FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

19.06.2013 Views
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 Comment 322-ho: Comment Summary - Will any of the proposed buildings obstruct Lake views from any adjacent residences? Will any houses on Lakeview or Wasou be affected? Please see response to comment 117-a. Comment 322-hp: Comment Summary - Please explain how Alt C is similar to the rustic character and feel of the fish hatchery building references in the NSCP. Please see response to comment 322-ad. Comment 322-hq: Comment Summary - S-6 How can 61% of tree removal on a site that is highly developed and impacted be considered minimal impact as stated in the DEIS with no mitigation required? Table showing the trees to be removed for each Alternatives is confusing and needs to be clarified. Site should be redesigned to preserve more of site's trees. Please see response to comment 322-ab. Findings are made for removal of trees based on TRPA Code Section 71.2.B that include discussion of redesign and relocation of buildings. Comment 322-hr: Comment Summary - What are the cumulative impacts of tree removal in consideration with other approved, pending, or future projects? DEIS Table 4.4-6 details the tree removal inventory by DBH size class for Alternatives C, D and E. Table 4.4-7 details removal of trees greater than 24 inch DBH and provides justifications for removal. Alternatives C, D and E are designed to minimize tree removal within the project area. Cumulative impacts of tree removal are discussed on page 4.4-37 of the DEIS. Comment 322-hs: Comment Summary - Simulation shows vegetation planted to screen the buildings, yet DEIS has no landscape plan. Please provide. What type of vegetation is proposed for screening? If vegetation is deciduous instead of evergreen this should be reflected in simulation. A Landscape Plan is included in the DEIS in Appendix O. The plans show the location of vegetation, the types of deciduous and evergreen trees to be used, and landscape treatments. The visual simulations reflect this plan. Comment 322-ht: Comment Summary - A landscape plan is needed to affirm the accuracy of the simulations prepared for each of the Alternatives. Please see response to comment 322-hs. Comment 322-hu: Comment Summary - There should be a phasing plan for the project in the DEIS. What assurances are being provided to the community to prevent abandonment of a partially finished project? Is there a phasing time schedule, and what time limitations are applied to each phase? This is not a comment on the content or adequacy of the DEIS. This information is passed on to the Project proponent and decision maker(s) for consideration. No further response to this comment in relation to the DEIS is warranted. Comment 322-hv: Comment Summary - Will grading, and other activities be phased? What aspects of the project will be phased as entitlements are secured, financing secured, and units sold? PAGE 8- 124 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 This is not a comment on the content or adequacy of the DEIS. This information is passed on to the Project proponent and decision maker(s) for consideration. No further response to this comment in relation to the DEIS is warranted.. Comment 322-hw: Comment Summary - What are the environmental effects of excavations up to approx. 50 feet deep on Class 1 and Class 2 land? Impacts GEO-3 and HYDRO-4 analyze the potential effects from excavations. The majority of excavations will occur in portions of the project area that are LCD 4. The potential environmental effects of the excavations are measured at a level of less than significant because no groundwater was found in test pits to maximum depths of 55.5 feet below ground surface (bgs). The geotechnical investigations and the soils/hydrologic reports (Lumos and Associates 2008) found no severe soil constraints that preclude grading and excavation activities in the project area, which is composed of LCD 4, 2 and 1a. Comment 322-hx: Comment Summary - DEIS does not adequately address the development rights associated with the Mariner Site and the effects of Boulder Bay's proposed changes. Please see responses to comments 37-a and 100-f. Comment 322-hy: Comment Summary - DEIS does not adequately consider the quality of the open space or specify a location or quality of the Alternative space proposed as replacement for the 0.85-acre loss of open space on the Mariner site. The existing quality of the open space is analyzed in the DEIS in the environmental analysis chapters 4.1 through 4.12. To replace open space lands proposed for development under Alternative C, the proposed Settlement Agreement amendment (DEIS Appendix M) requires a minimum of 0.85-acre of land outside of the former Tahoe Mariner area but within the NSCP to be dedicated to and preserved as open space/public park. While the amount of open space on the former Tahoe Mariner site would decrease, the total dedicated open space under the proposed amendment to the agreement would at least remain the same. The existing agreement includes 4.78 acres of open space. The proposed amendment requires 3.93 acres of open space on the former Tahoe Mariner site and a minimum of 0.85-acre offsite within the NSCP. Alternative C proposes a total of 5.70 acres of deed-restricted open space. Comment 322-hz: Comment Summary - DEIS does not include the prior settlement agreements or address the nature of the agreements becoming progressively more restrictive. Please see responses to comments 37-a, 100-f and 322-ia. Comment 322-ia: Comment Summary - DEIS does not address why CA was omitted on the 2001 Agreement but indicates that CA's consent will be required to the extend that Boulder Bay's Proposed Project conflicts with any of the four Mariner Agreements. The 2001 Agreement is a separate agreement between the previous land owner and the TRPA and did not include the State of California. The 2001 agreement does not affect the applicability or status of the previous settlement agreement documents (most recently amended in 1996) and an amendment of the 2001 agreement does not require the signature of the State. The DEIS indicates that the proposed amendment to the Settlement Agreement is required prior to TRPA approval of Alternative C or D and that the State of California and TRPA are signatory parties to the agreement (pages 4.1-28 and 4.1-33); however this activity is separate from the DEIS. SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 125

Page 1 and 2: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B





























































Page 123: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B































Page 187: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B

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

summary

deis

existing

trpa

boulder

comments

coverage

analysis

impacts

tahoe

feis

regional

www.trpa.org

FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency ... View more FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

Delete template?

Save as template ?

FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency