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
County. Figure 4.1-2 shows the location of the existing deed restrictions within the
project area. Under Alternative C, the location of the deed restricted open space will
be relocated and enlarged, and partially developed as park uses and the unused
banked land coverage will be partially relocated to other portions of the project area.
The unused banked land coverage (approximately 8,455 square feet of LCD 1a) will
be available for future transfer or permanently retired. The proposed amendment
(DEIS Appendix M) will allow for proposed TAU and multi-family dwelling units on
the southern most portion of settlement agreement area (see Figure 4.1-2), will allow
for the deed restricted open space to be relocated within the Boulder Bay project area
at a minimum of 4.78 acres, will allow a portion of the open space to be developed
park use, and will eliminate the rights for three single-family residences on the
former Tahoe Mariner Site (Area D on Figure 4.1-2). The final language in the
amendment to the Settlement Agreement will be developed by TRPA staff.
The environmental benefits from this reconfiguration of the project area include
greater reductions in land coverage through permanent retirement of land coverage
(see Impact GEO-1 analysis), preservation of open space and reestablishment of
vegetation, construction and maintenance of a public park, and improvement in
scenic quality ratings from SR 28. An amendment is needed to allow Boulder Bay to
assume building and maintenance costs and responsibility. Alternative C will deed
restrict 5.70 acres for public open space and park uses. Alternative D will deed
restrict 4.99 acres for public open space and park uses. Alternative E will set aside
4.78 acres of open space, including 1.27 acres for parks to be built and maintained by
Washoe County. Impact HYDRO-1 discusses the positive effects of open space for
surface water quality.
Comment 322-fa: Comment Summary - 4.2-19: States there is 378,325 sf of coverage under Alt C, but
this number is not reflected anywhere else in the document and indicates a coverage
reduction of only 5% and results in significant coverage in Class 1 and 2 lands.
Explain.
The land coverage amount referenced on page 4.2-19 was mislabeled as Alternative
C. The paragraph references Alternative D and should be labeled as such. The
27,720 sq. ft. of coverage listed transposed the 2 and the 7 and should be reported as
27,270 sq. ft. The paragraph has been corrected as follows: "The resultant land
coverage for the project area under Alternative D will equal 32,276 square feet on
LCD 1a, 27,720 27,270 square feet on LCD 2, and 318,329 square feet on LCD 4.
Comment 322-fb: Comment Summary - Provide an exhibit showing the following for Alt. C: 1) existing
land coverage, 2) existing land capability, 3) Proposed land coverage, 4) land
coverage over existing coverage, and 5) new coverage on land not previously
disturbed or covered.
Figure 4.2-2 identifies for Alternative C the verified existing land coverage to
remain, verified existing land coverage to be removed and new land coverage. Areas
of LCD 1a, 2 and 4 are delineated on the figure. Table 4.2-3 outlines land capability
and existing land coverage determinations. Table 4.2-5 outlines proposed land
coverage by Alternative. See Appendix AD for land coverage characteristics broken
down by parcel.
Comment 322-fc: Comment Summary - 4.2-17 EIS states coverage reduction to allow for increased
height. If there is only 10% coverage reduction, how can there be 95% increase in
height?
SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 111