FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS<br />
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<br />
Comment 322-iv: Comment Summary - The 19,089 sf of space for the health and wellness center should<br />
be used in the calculations for traffic and parking because it is a separate use from<br />
the Hotel Use.<br />
Master Response 3 provides additional detail on project trip generation associated<br />
with accessory uses. The spa and wellness services will be scheduled, operated and<br />
billed through the hotel operations. To access the spa, guests will have to enter the<br />
main hotel entrance located at the front of Building C. There is no separate entrance<br />
for the spa, and guests will use the hotel parking lot, not separate or dedicated<br />
parking. Therefore, it is not considered a separate use for purposes of the traffic and<br />
parking analysis.<br />
Comment 322-iw: Comment Summary - How can the wellness center and conference center be used for<br />
the community and community events without generating additional VMT or without<br />
advertising? Will facilities be truly run solely and exclusively by project operators?<br />
Please see response to comment 322-ih.<br />
Comment 322-ix: Comment Summary - DEIS does not discuss any request for transfer additional CFA<br />
to the Community Plan area. The proposed wellness center alone should require<br />
19,089 CFA. Please clarify.<br />
Please see responses to comments 286-y and 286-ab. The wellness center is<br />
considered accessory floor area, not commercial floor area. As discussed in Chapter<br />
2, the current CFA (including certified gaming area) is 56,322 square feet. Under<br />
Alternative C, total CFA will be reduced by 17,835 square feet, and 38,487 square<br />
feet of existing CFA will be utilized. There is no need to transfer additional CFA to<br />
the NSCP for this Project.<br />
Comment 322-iy: Comment Summary - DEIS is confusing and misleading as Figure 2-6 shows a<br />
"Proposed Roadway Realignment" that conforms to the County approval while<br />
Figures 2-4 and 2-5 show a combined driveway configuration.<br />
Figures 2-4 and 2-5 illustrate the Proposed Project Site Plan and the Proposed<br />
Pedestrian and Bike System, respectively. The proposed roadway alignments can be<br />
identified within these figures. Figure 2-6, however, specifically illustrates the<br />
Proposed Roadway Realignment that underlies the configurations depicted in Figures<br />
2-4 and 2-5, including driveway access easements, portions of which will serve as<br />
pedestrian gathering areas when not necessary for emergency access routes. Washoe<br />
County, at the time of a project approval by TRPA, can consider changes to the<br />
internal roadway configuration that have been modified since the time of the right-ofway<br />
abandonment hearings.<br />
Comment 322-iz: Comment Summary - If Figures 2-4 and 2-5 represent the preferred Alternative the<br />
driveway configuration should be reconsidered by the County as the County<br />
Engineer's authority to approve modifications is limited to width and entrance<br />
dimensions.<br />
Please see response to comment 93-q.<br />
Comment noted. Project roadways will be designed and constructed in accordance<br />
with appropriate Washoe County standards.<br />
Comment 322-ja: Comment Summary - Given the need for ready access in all weather and potentially<br />
during fire emergencies it appears reckless to provide a road less than what would<br />
be required for public roads.<br />
PAGE 8- 130 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010