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 The TSS loads calculated from the results of the pre-project monitoring program were presented in the DEIS as estimates for existing conditions. The DEIS further explains that the calculation method employed should be used with caution because of the small sample size, as is appropriate with preliminary data. The supplemental analysis using the calibrated LSPC coefficients predicts load reductions for total sediment and fine sediment. The results of the supplemental analysis (Appendix AB) further support the level of impact conclusions for HYDRO-1 of less than significant. The JBR event grab sampling data for 2008-2009 was found to be consistent with the DRI data. Using the DRI data for the Tahoe Biltmore site in the supplemental analysis, regressions between event sediment loads (kg) and nutrient loads (g) enabled computation of nutrient loads per runoff event. Nine data points were available for each regression and each data point represents the cumulative nutrient mass from multiple samples collected during the runoff hydrograph such that a total mass per event could be determined. The available data is adequate to develop a robust correlation. Comment 79-i: Comment Summary - The impact needs to distinguish between TSS and fine sediment load to understand impacts to lake clarity. Comment noted. Please see Appendix AB of the FEIS, Master Response 1, and responses to comments 79-g and 79-h. Comment Letter 83 – Henrioulle, Ann Marie, 12/10/2009 Comment 83-a: Comment Summary - Proponent of electric rail. 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 Letter 93 – North Tahoe Preservation Alliance, 12/12/2009 Comment 93-a: Comment Summary - LU-1: Alternative C is inconsistent with: Mariner Settlement Agreement, NSCP height maximums (requiring change to NSCP and community plan), NSCP maximum new CFA, NSCP density maximums (Chapter 21), sidewalk requirements, NSCP requirements for family destination resort, and buffering of adjacent uses. Please see response to comment 37-a. The EIS analyzed the potential impacts of amending Code Chapter 22 for additional height and concluded that the proposed amendment would not result in significant impacts. No other amendments are required for the Boulder Bay Project. As such, Alternative C is consistent with the Regional Plan, as potentially amended. The NSCP does not currently contain any Design Standards or Design Guidelines for building height. According to the NSCP, the TRPA Code of Ordinances governs any issues which are not addressed in the community plan. It has been confirmed with Washoe County Community Development and Placer County Executive Office that neither County believes that an amendment to the NSCP is required. Both counties concur that an amendment to Chapter 22 is all that is required. PAGE 8- 28 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 None of the Alternatives exceed the NSCP density maximums or increase the amount of CFA in the NSCP. As documented in DEIS Table 3.2-2, Alternatives C & D meet the NSCP goals and objectives for sidewalk amenities, buffering and implementation of family oriented destination resort amenities. Comment 93-b: Comment Summary - LU-2: Alternative C expands/intensifies non-conforming height and massing, height amendments affect Crystal Bay Motel site, multi-family special use is proposed, and development on Mariner is intensified from 3SFR to part of 2 hotels and 24 MFU. Approval of the proposed height amendment would eliminate conflicts with existing height limits. The analysis contained in the EIS concludes that additional height would not result in significant impacts for Alternative C. The land located on the lakeside of SR 28, including the Crystal Bay Motel, is not included in the proposed height amendment (see Appendix AC for a revised Chapter 22 height amendment that clarifies the applicable boundary for the additional height limits). Allowing multi-family housing as a special use would not constitute a non-confirming land use because it is an allowed use in the NSCP if required findings can be made as documented in Impact LU-1. Please see response to comment 37-a regarding the Mariner Settlement Agreement. The stated objective of the TRPA Community Design Goal #2, Policy 1.B is to ensure attractive and compatible development. 1. Building height shall be limited to two stories except that provisions for additional height requirements shall be provided for unique situations such as lighting towers, ski towers, steep sites, redevelopment projects and tourist accommodation facilities. 2. Building height limits shall be established to ensure that buildings do not project above the forest canopy, ridge lines, or otherwise detract from the viewshed. 3. Buffer requirements shall be established for noise, snow removal, aesthetic, and environmental purposes. 4. The scale of structures should be consistent with surrounding uses. 5. Viewshed should be considered in all new construction. Emphasis should be placed on lake views from major transportation corridors. Consistent with this goal, the design of the proposed Boulder Bay project would allow the following objectives to be achieved: 1. The proposed redevelopment would reduce the total site coverage by 15%. 2. Improve the Scenic Travel Route Rating by 1.5 points. 3. Protecting views of the project area from Lake Tahoe 4. Increase setback and buffers of the buildings by 4x from SR 28 and by +12x for the tallest buildings. Buffer along Stateline Road is increased from less than 5 ft today to over 20 ft for the proposed project. 5. Locate the buildings in a stair stepped fashion so that lower buildings are in front of taller buildings, thus reducing the visibility of tall structures from SR 28 and the pedestrian areas. 6. Building heights are limited to less than two-thirds of the existing tree canopy. 7. Provide for “old Tahoe” architectural design of the buildings types and heights, which in turn improves scenic quality and design interest. SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 29
Page 1 and 2: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
Page 27: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
Page 79 and 80:
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
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:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187:
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?