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 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
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 benefits of the EIP program and are included in the Project under Alternatives C and D (e.g., the public park on the former Mariner site, the proposed art exhibits and seating along Boulder Way, and the Stateline mini-park). Comment 322-fo: Comment Summary - S-32 What is the current useable space on the Mariner site based on site constraints such as slope, access, ease of parking, etc versus what is being proposed in terms of useable space, slope, easy of access, etc? Please provide comparison chart to clarify as of now discussion is confusing. Figure 2-3 in DEIS Chapter 2 documents the existing site conditions within the project area, including the former Tahoe Mariner site, which was located in the portion of the project area labeled APN 123-071-34 and designated as "Sierra Park". Proposed development under Alternatives C and D would be located on the southern most portions of the "Sierra Park" parcels. Comment 322-fp: Comment Summary - The North Stateline water quality basin is more of a gateway feature/greenbelt and to call it a "park" is a stretch. The name and recommended facilities for the Stateline Lake Vista mini-park is identified on page 5-2 of the NSCP. Comment 322-fq: Comment Summary - The proposed parks are non-contiguous which diminishes effectiveness of a true neighborhood park. What are the future trails and paths that DEIS discusses? What guarantee is there that these trails/paths will ever connect anywhere? The proposed park includes seating areas, footpaths, historic interpretive kiosks, and vistas and will be built and maintained by Boulder Bay. Not all parks need to include play structures, ball fields, and picnic areas. Per the previous Tahoe Mariner Settlement Agreements, the park area need not contain any of these features, nor must it be a dedicated park area as the proposed park would be. The trails can be seen in Figure 2-5, showing their location and potential connections to other trails and roadways. Comment 322-fr: Comment Summary - Is there linkage to the Crystal Bay lookout? The Crystal Bay Lookout can be accessed via Lakeview Avenue. The distance from the resort to the lookout point is approximately 1.2 miles. Please see response to comment 322-ca. Comment 322-fs: Comment Summary - Transportation mitigation is inadequate for this project as it does not consider connectors beyond the project boundary in terms of sidewalks or bike paths. Mitigation should include a requirement for construction of a sidewalk connection between the Boulder Bay project and the proposed project at the bottom of Brockway Hill. Please see responses to comments 322-ch and 322-fx. Comment 322-ft: Comment Summary - How many employees live in Kings Beach and presently commute up Brockway Hill to work at the Biltmore? How many are anticipated to make this commute with the Proposed Project? The trip generation rates for each land use take into account visitors to that land use, including guests, residents, employees, etc. The external trips, as modeled, account for employees who commute into work. SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 115
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:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
Page 113: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
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?