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
Comment 338-o: Comment Summary - With only 10 surface parking spaces in preferred “C” guests
will park on the surface streets impacting neighborhood parking? What parking is
normally required for the build-out and how much is being reduced for a mixed use?
Alternative C proposes a total of 540 parking spaces (530 will be in underground
structures). The North Stateline Community Plan (NSCP) provides regulations to
determine the maximum number of parking spaces allowed for a project. The
maximum number of parking spaces allowed for Alternative C was calculated based
on the land uses included in the Alternative. The maximum number of parking
spaces allowed for Alternative C is 783. 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. Alternative C shall provide a minimum
of 491 parking spaces. The number of parking spaces proposed as part of Alternative
C falls between the minimum and maximum required number of parking spaces and
therefore adequate onsite parking is provided and impacts to neighborhood parking
are not anticipated.
Comment 338-p: Comment Summary - What guarantees will be in place that the project will be
adequately financed and completed? What kind of irrevocable commitments will be
required?
Project funding is outside the required scope of the EIS and environmental
documentation and analysis. The addition of financial data does not improve the
environmental analysis in the DEIS; however, decision maker(s) may use financial
information to arrive at a decision. Funding and financial information may be
requested by the Agency separate from the EIS for decision-making purposes. The
project proponent has indicated full funding for the Project will be secured prior to
construction to ensure completion.
Comment 338-q: Comment Summary - How is changing the Mariner Agreement from allowing 3 SFR
on 1.3 acres and the balance of 4.78 acres open space to 2 acres of portions of two
hotels and 28 condos in buildings from 57-75’ high an improvement for the public?
Where is the analysis?
The Proposed Project is analyzed throughout the DEIS for applicable resource areas
(e.g., land use, water quality, traffic, scenic resources). Under Alternative C, the
project proposes to relocate existing deed restricted open space and increase the total
acreage of deed restricted open space from 4.78 acres to 5.70 acres. As part of the
open space commitment, the project proposes to construct and maintain 1.87 acres of
park space and another 1.2 acres of informal trail area. Under the no project and non-
CEP Alternatives, there would be no construction and maintenance of public park
facilities. In summary, some of the benefits to the public offered under Alternative C
occur within the project area, but outside of the boundary of the existing Mariner
Settlement Agreement.
Comment 338-r: Comment Summary - Lower Brockway is currently handling the majority of the storm
water and any resultant flooding off the Biltmore site, SR 28 and upper Crystal Bay.
Where is the evidence that the proposed treatment is adequate? Shouldn’t there be a
CEQA assessment?
Depending on the selected Alternative, the Project will capture, convey and infiltrate
stormwater runoff from the project area and portions of Washoe County and NDOT
SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 159