FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency 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 amendment is not adopted, Alternatives C and D would be inconsistent with building height regulations and would be considered a significant impact. Comment 332-ai: Comment Summary - Changes to the NSCP should be addressed under CEQA. Please see response to comment 286-ai. Changes to the NSCP are not proposed. An amendment to the TRPA Code of Ordinances Chapter 22 (Height) is proposed, but this will not result in an amendment to the NSCP, nor will it result in additional height on the California side of the NSCP. Comment 332-aj: Comment Summary - The EIS should clarify quantities of height, square footage, volume (massing and bulk) of the Alternatives. Building heights are provided in Table 4.5-4 of the DEIS. Please see response to comment 322-gx regarding building square footages. Comment 332-ak: Comment Summary - The shoreline score should consider visibility from the lake. Please see response to comment 322-hc. Comment 332-al: Comment Summary - The EIS should consider shadowing and night lighting impacts. Please see responses to comments 169 and 322-da. Comment 332-am: Comment Summary - Crystal Bay Motel removal should not count as scenic mitigation unless it is deed restricted to prevent new development. Removal of the Crystal Bay Motel is not a mitigation measure, but a scenic quality improvement or benefit of the proposed project development (Alternatives C and D). A deed restriction on the Crystal Bay Motel site is not currently identified as a project component or mitigation measure; however a variety of constraints exist for future development of the site. Constraints for future development under Alternative C include: 1) A TRPA permit would be required, which includes additional environmental review, 2) Alternative C utilizes the maximum density of the project area, so only commercial uses could be proposed on the Crystal Bay Motel site, and 3) Boulder Bay is proposing to permanently retire banked land coverage within the project area, so any future development on the Crystal Bay Motel site would require land coverage transfer. Comment 332-an: Comment Summary - Alt. C height calculations show flat roofs, but visual simulations show steeper roofs. The EIS needs to address this discrepancy in the height and visual impact analysis. Please see response to comment 322-cp. Comment 332-ao: Comment Summary - The EIS should describe and analyze a landscape plan with visual screening. Please see response to comment 322-hs. Comment 332-ap: Comment Summary - The EIS should provide an accounting of the sources and sizes of the sending and receiving TAUs and ERUs, and CFA conversions to TAUs. Please see response to comment 322-fg. Pages 4.1-23 and 4.1-24 of the DEIS provides a description and list of the Boulder Bay owned TAUs. Exact sizes of the purchased TAUs is not available, but is assumed that they averaged approximately 325 square feet per unit. PAGE 8- 138 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 Comment 332-aq: Comment Summary - The EIS should quantify the sizes of sending and receiving TAUs and ERUs, and relate this to the analysis on energy use estimates. Energy use analysis needs to include all facility operations such as snow melting and accessory floor space uses, not just the units. The energy use analysis includes all areas and operations including outdoor fountains, underground garages, spa and wellness facilities, restaurants, food service, and non-occupancy spaces. Energy use and water consumption for sending TAUs and ERUs were based on average per unit use derived for the Biltmore and Crystal Bay Motel. Since the occupancy units are of a similar size and age, energy use per unit is similar. Comment 332-ar: Comment Summary - The EIS should consider impacts of a CFA to TAU conversion in the Basin, especially since there is a surplus of CFA and demand for TAUs. Please see response to comment 322-fg. Boulder Bay has decided to forgo the conversion of CFA into TAUs on the former Tahoe Mariner site. Comment 332-as: Comment Summary - The Project would be inconsistent with the NSCP by exceeding the TAU limit of 565 to 715 additional units. The limit expressed in the NSCP is only related to bonus units from a specific NSCP allocation pool. The ability to bring in other special project bonus units or transfer existing units is not subject to the NSCP limit. Please see response to comment 322ff. Comment 332-at: Comment Summary - The EIS needs to provide a clear, quantitative accounting in a chart and a map of the coverage calculations, parcel by parcel, of area, verified coverage, development rights, owner, Washoe County ROW. Appendix AD has been provided in the FEIS to provide land coverage calculations by parcel and public ROW area. Comment 332-au: Comment Summary - The EIS needs to clarify the discrepancy between 339,884 sf of coverage on p. 4.2-21 and App. D. 354,332 sf. Please see response to comment 322-ei. Comment 332-av: Comment Summary - Does not believe density calculations are accurate, and are based on a false interpretation of the Mariner Agreement, and use of lands outside the NSCP, Washoe County ROW, Crystal Bay Motel, and failure to use Category E. Please see responses to comments 108-b and 322-ds. Comment 332-aw: Comment Summary - The EIS summary Alternative comparison does not compare each project element for all Alternatives in the Summary Chapter. Alternative A and B should include the number of hotel units, parking spaces and gaming floor area as is included for Alternatives C, D, and E. The Summary Chapter should show the reduction in existing and certified gaming area, because the current method of reporting this information is misleading. The following text will be added to the Summary Chapter as follows (new text is Bolded and Underlined): Alternative A Alternative A consists of the following uses: 111 tourist accommodation units (hotel); 18,089 square feet of commercial floor area; 39,603 square feet of hotel SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 139
