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 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. Speaker 46 – Steven Merrill, Governing Board Member Comment 46-a: Comment Summary – Traffic Methodology – use existing numbers. Please refer to Master Response 2. Comment 46-b: Comment Summary – Water quality baseline – should be condition with current water quality requirements in place – not what is there now. The water quality analysis presents existing conditions and proposed conditions as compared to current State and regional water quality standards. Please refer to Master Response 1 and Appendix AB of the FEIS for a review of the supplemental water quality analysis. The analysis does not change the conclusions concerning level of impact. Comment 46-c: Comment Summary – What does it mean to treat 100 year vs. 20 year storm event? What is this worth? Please see Master Response 1 and Appendix AB of the FEIS. Comment 46-d: Comment Summary – ARUP study – sounds like the comparison was not apples to apples. 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 46-e: Comment Summary – Traffic – questionable assumptions re: generation of traffic for a project on the north shore. Not analogous to other resort areas with other recreation amenities in place. Boulder Bay will not be a destination resort like the Hyatt. Please refer to Master Responses 2, 3 and 4 concerning the supplemental traffic analysis. The latter comment 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 46-f: Comment Summary – Thinks that the analysis can’t be linked to the developer because he can sell the 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. Speaker 47 – Casey Beyer, Governing Board Member Comment 47-a: Comment Summary – Wants to know more about organizations that are commenting on these projects. Who do they represent? A list of each person or agency that commented on the project is provided in Section 8.4 above. PAGE 8- 186 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 Speaker 48 – John Breternitz, Governing Board Member Comment 48-a: Comment Summary – Clarified the next steps of the FEIS process? Comment was addressed orally during the December 9, 2009 TRPA Advisory Planning Commission Hearing. Please refer to the introductory sections of this section of the FEIS, Chapter 8. Speaker 49 – Larry Sevinson, Governing Board Member Comment 49-a: Comment Summary – Brockway water quality project is associated with this project and is being held up waiting for a decision. Wants a better solution to connect areas with bikes. Comment noted. 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 50 – Shelly Aldean, Governing Board Member Comment 50-a: Comment Summary – Mariner Settlement Agreement – if not amended, project is stuck in the water. Does the CA Attorney General plan to amend the Settlement Agreement if their impact concerns are met? Please see responses to comments 37-a, 93-a, 93-b, 322-w and 322-ia, which discuss the Mariner Settlement Agreement and required actions. Speaker 51 – Timothy Cashman, Governing Board Member Comment 51-a: Comment Summary – Asked several process questions regarding the process of the FEIS preparation. Comment was addressed orally during the December 9, 2009 TRPA Advisory Planning Commission Hearing. Please refer to the introductory sections of this section of the FEIS, Chapter 8. SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 187
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:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
Page 185: 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?