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 Roads Tier 2 EMCs in Table 4.3-3 identifies the EMC limits from the Lake <strong>Tahoe</strong> TMDL Pollutant Reduction Opportunity Report (Praul and Sokulsky) and not the levels measured from SR 28. A clarifying reference will be added to the table notes. See supplemental information for DEIS Appendix P in Appendix AB for additional monitoring results and conclusions. Comment 212-b: Comment Summary - The preferred Alternative may improve water quality by capturing and treating the 50-year, 1-hour storm runoff, LID measures, and coverage reduction Comment noted. Comment 212-c: Comment Summary - Suggests reducing coverage instead of restoring Agate Bay Hydrozone due to limited opportunities. Comment noted. The excess land coverage mitigation program options are disclosed on page 4.2-20 through 4.2-23. TRPA has requested that the land coverage be permanently retired as part of the Project. The project applicant has agreed to permanently retire the maximum amount of land coverage available within the NSCP area consistent with GEO-1 for Alternatives C & D. The retirement of onsite land coverage will be made a condition of the TRPA permit. Comment 212-d: Comment Summary - Will coverage reductions be permanently retired? The excess land coverage mitigation program described in TRPA Code Section 20.5 outlines the procedures for mitigation of impacts from existing or proposed land coverage in excess of TRPA allowable base land coverage for a project area. TRPA allowable base land coverage is calculated following the methods outlined in code Section 20.3.D. Mitigation measure GEO-1 outlines the options for reducing impacts from excess land coverage as identified in the TRPA program. Options include payment of a excess land coverage mitigation fee, permanently retiring onsite land coverage and payment of an excess coverage mitigation fee in adjustment of the remaining excess, or permanent retirement of onsite land coverage and permanent retirement of additional offsite land coverage. The project applicant has agreed to permanently retire the maximum amount of land coverage available within the NSCP area consistent with GEO-1 for Alternatives C & D. The retirement of onsite land coverage will be made a condition of the TRPA permit. Comment 212-e: Comment Summary - The land coverage retirement calculations on p. 4.2-21, "Excess Land Coverage Mitigation Comparison by Alternative," needs better explanation; unclear how the 3,389 sf value was reached. Additional onsite or offsite land coverage retirement (3,389 square feet for Alternative C, 38,314 square feet for Alternative D and 40,747 square feet for Alternative E) identified in Table 4.2-6 to negate the Total Mitigation Fee is the difference between the Excess Land Coverage Mitigation Fee and the Permanently Retired Land Coverage Credit divided by $18 (the Agate Bay Cost Factor Identified in TPRA Code Section 20.5.A.3). For example, for Alternative C, $1,290,705 - $1,229,706/$18 would be valued at 3,389 square feet of additional onsite or offsite land coverage removal. Comment 212-f: Comment Summary - The Nevada Land Bank will look for opportunities to use excess coverage mitigation funds to benefit the basin. Comment noted. The excess land coverage mitigation program options are disclosed on page 4.2-20 through 4.2-23. The project applicant has agreed to permanently retire PAGE 8- 62 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 maximum amount of land coverage available within the NSCP area consistent with GEO-1 for Alternatives C & D. The retirement of onsite land coverage will be made a condition of the TRPA permit. Comment Letter 234 – Trimble, Thomas, 02/02/2010 Comment 234-a: Comment Summary - Form letter - traffic, fine sediment, and BMPs. See Master Responses 1, 2, 3 and 4. Comment 234-b: Comment Summary - Replace traffic light by either a tunnel or bridge for pedestrian Pedestrians currently have a protected crossing on SR 28 at the pedestrian traffic signal and would continue to have a protected crossing with the Project. Even with construction of a tunnel or bridge, it is likely that pedestrians would continue to cross SR 28 at the street level because pedestrians typically follow the path with the shortest distance and travel time. A grade separated crossing would not reduce travel distance or time. Comment Letter 235 – Tulloch, John, 02/02/2010 Comment 235-a: Comment Summary - Plans attempt to put an overly large number of hotel rooms, time shares, and other housing in a space that is not suitable for it. As documented in Impacts LU-1 and LU-2, the density and land uses proposed in the Boulder Bay Project are consistent with the NSCP. No timeshare units are included within the program for the proposed project (Alternative C). Comment 235-b: Comment Summary - Traffic analysis does not adequately take into account the true effects of adding so many people to such a small space. Please refer to Master Response 2, which compares the Proposed Project and Alternatives to an alternative existing baseline. Comment Letter 236 – Uskert, Kathleen, 02/02/2010 Comment 236-a: Comment Summary - Concerned about impact traffic will have. 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 237 – Vanderlaan, Justin, 02/02/2010 Comment 273-a: Comment Summary: Consider increase in traffic that development will incur. Please refer to Master Response 2, which compares the Proposed Project and Alternatives to an alternative existing baseline. Comment Letter 244 – Anderson, Terri, 02/03/2010 Comment 244-a: Comment Summary: EIS needs adequate traffic analysis. Please refer to Master Response 2, which compares the Proposed Project and Alternatives to an alternative existing baseline. Comment 244-b: Comment Summary - EIS needs to include meaningful quantification of water quality benefits. SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 63
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: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
Page 61: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
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?