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 Speaker 4 – Robert Maxson, Sierra Nevada College Comment 4-a: Comment Summary – See comment letter number 60 for a transcript of the oral comments. Comment noted and responses are referenced to comment letter 60. Speaker 5 – Ann Nichols, North Tahoe Preservation Alliance Comment 5-a: Comment Summary – NOP did not describe whole project area – it left out the Crystal Bay Motel. The Project did not substantially change following the publication of the NOP. The Crystal Bay Motel parcel was added to the project area upon agreement that the Project would remove the hotel structure to allow for use of TAUs and to provide expansion of stormwater treatment systems per CEP participation requirements. Comment 5-b: Comment Summary – Analyze height amendment by itself separate from the project. 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 5-c: Comment Summary – Worried about the precedence that Boulder Bay will set for the region. The commenter expresses an opinion. 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 5-d: Comment Summary – The height amendment is not clear – it references additional height modifiers. The proposed height amendment (DEIS Appendix U) includes a list of requirements that Boulder Bay must meet in order to earn additional height. These requirements are included in Section 1.a, 1.b, 1.c, 1.e, 1.f, 1.g, and 1.h. It also lists findings that TRPA must make to approve the additional building height – these are listed in Section 1.i. The maximum building heights that can be constructed if additional height is granted is listed in Section 1.d. Comment 5-e: Comment Summary – Worried about impacts to nearby beaches. Please see responses to comments 93-k, 93-l, 122-c, 171-d, 286-ap, 286-aq, 322-ba, 322-bx, 322-bz, 322-fx, 322-fz, 322-ba and 322-bb. Comment 5-f: Comment Summary – Does not think the scenic simulations are accurate. Please see responses to comments 322-hs, 332-an and 335-ah. Comment 5-g: Comment Summary – Thinks that the open space discussion is misleading – the project will result in a loss of open space. Open space is declared in Chapter 2 and analyzed in Chapters 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.6. Deed-restricting land for a stated, specific use protects this acreage from future development and changes in land uses. The project will deed-restrict acreage within the project area that is currently not designated as open space in an amount equivalent to that provided for in the Mariner Agreement. PAGE 8- 164 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 Comment 5-h: Comment Summary – The stormwater BMPs will offset the bonus units which benefit the project. Speaker 6 – John Sell The stormwater treatment systems will benefit the project area, the NSCP, the East Stateline watershed and Placer County neighborhoods located down gradient. The commenter is unclear as to how stormwater BMPs would offset bonus units. No additional response is possible. Comment 6-a: Comment Summary – Needs clarification of the CFA for the project. How does the hotel not provide CFA for the guests? Please see responses to comments 286-ab, 286-v, 286-x, 322-l, 322-bn, 322-ce, 322em, 322-ix, 332-i, 332-k and 332-l. Comment 6-b: Comment Summary – How are people going to get to the project to use accessory spaces if it isn’t considered CFA? Speaker 7 – Phil Jordan Please see responses to comments 286-x, 286-y, 286-z, 286-aw, 322-l, 322-ir, 322bn, 322-ce, 322-em and 338-g. Comment 7-a: Comment Summary – Concerned that traffic numbers may be off. Many concerns have been answered. Comment noted. Please refer to Master Responses 2, 3 and 4. Speaker 8 – Peter Krass, Placer County Comment 8-a: Comment Summary – Many water quality benefits will be realized from Boulder Bay’s collaboration with the County. Private project dollars are needed to meet goals for 10-year water quality improvements. Comment noted. Speaker 9 – Bea Epstein Comment 9-a: Comment Summary – Worked on the Pathway project planning team. The Boulder Bay project meets the vision laid out by the team. Comment noted. Speaker 10 – Mia Snyder Comment 10-a: Comment Summary – Supports Boulder Bay for economic and environmental benefits. Comment noted. Speaker 11 – Margaret Martini Comment 11-a: Comment Summary – Lots of smoke and mirrors in the plan. Existing developments are all bleeding jobs right now. Why will Boulder Bay not suffer? People can’t afford to travel because they don’t have jobs either. SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 165
- 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 and 162: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 163: 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 />
Comment 5-h: Comment Summary – The stormwater BMPs will offset the bonus units which benefit<br />
the project.<br />
Speaker 6 – John Sell<br />
The stormwater treatment systems will benefit the project area, the NSCP, the East<br />
Stateline watershed and Placer County neighborhoods located down gradient. The<br />
commenter is unclear as to how stormwater BMPs would offset bonus units. No<br />
additional response is possible.<br />
Comment 6-a: Comment Summary – Needs clarification of the CFA for the project. How does the<br />
hotel not provide CFA for the guests?<br />
Please see responses to comments 286-ab, 286-v, 286-x, 322-l, 322-bn, 322-ce, 322em,<br />
322-ix, 332-i, 332-k and 332-l.<br />
Comment 6-b: Comment Summary – How are people going to get to the project to use accessory<br />
spaces if it isn’t considered CFA?<br />
Speaker 7 – Phil Jordan<br />
Please see responses to comments 286-x, 286-y, 286-z, 286-aw, 322-l, 322-ir, 322bn,<br />
322-ce, 322-em and 338-g.<br />
Comment 7-a: Comment Summary – Concerned that traffic numbers may be off. Many concerns<br />
have been answered.<br />
Comment noted. Please refer to Master Responses 2, 3 and 4.<br />
Speaker 8 – Peter Krass, Placer County<br />
Comment 8-a: Comment Summary – Many water quality benefits will be realized from Boulder<br />
Bay’s collaboration with the County. Private project dollars are needed to meet<br />
goals for 10-year water quality improvements.<br />
Comment noted.<br />
Speaker 9 – Bea Epstein<br />
Comment 9-a: Comment Summary – Worked on the Pathway project planning team. The Boulder<br />
Bay project meets the vision laid out by the team.<br />
Comment noted.<br />
Speaker 10 – Mia Snyder<br />
Comment 10-a: Comment Summary – Supports Boulder Bay for economic and environmental<br />
benefits.<br />
Comment noted.<br />
Speaker 11 – Margaret Martini<br />
Comment 11-a: Comment Summary – Lots of smoke and mirrors in the plan. Existing developments<br />
are all bleeding jobs right now. Why will Boulder Bay not suffer? People can’t<br />
afford to travel because they don’t have jobs either.<br />
SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 165
Change language