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 37 – Ted Fuller, IVGID Chairman Comment 37-a: Comment Summary – Supports the project speaking as a resident of Incline Village. Comment noted. Speaker 38 – Carol Sebrig Comment 37-a: Comment Summary – Supports the project. Specifically the stormwater plan in Alts C and D. Alt C was modified based on public input and comments on Alt D. Comment noted. Speaker 39 – Scott Teache, North Tahoe Preservation Alliance Comment 39-a: Comment Summary – Reference NTPA handout – please review the list of concerns. More work is needed to amend the project. Not recommending “do nothing” just a better project. Comment noted. Speaker 40 – Aaron Mince Comment 40-a: Comment Summary – Supports the project renovation. Comment noted. Speaker 41 – Dan Seigel, CA Attorney General’s Office Comment 41-a: Comment Summary – Party to a Settlement Agreement that must be amended. Submitted letter with comments – see comment letter 100. Please see to responses to comments 100-a through 100-g for detailed response to each comment submitted in comment letter 100. Comment 41-b: Comment Summary – Biggest issue is traffic baseline – should be actual conditions at the site per case law. Please refer to Master Response 2. Comment 41-c: Comment Summary – The numbers of cars to the site is disclosed for the site. The DEIS did not support why the existing numbers were not used. Gaming trends will probably continue downward so trips are probably going to continue to decline for existing uses. Please refer to Master Response 2. Speaker 42 – Chris Reinman, President, North Star Resort Comment 42-a: Comment Summary – Supports the project. Comment noted. Speaker 43 – Patricia Walib Comment 43-a: Comment Summary – Don’t change current Community Plan document for the North Stateline. Update the Regional Plan before you approve this project and the impacts (e.g., tree removal). PAGE 8- 184 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 The Project does not propose and amendment to the North Stateline Community Plan. Approval of the Project is separate from approval of the Regional Plan Update. This latter comment does not address an inadequacy of the EIS and the comment is noted for TRPA consideration. Comment 43-b: Comment Summary – There is no way to put a bike trail to Incline Village from Crystal Bay. The commenter expresses an opinion. The comment is not relevant to the content or adequacy of the environmental analysis and documentation in the DEIS. No response is necessary. Comment 43-c: Comment Summary – Read the ARUP study, there are a lot of flaws. 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 43-d: Comment Summary – DEIS is too long and unclear. Speaker 44 – Brian Paulson Comment noted. This comment represents opinion and does not specify where or how the DEIS is unclear, so no further response can be made. Comment 44-a: Comment Summary – Supports the project. Comment noted. Speaker 45 – Bryon Sher, Governing Board Member Comment 45-a: Comment Summary – Concerns with the EIR. Traffic – thinks analysis is flawed for reasons outlined by Dan Seigel and because the basis is reduction of gaming, which is in decline. Please refer to Master Response 2. Comment 45-b: Comment Summary – TMDL – Need to address this new standard which will be required in the new Regional Plan. What is the current load of fine sediments and what would be promised by the Alternatives. Will we get a 32% decrease in fine sediments outlined by Lahontan? Please see Master Response 1. The TMDL methodology has been utilized to analyze FSP contribution as noted in Appendix AB of the FEIS. Alternative C will meet and exceed the 32% decrease in FSP. Comment 45-c: Comment Summary – Height amendment – Does it apply lakeside of Highway? Is it a precedent for the whole Community Plan? The height amendment does not apply lakeside of the highway (SR 28). The area in which the proposed additional height may apply is limited to the project area on the north side of the highway and does not extend to land beyond the boundaries of the project area. Comment 45-d: Comment Summary – What is consistency with the North Stateline Community Plan? If not consistent, will the NSCP need to be amended? If so, how will the NSCP be amended and when? SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 185
- 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 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: 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 37 – Ted Fuller, IVGID Chairman<br />
Comment 37-a: Comment Summary – Supports the project speaking as a resident of Incline Village.<br />
Comment noted.<br />
Speaker 38 – Carol Sebrig<br />
Comment 37-a: Comment Summary – Supports the project. Specifically the stormwater plan in Alts<br />
C and D. Alt C was modified based on public input and comments on Alt D.<br />
Comment noted.<br />
Speaker 39 – Scott Teache, North <strong>Tahoe</strong> Preservation Alliance<br />
Comment 39-a: Comment Summary – Reference NTPA handout – please review the list of concerns.<br />
More work is needed to amend the project. Not recommending “do nothing” just a<br />
better project.<br />
Comment noted.<br />
Speaker 40 – Aaron Mince<br />
Comment 40-a: Comment Summary – Supports the project renovation.<br />
Comment noted.<br />
Speaker 41 – Dan Seigel, CA Attorney General’s Office<br />
Comment 41-a: Comment Summary – Party to a Settlement Agreement that must be amended.<br />
Submitted letter with comments – see comment letter 100.<br />
Please see to responses to comments 100-a through 100-g for detailed response to<br />
each comment submitted in comment letter 100.<br />
Comment 41-b: Comment Summary – Biggest issue is traffic baseline – should be actual conditions at<br />
the site per case law.<br />
Please refer to Master Response 2.<br />
Comment 41-c: Comment Summary – The numbers of cars to the site is disclosed for the site. The<br />
DEIS did not support why the existing numbers were not used. Gaming trends will<br />
probably continue downward so trips are probably going to continue to decline for<br />
existing uses.<br />
Please refer to Master Response 2.<br />
Speaker 42 – Chris Reinman, President, North Star Resort<br />
Comment 42-a: Comment Summary – Supports the project.<br />
Comment noted.<br />
Speaker 43 – Patricia Walib<br />
Comment 43-a: Comment Summary – Don’t change current Community Plan document for the North<br />
Stateline. Update the <strong>Regional</strong> Plan before you approve this project and the impacts<br />
(e.g., tree removal).<br />
PAGE 8- 184 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010
Change language