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 Comment Letter 37 – Volkmann, Wendy, 11/17/2009 Comment 37-a: Comment Summary – The existing Mariner Settlement Agreement should be enforced. Maintain current height and densities in the existing Regional Plan. The Mariner Settlement Agreement is a private agreement entered into by parties to settle litigation. The Settlement Agreement can be modified by the parties to the litigation separately from and in conjunction with project review. Because the Settlement agreement is not a TRPA Regional Plan document, it is not a threshold for determining the significance of impacts. The Regional Plan Update for the existing 1987 Regional Plan has not been completed; therefore, the existing regulations, including the Code of Ordinances, remain valid, enforceable, and applicable to currently Proposed Projects. Amendments to the Code of Ordinances may continue to occur as established in the Rules of Procedure and at the discretion of the Executive Director. Comments stating the position for or against Code amendments during the Regional Plan update process are not relevant to the content or adequacy of the environmental analysis and documentation in the DEIS, but may be used by the decision maker(s) in reaching a conclusion on the Proposed Project. At the December 17, 2008 TRPA Governing Board meeting, the TRPA Governing Board unanimously voted “to allow CEP projects to move forward concurrently with the Regional Plan Update, as originally planned.” Comment 37-b: Comment Summary – Traffic and parking analysis should be done with an understanding that Boulder Bay is retaining the right to use 29,000 plus sq. ft. of gaming. The traffic analysis was performed using the project description provided in Chapter 2 of the DEIS. If the project proponent revisits the size/type of uses on the site, it would require review by TRPA and re-evaluation of transportation impacts. Comment Letter 40 – Delaney, Tim , 11/18/09 Comment 40-a: Comment Summary - Opposes project until a regional plan is prepared; does not believe traffic will decrease with project. Please see response to comment 37-a. As discussed in Master Response 2, Alternative C results in fewer trips than Alternative A existing conditions and the baseline existing conditions shown on Table 8.5-2. This table indicates an increase in daily trip generation and PM peak traffic volumes when the proposed Action Alternatives are compared to existing conditions based on the 2008 traffic counts. However, as discussed in Master Response 2, comparison between the trip generation during 2008 and the ITE trip generation rates is not valid because it represents different economic conditions assumptions. Furthermore, the TRPA standard of impact significance is based on a comparison to traffic volumes calculated for the land uses included in the No Project Alternative, not on existing traffic counts. Comment Letter 46 – Delaney, Tim , 11/19/09 Comment 46-a: Comment Summary - Opposes project until a regional plan is prepared. Please see response to comment 37-a. PAGE 8- 24 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 Letter 54 - Todoroff, Pete, 11/30/09 Comment 54: Comment Summary - Asked questions about money. Providing details regarding project funding is outside the required scope of the DEIS 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 DEIS for decisionmaking purposes. The project proponent has indicated full funding for the Project will be secured prior to construction to ensure completion. Comment Letter 62 – Trimble, Tom, 12/01/2009 Comment 62-a: Comment Summary - Traffic light between Biltmore and Crystal Bay Club needs to be much more controlled. Favors tunnel under street with an elevator at both ends. Pedestrians currently have a protected crossing on SR 28 at the pedestrian traffic signal and would continue to have a protected crossing with the Project. Please see response to comment 93-s regarding potential cumulative impacts at this crossing location. Even with construction of a tunnel, it is likely that pedestrians would continue to cross SR 28 at the street level because pedestrians typically follow the path with the shortest distance and travel time. A grade separated crossing would not reduce travel distance or time. Comment Letter 63 – Trimble, Thomas, 12/01/2009 Comment 63-a Comment Summary: Identify parking spots. How many available for residents, and how many public parking spots there are? Alternatives A and B will not change the existing parking supply or locations. The existing surface parking in the overflow parking lot on the lakeside of SR 28 will not change under any of the Alternatives and will continue to be used for employee parking. The Alternatives with residential uses will include a minimum of one reserved parking space per residential condominium. The remaining parking spaces will be open to the public for use by hotel guests and visitors to the site. The number of parking spaces documented in the DEIS are new parking spaces on the mountain-side of SR28 and are necessary for new land uses in the project area. The Proposed Project (Alternative C) will include 63 parking spaces reserved for residents. The remaining parking spaces will be flexible and public. Valet parking will be available for the hotel, however the number of spaces designated for valet will be flexible and adjusted based on peak demand for public parking. The Proposed Project will include a total of 540 parking spaces (530 in underground structures). Alternative D will include a total of 575 parking spaces (565 in underground structures), with 30 parking spaces reserved for residents, and the remainder open to the public. Alternative E will include a total of 456 parking surface and pedestal (structured) spaces, with 33 parking spaces reserved for residents, and the remainder open to the public. It should be noted that the existing overflow parking lot located on the south side of SR 28 near the Nugget Casino will remain with the project. The overflow parking lot has 55 spaces available. The spaces have no restrictions and are currently available to Tahoe Biltmore employees, and employees and patrons of other area businesses. SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 25
