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 lighting with signage and exterior lighting that is consistent with TRPA exterior lighting standards and design guidelines. Comment 322-db: Comment Summary - Why is Code Chapter 21 category F used to calculate density? Please see response to comment 108-b. Comment 322-dc: Comment Summary - Provide elevations and cross-sections of roads. Figure 2-6 in the DEIS presents the proposed roadway realignments. Roadway elevations and details are provided on the civil plan sheets available for review at TRPA as part of the Boulder Bay Project file. The engineering plans are too large and detailed to be included in the DEIS. Comment 322-dd: Comment Summary - Will a batch plant be required for construction? What mitigations are proposed? Currently, an on-site batch plant is not proposed as a part of the construction activities. Comment 322-de: Comment Summary - Provide a clear comparison of the CEP net gain, and do not include utility undergrounding. Traffic and carbon footprint analysis is flawed. See response to comment 286-as. Utility undergrounding is a required TRPA EIP project (EIP # 970) and a stated goal of the NSCP. Please see responses to Master Response 2, 3 and 4, which address the traffic analysis. Please see responses to comments 108-e, 112-a, and 322-c, which address the carbon footprint analysis. Comment 322-df: Comment Summary - Attachment B New Comments on the DEIR (comments address Alt C unless otherwise stated): Comments described below. Please see responses to comments below for specific examples. Comment 322-dg: Comment Summary - 42% increase in size of a TAU and TAUs become ERUs at 1500 sf. The average size of TAUs proposed for the project was considered when analyzing potential impacts of the Proposed Project and Alternatives. For example, the size of TAUs was considered in developing trip generation assumptions for the hotel units and are addressed in the scenic analysis since the size of the units impacts the proposed building size and height. The comment is correct that up to 42 of the TAUs purchased by Boulder Bay for transfer to the project area may be converted and used as ERUs. Under Alternative C, the conversion to ERUs means the average size of those TAU units converted to ERU units will increase to approximately 1,500 square feet compared to the smaller average size assumed for the proposed hotel rooms (e.g., approximately 550 square feet). However, the impact analysis associated with the proposed ERUs utilized the proposed size and type of use when determining effects. Comment 322-dh: Comment Summary - 54% increase in employees, but affordable housing only for 46% of employees (70 new employees with only 38 provided housing). Under Alternative C, affordable housing would be available onsite for 38 out of 74 new employees, which is 51% of new employees. Comment 322-di: Comment Summary - 61% tree removal requires mitigation measures for vegetation loss. PAGE 8- 102 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 Please see response to comment 322-ab. Comment 322-dj: Comment Summary - 4x increase in floor area equates to significant massing. Please see response to comment number 93-g. The floor area proposed for the project is consistent with TRPA density limits established in Code Chapter 21. Comment 322-dk: Comment Summary - All 10 buildings under Alt C exceed allowable base height. Please see response to comment 286-a. Comment 322-dl: Comment Summary - Code amendment for height accommodates Boulder Bay and future phases of boulder bay at Crystal Bay site and sets dangerous precedent. Please see response to comment 93-b. The Crystal Bay Motel site is not included in the proposed height amendment. Comment 322-dm: Comment Summary - Traffic impacts are unknown since baseline doesn't reflect existing conditions. Please refer to Master Response 2, which compares the Proposed Project and Alternatives to an alternative existing baseline. Comment 322-dn: Comment Summary - Transportation plan traffic reduction goals are insufficient. 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 322-do: Comment Summary - Resident and visitor populations of each Alternative are not evaluated. Resident and visitor populations are evaluated in Impacts SPH-2 and SPH-3. Comment 322-dp: Comment Summary - The energy use study is flawed because it is based on the incorrect traffic baseline. Also there is no evaluation of LEED certification claims. Please see response to comment 322-c. The baseline data for the energy use study utilizes actual energy and water bills for the existing structures. The Project doesn't claim to be LEED certified, rather that it is on the registry and will seek certification when final design is complete. In order to obtain certification, the project is being designed to achieve more than 40 points on the LEED project checklist. Comment 322-dq: Comment Summary - The benefits of the proposed reduction in Gaming Floor Area are overstated because existing gaming facilities could fit in proposed casino area. Economic benefits from reducing the gaming floor area are not overstated. Reuse of an underused area with more viable and desirable commercial uses will result in an economic benefit. Since this comment did not refer to a specific statement or page of the DEIS, no further response is possible. Comment 322-dr: Comment Summary - Site currently exceeds allowable land coverage by 81% and only 11% is proposed to be removed resulting is significant over coverage. The comment is noted. Alternative C will reduce verified existing land coverage by 43,841 square feet onsite and an additional 24,476 square feet off site but within the NSCP area for a total reduction of 15.8%. Table 4.2-6 details the actions for the TRPA excess land coverage mitigation program that are necessary to bring the project area into compliance with TRPA land coverage restrictions. The program addresses impacts from historic land coverage within the Lake <strong>Tahoe</strong> Basin SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 103
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: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
Page 101: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
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?