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
area of buildings would increase to approximately 589,000 square feet. Under
Alternative E, the gross floor area of buildings would increase to approximately
290,000 square feet.
Comment 322-gy: Comment Summary - Why are none of the buildings conforming to height in Alt C?
One of the goals of the project is to reduce building footprints and land coverage
needed for the development program. Building height is extensively analyzed in
Impact SR-1 in Chapter 4.5 of the DEIS. The 76 foot tall legally existing Biltmore
Hotel building exceeds allowable height standards. Building heights that conform to
existing height standards would be limited due to how allowable height is calculated
on highly sloped areas. To meet existing height standards, Boulder Bay would have
to design buildings that consume greater land coverage. A height amendment is
proposed for the Boulder Bay project to address the land coverage issue. Please
refer to the revised proposed special height district amendment presented in
Appendix AC of the FEIS.
Comment 322-gz: Comment Summary - Do the three multi-family buildings have separate entrances?
They appear to be 3 separate buildings joined at the roof, why are they referred to as
one building?
Building A has covered walkways on each level that runs the full length of the three
residential buildings.
Comment 322-ha: Comment Summary - LU-1 95% height is not inconsistent with NSCP. LU-2
Nonconforming height expanded in NCSP is inconsistent. Please address.
Please see responses to comments 93-g and 286-j.
Comment 322-hb: Comment Summary - Table 3.2-1 incorrectly states that new height is consistent with
the NSCP. The proposed height code amendment requires a community plan
amendment, which should be analyzed separately in advance of an actual project.
Please see response to comment 93-g and 286-j. The proposed building heights are
consistent with implementation of the Code of Ordinances Chapter 22 amendment.
Please refer to the revised proposed special height district amendment presented in
Appendix AC of the FEIS.
Comment 322-hc: Comment Summary - Current structures are not visible from the Lake but proposed
structures will be. Why wouldn't visibility decrease the shoreline score as viewed
from the Lake? All new structures block views of mountains.
Under Alternative C, the existing Crystal Bay Motel would be removed and proposed
structures would be visible where the motel structure was previously located. The
amount of structure visibility would not increase and therefore, the impact would be
less than significant. Under Alternative D, the amount of structures visible would
increase through the existing tree line based on the additional height of structures
under Alternative D. Therefore, under Alternative D, the impact from Lake Tahoe
viewpoints is considered to be significant.
Comment 322-hd: Comment Summary - How is there adequate buffering of adjacent uses and
neighborhood compatibility when there is only a 20' setback from Stateline
Rd./Lakeview to 65- and 75-foot high buildings?
Please see response to comment 93-b. The measured height of the buildings viewed
from adjacent roadways are documented in Table 8.5-7.
SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 121