- Page 1 and 2: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 3 and 4: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 5 and 6: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 7 and 8: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 9 and 10: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 11 and 12: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 13 and 14: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 15 and 16: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 17 and 18: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 19 and 20: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 21 and 22: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 23: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 27 and 28: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 29 and 30: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 31 and 32: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 33 and 34: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 35 and 36: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 37 and 38: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 39 and 40: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 41 and 42: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 43 and 44: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 45 and 46: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 47 and 48: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 49 and 50: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 51 and 52: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 53 and 54: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 55 and 56: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 57 and 58: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 59 and 60: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 61 and 62: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 63 and 64: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 65 and 66: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 67 and 68: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 69 and 70: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 71 and 72: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
- Page 73 and 74: 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 />
Comment Letter 37 – Volkmann, Wendy, 11/17/2009<br />
Comment 37-a: Comment Summary – The existing Mariner Settlement Agreement should be<br />
enforced. Maintain current height and densities in the existing <strong>Regional</strong> Plan.<br />
The Mariner Settlement Agreement is a private agreement entered into by parties to<br />
settle litigation. The Settlement Agreement can be modified by the parties to the<br />
litigation separately from and in conjunction with project review. Because the<br />
Settlement agreement is not a TRPA <strong>Regional</strong> Plan document, it is not a threshold for<br />
determining the significance of impacts.<br />
The <strong>Regional</strong> Plan Update for the existing 1987 <strong>Regional</strong> Plan has not been<br />
completed; therefore, the existing regulations, including the Code of Ordinances,<br />
remain valid, enforceable, and applicable to currently Proposed Projects.<br />
Amendments to the Code of Ordinances may continue to occur as established in the<br />
Rules of Procedure and at the discretion of the Executive Director. Comments<br />
stating the position for or against Code amendments during the <strong>Regional</strong> Plan update<br />
process are not relevant to the content or adequacy of the environmental analysis and<br />
documentation in the DEIS, but may be used by the decision maker(s) in reaching a<br />
conclusion on the Proposed Project.<br />
At the December 17, 2008 TRPA Governing Board meeting, the TRPA Governing<br />
Board unanimously voted “to allow CEP projects to move forward concurrently with<br />
the <strong>Regional</strong> Plan Update, as originally planned.”<br />
Comment 37-b: Comment Summary – Traffic and parking analysis should be done with an<br />
understanding that Boulder Bay is retaining the right to use 29,000 plus sq. ft. of<br />
gaming.<br />
The traffic analysis was performed using the project description provided in Chapter<br />
2 of the DEIS. If the project proponent revisits the size/type of uses on the site, it<br />
would require review by TRPA and re-evaluation of transportation impacts.<br />
Comment Letter 40 – Delaney, Tim , 11/18/09<br />
Comment 40-a: Comment Summary - Opposes project until a regional plan is prepared; does not<br />
believe traffic will decrease with project.<br />
Please see response to comment 37-a.<br />
As discussed in Master Response 2, Alternative C results in fewer trips than<br />
Alternative A existing conditions and the baseline existing conditions shown on<br />
Table 8.5-2. This table indicates an increase in daily trip generation and PM peak<br />
traffic volumes when the proposed Action Alternatives are compared to existing<br />
conditions based on the 2008 traffic counts. However, as discussed in Master<br />
Response 2, comparison between the trip generation during 2008 and the ITE trip<br />
generation rates is not valid because it represents different economic conditions<br />
assumptions. Furthermore, the TRPA standard of impact significance is based on a<br />
comparison to traffic volumes calculated for the land uses included in the No Project<br />
Alternative, not on existing traffic counts.<br />
Comment Letter 46 – Delaney, Tim , 11/19/09<br />
Comment 46-a: Comment Summary - Opposes project until a regional plan is prepared.<br />
Please see response to comment 37-a.<br />
PAGE 8- 24 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010
Change language