FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
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 />
This is not a comment on the content or adequacy of the DEIS. This information is<br />
passed on to the Project proponent and decision maker(s) for consideration. No<br />
further response to this comment in relation to the DEIS is warranted.<br />
Speaker 15 – Rochelle Nason, League to Save Lake <strong>Tahoe</strong><br />
Comment 15-a: Comment Summary – Past redevelopment projects included a tax on the project to<br />
see if it benefits the public – high standard.<br />
Unlike the California redevelopment projects that received significant tax increment<br />
financing, Washoe County has not declared Crystal Bay a redevelopment project area<br />
and, therefore, tax increment financing is not available to support the project<br />
development. Table S-2 of the DEIS outlines the “over and beyond” benefits of the<br />
Project.<br />
Comment 15-b: Comment Summary – Does Boulder Bay conform to the North Stateline Community<br />
Plan?<br />
Please see responses to comments 93-a, 93-b, 93-g, 108-b, 110-a, 235-a, 286-a, 286d,<br />
286-f, 286-ab, 306-b, 313-b, 313-e, 322-u, 322-ad, 322-at, 322-ay, 322-bb, 322-bl,<br />
322-bm, 322-cm, 322-dr, 322-fe, 322-fi, 322-gu, 322-ha, 322-hb, 322-hi, 322-hp,<br />
322-hy, 322-im, 332-x, and 332-ai.<br />
Comment 15-c: Comment Summary – Thinks the Community Plan team should relook at the CP<br />
areas and bring them back to the TRPA Governing Board.<br />
This is not a comment on the content or adequacy of the DEIS. This information is<br />
passed on to the Project proponent and decision maker(s) for consideration. No<br />
further response to this comment in relation to the DEIS is warranted.<br />
Comment 15-d: Comment Summary – Does Boulder Bay meet traffic and water quality goals?<br />
Please see Master Responses 1, 2, 3 and 4.<br />
Comment 15-e: Comment Summary – Irrevocable commitments – make sure the project benefits are<br />
really delivered.<br />
The commitments presented as part of the Project and the mitigation measures<br />
identified in the DEIS will be outlined as conditions for Project approval and<br />
permitting. TRPA monitors conformance with these conditions.<br />
Comment 15-f: Comment Summary – Hard to analyze these projects without a new <strong>Regional</strong> Plan.<br />
Speaker 16 – Margaret Eaton<br />
The existing <strong>Regional</strong> Plan remains in effect until the <strong>Regional</strong> Plan update is<br />
adopted.<br />
Comment 16-a: Comment Summary – Worked on placed based planning group. Goals of the placed<br />
based planning group are not meet by the Boulder Bay project. Not part of a mixed<br />
use commercial center. Crystal Bay is not an urban node or commercial center.<br />
Crystal Bay does not have residential neighborhood like Incline where these projects<br />
should be located. Crystal Bay is rural and the height and density is not consistent<br />
with the Crystal Bay community. Modify goals to meet placed based planning and<br />
CEP goals.<br />
SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 167