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
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