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 6 – Steve McKibbin, Lake Tahoe School Comment 6-a: Comment Summary – Supports the project Comment noted. Speaker 7 – Jennifer Quashnick Comment 7-a: Comment Summary – Storm sampling data is not adequate for analysis. Data collected by DRI is available – why was it not included in the DEIS? Please refer to Master Response 1. DRI data is included in Appendix AB of the FEIS; however analysis of the data does not suggest a change in impact significance. Comment 7-b: Comment Summary – What is load reduction for 20 year design system vs. what is proposed for Boulder Bay? What is the net gain? Where is the monitoring plan to ensure that the proposed system will work? Please refer to Master Response 1 and Appendix AB of the FEIS. Chapter 6 details standard practice SP-9, Post-project BMP and Stormwater Management Program. Comment 7-c: Comment Summary – How was the 90% reduction of TSS or fine sediments determined? Cannot find the analysis in the DEIS. This information needs to be included in a DEIS for public review. Speaker 8 – Ellie Waller Please refer to Master Response 1 and Appendix AB of FEIS. Comment 8-a: Comment Summary – What would water quality benefit be if height and density were reduced? Too much proposed. A reduction in height could necessitate more land coverage, which would generate larger runoff volumes. A reduction in density could result in reductions in land coverage, which would result in less runoff volume. Comment 8-b: Comment Summary – Only one tall building exists now. Boulder Bay wants too much additional height. Speaker 9 – Brian McRae 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 9-a: Comment Summary – Supports the project. Thinks the plan is cutting edge. Comment noted. Speaker 10 – Susan Gearhart Comment 10-a: Comment Summary – Increased height should not be allowed. 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 10-a: Comment Summary – Water quality question related to rain on snow events. Can the proposed system handle these flows? PAGE 8- 176 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 Impact HYDRO-3 addresses stormwater treatment system capacities. Table 4.3-12 outlines the calculations in support of capture, conveyance and infiltration of stormwater volumes up to the 100yr/1hr storm event (Alternatives C and D). Speaker 11 – Ann Nichols, North Tahoe Preservation Alliance Comment 11-a: Comment Summary – DEIS does not adequately analyze height. Please see responses to comments 93-a, 93-b, 93-i, 117-a, 286-a, 286-b, 286-c, 286-e, 286-f, 286-j, 306-b, 322-gy and 322-hi. Comment 11-b: Comment Summary – Project also needs a Community Plan amendment to recognize special areas in the CP for height (Proposed Project puts the cart before the horse). The text of the NSCP does not indicate specific height limits, rather it references TRPA Code of Ordinances Chapter 22 – Height for height limits. If Code of Ordinances Chapter 22 is amended, it is not necessary to amend the NSCP because the text of the NSCP remains accurate. Comment 11-c: Comment Summary – Density calculation has changed from category E to F. Why? The note below the Table in TRPA Code Subsection 21.4.B(1) states that "Any other combination of uses, including three or more uses in a project area, is assigned to Category F." The Project includes tourist accommodation, multi-family residential for sale, multi-family residential for rent (affordable) and commercial uses. Please see responses to comments 108-b and 322-ds. Comment 11-d: Comment Summary – Why is the amendment of the existing Settlement Agreement acceptable? 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. Comment 11-e: Comment Summary – Part of non-Community Plan area in the Settlement Agreement area is used to calculate density. Should not be allowed. Density calculations included in Impact LU-1 do not include acreage located outside of the NSCP for determining allowable density. Comment 11-f: Comment Summary – Crystal Bay Motel site is in the project area. Will it stay vacant? The Crystal Bay Motel will be demolished and land coverage relocated. Please see response to comment 93-d. Comment 11-g: Comment Summary – 10,000 square feet for gaming can expand in the future. In order for gaming floor area to be expanded over the 10,000 square feet proposed in Alternative C, Boulder Bay or another future applicant would have to apply to TRPA and the NTRPA for a new permit, which would require additional environmental analysis. Comment 11-h: Comment Summary – Accessory space increase is too much. Not correctly spelled out in the DEIS or presentation to the Governing Board. Please refer to Master Response 4. SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 177
- 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 and 164: 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: 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 6 – Steve McKibbin, Lake <strong>Tahoe</strong> School<br />
Comment 6-a: Comment Summary – Supports the project<br />
Comment noted.<br />
Speaker 7 – Jennifer Quashnick<br />
Comment 7-a: Comment Summary – Storm sampling data is not adequate for analysis. Data<br />
collected by DRI is available – why was it not included in the DEIS?<br />
Please refer to Master Response 1. DRI data is included in Appendix AB of the<br />
<strong>FEIS</strong>; however analysis of the data does not suggest a change in impact significance.<br />
Comment 7-b: Comment Summary – What is load reduction for 20 year design system vs. what is<br />
proposed for Boulder Bay? What is the net gain? Where is the monitoring plan to<br />
ensure that the proposed system will work?<br />
Please refer to Master Response 1 and Appendix AB of the <strong>FEIS</strong>. Chapter 6 details<br />
standard practice SP-9, Post-project BMP and Stormwater Management Program.<br />
Comment 7-c: Comment Summary – How was the 90% reduction of TSS or fine sediments<br />
determined? Cannot find the analysis in the DEIS. This information needs to be<br />
included in a DEIS for public review.<br />
Speaker 8 – Ellie Waller<br />
Please refer to Master Response 1 and Appendix AB of <strong>FEIS</strong>.<br />
Comment 8-a: Comment Summary – What would water quality benefit be if height and density were<br />
reduced? Too much proposed.<br />
A reduction in height could necessitate more land coverage, which would generate<br />
larger runoff volumes. A reduction in density could result in reductions in land<br />
coverage, which would result in less runoff volume.<br />
Comment 8-b: Comment Summary – Only one tall building exists now. Boulder Bay wants too much<br />
additional height.<br />
Speaker 9 – Brian McRae<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 9-a: Comment Summary – Supports the project. Thinks the plan is cutting edge.<br />
Comment noted.<br />
Speaker 10 – Susan Gearhart<br />
Comment 10-a: Comment Summary – Increased height should not be allowed.<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 10-a: Comment Summary – Water quality question related to rain on snow events. Can the<br />
proposed system handle these flows?<br />
PAGE 8- 176 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010
Change language