the project area on private property and public ROWs (Washoe County), and outside of the project area within public ROWs (SR 28) and private property (Stateline mini park parcel located outside of the project area but within the NSCP). Excess land coverage is calculated in accordance with TRPA Code Section 20.5.A. The excess land coverage calculations exclude allowable base land coverage and existing verified land coverage for the portions of the project area that are currently within public ROW. Because the size of the public ROW within the project area will be reduced under Alternatives C and D (with a corresponding reduction in land coverage within the public ROW), the calculation of excess land coverage for the DEIS represents a worst case analysis for these two alternatives. Comment 322-et: Comment Summary - Table 4.2-6: what is the adjustment for reconfiguration of the road in the table? What does this mean? Please see response to comment 322-z, which addresses TRPA land coverage calculations in relation to public ROWs. The adjustment represents the reduction in land coverage that will occur in the public ROWs under Alternatives C and D. Note: to ensure a worst case analysis, the TRPA allowable land coverage values included in Table 4.2-6 were not adjusted to represent the increase in base allowable land coverage that would occur with the abandonment of a portion of the public ROW located in the project area. Comment 322-eu: Comment Summary - DEIS indicated permanently retiring 71,706 sf of coverage in lieu of payment of an excess coverage mitigation fee would better serve the public and watershed, but Alt C only described the removal of 43,841 sf. The 71,706 square feet of land coverage referenced to mitigate the excess land coverage within the Boulder Bay project area can be partially met with the 68,317 square feet of total land coverage available to permanently retire under Alternative C. The 68,317 square feet consists of land coverage removed within the project area, land coverage to be removed as a result of the project in offsite public ROW (SR 28) and land coverage to be removed as a result of the project in the offsite Stateline mini park site. To completely mitigate the excess land coverage with land coverage retirement, Boulder Bay will need to identify additional land coverage (on or off site) equal to 3,389 square feet as detailed in Table 4.2-6. The 3,389 square feet of SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 109
- Page 57 and 58: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 59 and 60: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 61 and 62: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 63 and 64: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 65 and 66: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 67 and 68: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 69 and 70: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 71 and 72: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 73 and 74: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 75 and 76: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 77 and 78: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 79 and 80: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 81 and 82: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 83 and 84: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 85 and 86: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 87 and 88: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 89 and 90: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 91 and 92: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 93 and 94: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 95 and 96: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 97 and 98: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 99 and 100: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 101 and 102: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 103 and 104: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 105 and 106: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 107: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 111 and 112: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 113 and 114: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 115 and 116: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 117 and 118: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 119 and 120: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 121 and 122: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 123 and 124: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 125 and 126: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 127 and 128: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 129 and 130: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 131 and 132: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 133 and 134: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 135 and 136: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 137 and 138: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 139 and 140: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 141 and 142: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 143 and 144: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 145 and 146: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 147 and 148: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 149 and 150: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 151 and 152: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 153 and 154: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 155 and 156: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 157 and 158: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
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 />
Please see response to comment number 322-z, which addresses TRPA land coverage<br />
calculations in relation to public ROWs. Alternatives C and D propose to remove<br />
and permanently retire a portion of land coverage within the ROW. TRPA Code<br />
does not permit the use of land coverage in public ROWs for the benefit of private<br />
development. If the land coverage were banked instead of permanently retired, then<br />
the land coverage would be available for future development. According to TRPA<br />
staff, permanently retiring land coverage is preferred to payment of the excess<br />
coverage mitigation fee and banking of land coverage and assists TRPA towards<br />
achieving environmental thresholds. The project applicant has agreed to permanently<br />
retire the maximum amount of land coverage available within the NSCP following<br />
TRPA’s selection of an Alternative.<br />
Comment 322-es: Comment Summary - 4.2-16: states land coverage reduction is not directly reflected<br />
in the calculation of excess coverage - what does this mean and what does this refer<br />
to?<br />
Appendix AD provides additional details on how the land coverage calculations were<br />
made for the project area and public ROWs located within and outside of the project<br />
area. The Project includes modifications to land coverage within the project area on<br />
private property and public ROWs (Washoe County), and outside of the project area<br />
within public ROWs (SR 28) and private property (Stateline mini park parcel located<br />
outside of the project area but within the NSCP). Excess land coverage is calculated<br />
in accordance with TRPA Code Section 20.5.A. The excess land coverage<br />
calculations exclude allowable base land coverage and existing verified land<br />
coverage for the portions of the project area that are currently within public ROW.<br />
Because the size of the public ROW within the project area will be reduced under<br />
Alternatives C and D (with a corresponding reduction in land coverage within the<br />
public ROW), the calculation of excess land coverage for the DEIS represents a<br />
worst case analysis for these two alternatives.<br />
Comment 322-et: Comment Summary - Table 4.2-6: what is the adjustment for reconfiguration of the<br />
road in the table? What does this mean?<br />
Please see response to comment 322-z, which addresses TRPA land coverage<br />
calculations in relation to public ROWs. The adjustment represents the reduction in<br />
land coverage that will occur in the public ROWs under Alternatives C and D. Note:<br />
to ensure a worst case analysis, the TRPA allowable land coverage values included in<br />
Table 4.2-6 were not adjusted to represent the increase in base allowable land<br />
coverage that would occur with the abandonment of a portion of the public ROW<br />
located in the project area.<br />
Comment 322-eu: Comment Summary - DEIS indicated permanently retiring 71,706 sf of coverage in<br />
lieu of payment of an excess coverage mitigation fee would better serve the public<br />
and watershed, but Alt C only described the removal of 43,841 sf.<br />
The 71,706 square feet of land coverage referenced to mitigate the excess land<br />
coverage within the Boulder Bay project area can be partially met with the 68,317<br />
square feet of total land coverage available to permanently retire under Alternative C.<br />
The 68,317 square feet consists of land coverage removed within the project area,<br />
land coverage to be removed as a result of the project in offsite public ROW (SR 28)<br />
and land coverage to be removed as a result of the project in the offsite Stateline mini<br />
park site. To completely mitigate the excess land coverage with land coverage<br />
retirement, Boulder Bay will need to identify additional land coverage (on or off site)<br />
equal to 3,389 square feet as detailed in Table 4.2-6. The 3,389 square feet of<br />
SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 109