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 maintenance of the system with funding responsibilities to be based on percent contribution of runoff to the site. Comment 363-d: Comment Summary - Recommend that Inspection, Operations and Maintenance Plan be referred to in the FEIS. Specific protocols with respect to onsite stormwater management are documented in a step-by-step manual. IOMP should include fertilizer management component. It would be beneficial to use phosphorous-free fertilizer once vegetation has been established. Assumption should be confirmed with a botanist/soil scientist. The Inspection, Maintenance and Monitoring Plan will be based on the selected Alternative and submitted to TRPA for review and approval during project permitting. The Inspection, Maintenance and Monitoring Plan is a compliance measure that is included as standard practice of the Project. The Plan will be developed for the selected Alternative through an RFP Process that includes a third party agreement between TRPA, Boulder Bay and a consultant. This detailed plan will be based on Chapter 6 of the DEIS but can be tailored to the outcome of the Governing Board hearings that will decide the final design of the Project, if approved. The Plan is added as SP-10 in Chapter 6 in the FEIS for clarification. The Fertilizer Plan is included in the project as SP-8 and discussed in Chapter 2 on page 2-17 and 2-26. Impact HYDRO-1 discusses the fertilizer and irrigation use on pages 4.3-35. Comment 363-e: Comment Summary: VMT baseline conditions are established assuming full operational capacity of the Tahoe Biltmore but there is no discussion if Biltmore is or ever has operated at full capacity. This needs be clarified because if it is not operating at full capacity the VMT analysis should then feature a comparison of Alternative with respect to both existing and baseline conditions. A discussion of the operational capacity of the Tahoe Biltmore is provided in the Environmental Setting section of Chapter 4.8 of the DEIS. Table 4.8-4 shows the operational capacity in terms revenue from 1999 to 2008. Table 4.8-20 provides a comparison of the level of service results for existing conditions (based on the traffic counts), baseline conditions (Alternative A), and existing plus project (Alternative B, C, D, and E) conditions. Please refer to Master Response 2, which compares the Proposed Project and Alternatives to an alternative existing baseline. 8.6 RESPONSE TO ORAL COMMENTS RECEIVED AT DEIS HEARINGS Comments received during the public hearings on the DEIS are summarized below in italics text followed by a response to the comment in non-italicized text. NOVEMBER 18, 2009 TRPA GOVERNING BOARD HEARING Speaker 1 – Ronald (Last Name Not Recorded) Comment 1-a: Comment Summary – Wonders if there is support for all of the development density. Many other Crystal Bay projects are not successfully maintaining their sites – even the fire station. Worried about the precedence for future growth. PAGE 8- 162 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 Speaker 2 – Ellie Waller Please see responses to comments 286-j, 322-gi, 322-gr, 322-gs and 322-gt. Comment 2-a: Comment Summary – Page 82 of packet – VMT numbers seem to be incomplete. Wants a copy of the staff briefing. Suggests that TRPA make CDs available to printers in the area. Please see Master Response 2. Speaker 3 – Ron Grassi, Tahoe Area Sierra Club Group Comment 3-a: Comment Summary – Water – hard to identify who will provide water rights for the project and how it will be provided? Is the water from Lake Tahoe? How does it relate to TROA? The TROA will be implemented through allocations to municipalities. The Project will create an estimated 56 acre-ft/yr of water demand. Of the total 34,000 acre-ft/yr of allocations, the Nevada side of the Lake Tahoe Basin will be allotted 11,000 acreft/yr. Boulder Bay has identified and is able to secure 75 to 100 acre-ft of available water rights for purchase from a private landholder. A commitment letter is on file with TRPA. If the Project is approved, water demand will be recalculated and finalized based on the final project design and the water rights will be purchased and dedicated to IVGID. According to personal communications with IVGID, there is sufficient capacity to serve the Project. Comment 3-b: Comment Summary – Traffic – See page 4.8 re: assumptions on traffic generation. Thinks traffic rates for new uses will be higher than existing – not the same rates. Please see Master Responses 2, 3, and 4. Comment 3-c: Comment Summary – Cumulative – Include all of Lake Tahoe projects in the cumulative analysis – especially for traffic. See Table 5.1-1 in the DEIS for a list of related projects in Placer and Washoe Counties that were included in the cumulative impact analysis. Comment 3-d: Comment