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
Boulder Bay to apply for bonus TAUs from the TRPA special project pool at a one to
one ratio.
Comment 322-fk: Comment Summary - 4.1-27 Describe with more detail how the project proposes to
meet the transfer provisions as set forth in the Code for sensitive lands. How many
units are proposed to be transferred onto lands considered as environmentally
sensitive? Provide analysis by each Alternative. What entitlements are proposed to
be relocated or transferred onto sensitive land? Describe transfers separate from
relocation of existing.
Please see response to comment 322-ff. DEIS Figure 4.2-2 shows the land capability
within the project area. A small portion of Building B (tourist accommodation units)
and all of Building A will be located within sensitive LCD 1a and 2 lands. This
portion of the project area is the location of the former Tahoe Mariner and was
previously disturbed. Page 4.1-27 of the DEIS addresses the requirements for the
transfer of TAUs and ERUs to the Boulder Bay project area. ERUs for Building A
and TAUs for the portion of Building B located within LCD 1a will come from the
SEZ (LCD 1b) restoration associated with the Boulder Bay owned units from The
Colony Inn.
Comment 322-fl: Comment Summary - How is neighborhood compatibility addressed, specifically to
surrounding residential uses that are much smaller scale? Are neighbors supportive
and how is their quality of life impacted?
Neighborhood compatibility is addressed in Impact LU-2. This Project is a tourist
development that replaces an existing tourist development. There are other tourist
developments adjacent to and near the project area. There are also residential units in
the area, which are located near casinos, hotels, and other tourist uses. The uses
proposed by the Project are consistent with the Community Plan. Although there are
smaller scale residential uses nearby, the land use associated with the Project is the
same as the existing land use for the site.
Comment 322-fm: Comment Summary - What mitigation measures are proposed to protect the
neighbors? DEIS does not address blocked views, increase of traffic, cars and other
vehicles parked in surrounding neighborhoods, etc.
Please refer to Master Response 2, which compares the Proposed Project and
Alternatives to an alternative existing baseline.
A Shared Parking analysis (based on the methodology presented in the Urban Land
Institute’s (ULI) Shared Parking), which accounts for internalization between uses
and time of day factors, was performed to determine the minimum number of parking
spaces that will be needed to adequately serve the uses included in each Alternative.
The maximum number of parking spaces allowed by the NSCP was also calculated
based on the land uses included in each Alternative. The number of parking spaces
proposed as part of each Alternative falls between the minimum and maximum
required number of parking spaces.
Please see response to comment 117-a regarding impacts to views.
Comment 322-fn: Comment Summary - S-31 Public gathering places and art displays are currently
part of the existing Biltmore operations and are required as part of the CEP. These
should be portrayed as such.
The Biltmore currently has no outdoor public gathering spaces or art displays.
Recommendations included in the CEP for uses such as public gathering spaces are
PAGE 8- 114 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010