- Page 87 and 88: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 89 and 90: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 91 and 92: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 93 and 94: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 95 and 96: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 97 and 98: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 99 and 100: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 101 and 102: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 103 and 104: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 105 and 106: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 107 and 108: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 109 and 110: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 111 and 112: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 113 and 114: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 115 and 116: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 117 and 118: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 119 and 120: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 121 and 122: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 123 and 124: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 125 and 126: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 127 and 128: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 129 and 130: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 131 and 132: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 133 and 134: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 135 and 136: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 137: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 141 and 142: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 143 and 144: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 145 and 146: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 147 and 148: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 149 and 150: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 151 and 152: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 153 and 154: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 155 and 156: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 157 and 158: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 159 and 160: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 161 and 162: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 163 and 164: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 165 and 166: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 167 and 168: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 169 and 170: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 171 and 172: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 173 and 174: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 175 and 176: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 177 and 178: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 179 and 180: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 181 and 182: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 183 and 184: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 185 and 186: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 187: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
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 />
amendment is not adopted, Alternatives C and D would be inconsistent with building<br />
height regulations and would be considered a significant impact.<br />
Comment 332-ai: Comment Summary - Changes to the NSCP should be addressed under CEQA.<br />
Please see response to comment 286-ai. Changes to the NSCP are not proposed. An<br />
amendment to the TRPA Code of Ordinances Chapter 22 (Height) is proposed, but<br />
this will not result in an amendment to the NSCP, nor will it result in additional<br />
height on the California side of the NSCP.<br />
Comment 332-aj: Comment Summary - The EIS should clarify quantities of height, square footage,<br />
volume (massing and bulk) of the Alternatives.<br />
Building heights are provided in Table 4.5-4 of the DEIS. Please see response to<br />
comment 322-gx regarding building square footages.<br />
Comment 332-ak: Comment Summary - The shoreline score should consider visibility from the lake.<br />
Please see response to comment 322-hc.<br />
Comment 332-al: Comment Summary - The EIS should consider shadowing and night lighting impacts.<br />
Please see responses to comments 169 and 322-da.<br />
Comment 332-am: Comment Summary - Crystal Bay Motel removal should not count as scenic<br />
mitigation unless it is deed restricted to prevent new development.<br />
Removal of the Crystal Bay Motel is not a mitigation measure, but a scenic quality<br />
improvement or benefit of the proposed project development (Alternatives C and D).<br />
A deed restriction on the Crystal Bay Motel site is not currently identified as a project<br />
component or mitigation measure; however a variety of constraints exist for future<br />
development of the site. Constraints for future development under Alternative C<br />
include: 1) A TRPA permit would be required, which includes additional<br />
environmental review, 2) Alternative C utilizes the maximum density of the project<br />
area, so only commercial uses could be proposed on the Crystal Bay Motel site, and<br />
3) Boulder Bay is proposing to permanently retire banked land coverage within the<br />
project area, so any future development on the Crystal Bay Motel site would require<br />
land coverage transfer.<br />
Comment 332-an: Comment Summary - Alt. C height calculations show flat roofs, but visual<br />
simulations show steeper roofs. The EIS needs to address this discrepancy in the<br />
height and visual impact analysis.<br />
Please see response to comment 322-cp.<br />
Comment 332-ao: Comment Summary - The EIS should describe and analyze a landscape plan with<br />
visual screening.<br />
Please see response to comment 322-hs.<br />
Comment 332-ap: Comment Summary - The EIS should provide an accounting of the sources and sizes<br />
of the sending and receiving TAUs and ERUs, and CFA conversions to TAUs.<br />
Please see response to comment 322-fg. Pages 4.1-23 and 4.1-24 of the DEIS<br />
provides a description and list of the Boulder Bay owned TAUs. Exact sizes of the<br />
purchased TAUs is not available, but is assumed that they averaged approximately<br />
325 square feet per unit.<br />
PAGE 8- 138 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010
Change language