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 inclusion of the Stateline mini-park parcel or the proposed public-private Water
Quality project is not required to achieve TRPA requirements for the Boulder Bay
project onsite stormwater capture, commonly referred to as the 20yr BMP.
Downhill of the Boulder Bay project site Placer County is proposing to implement
the Brockway Water Quality Improvement Project (“Brockway WQIP”) to capture
and treat stormwater runoff from the Brockway residential area on the north shore of
Lake Tahoe in an effort to meet its storm water compliance standards affiliated with
TRPA Waste Discharge Requirements and Placer County’s National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System Permit issued by the Lahontan Regional Water
Quality Control Board (Lahontan). The Brockway WQIP project is a TRPA EIPidentified
project designed to improve water quality along State Route 28 in the north
Stateline area of the Tahoe Basin and includes the Stateline Interstate Flow
Mitigation system WQIP (SIFMS) and the Placer County Brockway WQIP. The full
project, including the SIFMS and the Brockway WQIP, is also referred to as EIP
Project No. 732.
The installation of the SIFMS by Boulder Bay on the California parcel is part of a
public private partnership with Placer County, CALTRANS, NDOT, USFS and the
California Tahoe Conservancy to complete TRPA Environmental Improvement
Project 732 (EIP 732). Placer County is the project lead and prepared a CEQA
review for the California parcel as part of the Brockway Erosion Control Project (EIP
732). The project was approved under a Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for
the project by Placer County Department of Public Works on August 6, 2007
pursuant to CEQA.
EIP 732 addresses the long-standing issue of flooding related to the uncontrolled
flow of storm water through the Brockway community during large storm events.
The EIP involvement is separate from the standard regulatory BMP requirements and
is an above and beyond investment in environmental improvement.
Comment 93-f: Comment Summary - BIO-6: Alt. C Trees in total project number 368, 225 are to be
removed = 61%.
As documented in Table 4.4-6 of the DEIS, 109 of the 225 trees proposed to be
removed are based on arborist recommendations associated with tree health. The
project area does not provide habitat for sensitive wildlife species. As such, the
removal of existing trees is not considered to be a significant impact. The TRPA
required findings for the removal of trees larger than 24 inches dbh is addressed in
Impact BIO-6. The analysis and findings completed for the DEIS regarding
biological resources was consistent with and in compliance, procedurally and
substantively with the TRPA Code of Ordinances.
Comment 93-g: Comment Summary - SR-1: Alt. C is inconsistent with allowed NSCP height
maximum. A massing study was requested but not supplied during NOP.
Community plans do not provide substitute standards for height as they do for some
other areas of the TRPA Code of Ordinances. A Community Plan does not override
height standards provided in TRPA Code Chapter 22. Massing studies allow the
designer to explore design ideas by using shapes to conceptualize a building model.
For the Boulder Bay Project, the use of detailed scenic simulations from TRPAselected
viewpoints served as the massing study/visual assessment of the proposed
development changes. The analysis and findings completed for the DEIS regarding
SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 31