Summary – Suggests a new Alternative be studied in the EIS made up of public thoughts on the project. The Project has been through public scoping and comment, including a 30 day extension period for public comments on the DEIS. The public has been given opportunity to provide thoughts and feedback on the Project throughout the environmental process. Comment 3-e: Comment Summary – Re: amendment of the settlement agreement. Wants more public benefit for the proposed changes to the open space areas. The existing Mariner Settlement Agreement is not a TRPA Regional Plan document. Therefore, the settlement agreement is not a threshold for determining impacts for TRPA and is not a TRPA planning document that defines allowable land uses. Changes to the settlement agreement occur separately from, but in conjunction with, the EIS process. SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 163
- 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
- Page 159 and 160: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 161: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 165 and 166: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 167 and 168: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 169 and 170: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 171 and 172: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 173 and 174: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 175 and 176: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 177 and 178: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 179 and 180: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 181 and 182: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 183 and 184: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 185 and 186: 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
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 />
Speaker 2 – Ellie Waller<br />
Please see responses to comments 286-j, 322-gi, 322-gr, 322-gs and 322-gt.<br />
Comment 2-a: Comment Summary – Page 82 of packet – VMT numbers seem to be incomplete.<br />
Wants a copy of the staff briefing. Suggests that TRPA make CDs available to<br />
printers in the area.<br />
Please see Master Response 2.<br />
Speaker 3 – Ron Grassi, <strong>Tahoe</strong> Area Sierra Club Group<br />
Comment 3-a: Comment Summary – Water – hard to identify who will provide water rights for the<br />
project and how it will be provided? Is the water from Lake <strong>Tahoe</strong>? How does it<br />
relate to TROA?<br />
The TROA will be implemented through allocations to municipalities. The Project<br />
will create an estimated 56 acre-ft/yr of water demand. Of the total 34,000 acre-ft/yr<br />
of allocations, the Nevada side of the Lake <strong>Tahoe</strong> Basin will be allotted 11,000 acreft/yr.<br />
Boulder Bay has identified and is able to secure 75 to 100 acre-ft of available<br />
water rights for purchase from a private landholder. A commitment letter is on file<br />
with TRPA. If the Project is approved, water demand will be recalculated and<br />
finalized based on the final project design and the water rights will be purchased and<br />
dedicated to IVGID. According to personal communications with IVGID, there is<br />
sufficient capacity to serve the Project.<br />
Comment 3-b: Comment Summary – Traffic – See page 4.8 re: assumptions on traffic generation.<br />
Thinks traffic rates for new uses will be higher than existing – not the same rates.<br />
Please see Master Responses 2, 3, and 4.<br />
Comment 3-c: Comment Summary – Cumulative – Include all of Lake <strong>Tahoe</strong> projects in the<br />
cumulative analysis – especially for traffic.<br />
See Table 5.1-1 in the DEIS for a list of related projects in Placer and Washoe<br />
Counties that were included in the cumulative impact analysis.<br />
Comment 3-d: Comment Summary – Suggests a new Alternative be studied in the EIS made up of<br />
public thoughts on the project.<br />
The Project has been through public scoping and comment, including a 30 day<br />
extension period for public comments on the DEIS. The public has been given<br />
opportunity to provide thoughts and feedback on the Project throughout the<br />
environmental process.<br />
Comment 3-e: Comment Summary – Re: amendment of the settlement agreement. Wants more<br />
public benefit for the proposed changes to the open space areas.<br />
The existing Mariner Settlement Agreement is not a TRPA <strong>Regional</strong> Plan document.<br />
Therefore, the settlement agreement is not a threshold for determining impacts for<br />
TRPA and is not a TRPA planning document that defines allowable land uses.<br />
Changes to the settlement agreement occur separately from, but in conjunction with,<br />
the EIS process.<br />
SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 163