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 Road and Lakeview Avenue will be limited to the residents of upper Crystal Bay (approximately 7 homes within ¼ mile of the Proposed Project). There are no project area driveways on Lakeview Avenue or Wassou Road, and there is no direct access to the project area from SR 28 via Lakeview Avenue or Wassou Road; therefore, traffic volumes will be associated with residents of upper Crystal Bay. The Project proposes adequate on-site parking for each of the Alternatives; therefore parking will not become an issue on Lakeview Avenue or Wassou Road. Comment Letter 120 – Wright, Frank, 12/30/2009 Comment 120-a: Comment Summary - Cut the size of the project down. 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 122 – Ellis, Jan, 01/02/2010 Comment 122-a: Comment Summary – Opposes overall scale and height increases, especially if they block anyone’s existing views. Please see response to comment 117-a. Comment 122-b: Comment Summary - How will traffic decrease when the amount of rooms and facilities increase? The Proposed Project (Alternative C) includes increased rooms and amenities. The trip generation is less than the existing site because the Proposed Project reduces the quantity of certain uses which have a high level of trip generation such as gaming. The Proposed Project also has a mix of uses that will reduce vehicle trips by keeping people on the project area, as opposed to driving to find a service or amenities elsewhere. For example, at the existing site, guests have limited dining options, which forces them to leave the site to find other dining opportunities. The Proposed Project offers several options, increasing the likelihood that a guest will eat at a restaurant on the site and not create a vehicle trip to an off-site restaurant. The Proposed Project offers a balanced mix of land uses that provides adequate recreation, retail, restaurant, and service opportunities, encouraging guests to stay on the site and day visitors to take advantage of on-site amenities. Providing a balanced land use mix is a proven way to reduce vehicle traffic associated with a mixed-use site. Comment 122-c: Comment Summary - The effects on Brockway neighborhood and Buck's Beach. People will want to go to the closest most accessible beach - creates problems for homeowners and law enforcement. Impacts to Buck's Beach, known as Speedboat Beach are discussed in REC-1. The EIS recognizes that guests will want to access the closest beaches and provides Mitigation Measure REC-1 to dissuade guests from using the beach and by providing access to other area beaches with greater amenities such as restrooms and picnic tables. Boulder Bay is also sponsoring improvements to the summer trolley service that will also make access to Kings Beach more convenient for Boulder Bay guests and other local residents. Law enforcement review of the Boulder Bay Project has not indicated a concern over increased beach populations. Please see response to comment 171-d. PAGE 8- 48 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 Comment Letter 124 – Crooke, Steve M., State of Nevada, Department of Transportation, 01/05/2010 Comment 124-a: Comment Summary - A permit from NDOT is required to widen SR 28, and permit conditions may affect final project design. The Project proponent will obtain appropriate NDOT encroachment permits. Comment 124-b: Comment Summary - The current drainage system does not have capacity to handle additional runoff. The EIS needs to describe where and how the runoff would be conveyed and treated. The statement that existing infrastructure does not have the reserve capacity to treat and/or infiltrate the additional runoff is correct. Site deficiencies concerning stormwater treatment have been directly addressed by the Project design and the stormwater treatment systems proposed for each Alternative, including the No Project Alternatives A and B. Impact HYDRO-3 (page 4.3-36 through 4.2-47) details the proposed stormwater treatment systems for Alternatives A, B, C, D and E. Alternatives A, B and E will capture, convey and infiltrate the 20yr/1hr storm total runoff volume, while Alternatives C and D will capture, convey and infiltrate up to the 100yr/1hr storm total runoff volume. For Alternatives C and D, the stormwater treatment system schematic is illustrated in Figures 4.3-1, 4.3-2 and 4.3-3. For Alternatives A, B and E, the stormwater treatment system is described on pages 4.3- 36 and 4.2-37. Design Plans for the BMP Retrofit for Existing Conditions (Alternatives A, B and E) was first submitted to TRPA in August 2007. These design plans were updated and resubmitted in December of 2009, are available for review in the public project file and are provided as supplemental information for DEIS Appendix P in Appendix AB. Under all Alternatives runoff from the TRPA 20yr/1hr design storm (e.g. the current regulatory requirement) will not leave the project area untreated or enter into NDOT ROWs. The Project addresses as much of the historic interstate runoff issues as possible. Any persisting runoff from NDOT ROWs will need to be coordinated directly with Caltrans since the project area will no longer be contributing to "pass through discharge" from SR 28. Furthermore, Alternatives C and D propose to capture, convey and infiltrate a significant portion of runoff from NDOT ROWs. As discussed in Impact GEO-1, land coverage within Washoe county and SR 28 ROWs will be assumed into the project area, a portion of the land coverage will be removed, and the remaining excess coverage will be mitigated by the Project. Please see responses to comments 337-a through 337-n. Comment 124-c: Comment Summary - The EIS needs to address additional pedestrian traffic crossing SR 28 generated by the project. Pedestrians were analyzed at the SR 28/Pedestrian Crossing intersection for the Alternatives. When a pedestrian (or group of pedestrians) pushes the button to actuate the signal, it sends a “call” to the signal to activate the pedestrian phase. As an exercise to further confirm the analysis results in the DEIS, the signal was analyzed assuming 60 pedestrian calls per hour (3 times the number of calls originally analyzed for existing plus project conditions). Table 8.5-6 shows the delay and queue lengths for existing plus Alternative C conditions (as presented in the DEIS), and existing plus Alternative C conditions (with an increase in pedestrian calls). SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 49
Page 1 and 2: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
Page 47: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
Page 99 and 100:
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?