FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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 11-b: Comment Summary – The rules should apply to every project the same. Should not amend the Code for a 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 11-c: Comment Summary – Water quality and sediment - Should have already required BMPs at the Biltmore back in 2000. The sediment loss should have already been solved. Please see response to comment 109-a. Comment 11-d: Comment Summary – Traffic can’t be met on the SR 28 narrow roadway – will cause public safety issues in emergencies. Speaker 12 – Kelly Toomey Please see responses to comments 93-s, 196-b and 322-ja and refer to Master Response 2, 3 and 4. Comment 12-a: Comment Summary – Promotes health and wellness center. Project will offer preventative care for health. Investigate the business model – will it serve community as a medical center? The Project does not include a medical center. Comment 12-b: Comment Summary – Wants to make sure project funding is in place to see construction all the way through to completion. Speaker 13 – Jackie ??? Please see responses to comments 54, 137-h, 171-c, 196-f, 286-bh, 313-h, 322-cr, 322-ie, 337-g, 338-f, 338-p and 363-c. Comment 13-a: Comment Summary – Wants to attract geo tourists to the Basin and thinks Boulder Bay will help the lakes Tourism model. Speaker 14 – Derrick Aaron 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 14-a: Comment Summary – Traffic creates atmospheric nitrogen deposition into the Lake. Auto traffic increases air emissions. The Basin has been dry lately at the same time that Lake clarity has stabilized. Thinks people staying at Boulder Bay will leave the resort and increase traffic levels. Please see responses to comments 93-t, 100-d, 322-an and Master Responses 2, 3 and 4. Comment 14-b: Comment Summary – Does not want development like Tahoe City or South Lake Tahoe in the north shore. Biking will suffer with increased vehicle trips. PAGE 8- 166 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. Speaker 15 – Rochelle Nason, League to Save Lake Tahoe Comment 15-a: Comment Summary – Past redevelopment projects included a tax on the project to see if it benefits the public – high standard. Unlike the California redevelopment projects that received significant tax increment financing, Washoe County has not declared Crystal Bay a redevelopment project area and, therefore, tax increment financing is not available to support the project development. Table S-2 of the DEIS outlines the “over and beyond” benefits of the Project. Comment 15-b: Comment Summary – Does Boulder Bay conform to the North Stateline Community Plan? Please see responses to comments 93-a, 93-b, 93-g, 108-b, 110-a, 235-a, 286-a, 286d, 286-f, 286-ab, 306-b, 313-b, 313-e, 322-u, 322-ad, 322-at, 322-ay, 322-bb, 322-bl, 322-bm, 322-cm, 322-dr, 322-fe, 322-fi, 322-gu, 322-ha, 322-hb, 322-hi, 322-hp, 322-hy, 322-im, 332-x, and 332-ai. Comment 15-c: Comment Summary – Thinks the Community Plan team should relook at the CP areas and bring them back to the TRPA Governing Board. 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 15-d: Comment Summary – Does Boulder Bay meet traffic and water quality goals? Please see Master Responses 1, 2, 3 and 4. Comment 15-e: Comment Summary – Irrevocable commitments – make sure the project benefits are really delivered. The commitments presented as part of the Project and the mitigation measures identified in the DEIS will be outlined as conditions for Project approval and permitting. TRPA monitors conformance with these conditions. Comment 15-f: Comment Summary – Hard to analyze these projects without a new Regional Plan. Speaker 16 – Margaret Eaton The existing Regional Plan remains in effect until the Regional Plan update is adopted. Comment 16-a: Comment Summary – Worked on placed based planning group. Goals of the placed based planning group are not meet by the Boulder Bay project. Not part of a mixed use commercial center. Crystal Bay is not an urban node or commercial center. Crystal Bay does not have residential neighborhood like Incline where these projects should be located. Crystal Bay is rural and the height and density is not consistent with the Crystal Bay community. Modify goals to meet placed based planning and CEP goals. SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 167
Page 1 and 2:
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
Page 165: 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
show all

FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?