FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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 8. Scale of structures is consistent with nearby uses within the NSCP that include the current 76-foot-tall Biltmore (to be demolished) and the 122-foottall Cal Neva (located 825 ft from the Biltmore). The seven-story Brockway Springs condominium tower (+90 ft tall) is located 2,700 ft from the Biltmore and on the shores of Lake Tahoe. The seven-story Crystal Bay Tower condominiums (+80 ft tall) is located 6,400 ft from the property and on the shores of Lake Tahoe. Comment 93-c: Comment Summary - LU-C1: Alt. C results in significant cumulative impacts 1) including Crystal Bay Motel site allows applications of increase in heights and density, 2) Gaming floor area can expand to Crystal Bay Motel site, and 3) New mariner settlement agreement calculates density using entire site not just acres within the NSCP. As stated in response to comment 93-b, the Crystal Bay Motel site will not allow additional height under the proposed Code Chapter 22 amendment. In order for gaming floor area to be expanded over the 10,000 square feet proposed in Alternative C, Boulder Bay or another future applicant would have to apply to TRPA and the Nevada TRPA (NTRPA) for a new permit, which would require additional environmental analysis. The current agreement with the NTRPA only allows gaming floor area to be moved a maximum distance of 500 feet from the location of the existing Structure Housing Gaming as measured by the shortest distance between any external wall of the existing Structure Housing Gaming and any external wall of the relocated Structure Housing Gaming. Density calculations included in Impact LU-1 do not include acreage located outside of the North Stateline Community Plan for determining allowable density. Comment 93-d: Comment Summary - GEO-1: Alt. C Only 15,000 sf of onsite coverage removed (Stateline mini-park coverage). Crystal Bay Motel coverage removed in this plan, but site isn't deed restricted for further development and developer retains right to redevelop site. Table 4.2-5 identifies the onsite land coverage to be removed under each Alternative in the column titled "Land Coverage Reductions in Project Area". Alternative C removes 43,841 square feet while Alternative D removes 22,009 square feet. The total coverage removed within the NSCP is 68,317 square feet for Alternative C and 41,974 square feet for Alternative D. The comment regarding 15,000 square feet of onsite land coverage to be removed (Stateline mini-park coverage) is unclear. The comment that the Crystal Bay Motel land coverage will not be deed restricted and that Boulder Bay retains the right to develop is correct. However, land coverage removed as part of the TRPA excess coverage mitigation program described in Mitigation Measure GEO-1 will be permanently retired under an irrevocable commitment that is a condition of Project permitting. Land coverage reductions on the Crystal Bay Motel parcel are accounted for in the total land coverage reductions for the project area. Given that the parcel has land coverage in excess of TRPA allowable base coverage, future projects on this parcel would be required to transfer land coverage in accordance with findings included in TRPA Code Section 20.3.C. Comment 93-e: Comment Summary - HYDRO-1: Alt. C - Since Stateline mini-park requires Placer County permit for the retention basin, CEQA should apply to the project. PAGE 8- 30 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 The inclusion of the Stateline mini-park parcel or the proposed public-private Water Quality project is not required to achieve TRPA requirements for the Boulder Bay project onsite stormwater capture, commonly referred to as the 20yr BMP. Downhill of the Boulder Bay project site Placer County is proposing to implement the Brockway Water Quality Improvement Project (“Brockway WQIP”) to capture and treat stormwater runoff from the Brockway residential area on the north shore of Lake Tahoe in an effort to meet its storm water compliance standards affiliated with TRPA Waste Discharge Requirements and Placer County’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit issued by the Lahontan Regional Water Quality Control Board (Lahontan). The Brockway WQIP project is a TRPA EIPidentified project designed to improve water quality along State Route 28 in the north Stateline area of the Tahoe Basin and includes the Stateline Interstate Flow Mitigation system WQIP (SIFMS) and the Placer County Brockway WQIP. The full project, including the SIFMS and the Brockway WQIP, is also referred to as EIP Project No. 732. The installation of the SIFMS by Boulder Bay on the California parcel is part of a public private partnership with Placer County, CALTRANS, NDOT, USFS and the California Tahoe Conservancy to complete TRPA Environmental Improvement Project 732 (EIP 732). Placer County is the project lead and prepared a CEQA review for the California parcel as part of the Brockway Erosion Control Project (EIP 732). The project was approved under a Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the project by Placer County Department of Public Works on August 6, 2007 pursuant to CEQA. EIP 732 addresses the long-standing issue of flooding related to the uncontrolled flow of storm water through the Brockway community during large storm events. The EIP involvement is separate from the standard regulatory BMP requirements and is an above and beyond investment in environmental improvement. Comment 93-f: Comment Summary - BIO-6: Alt. C Trees in total project number 368, 225 are to be removed = 61%. As documented in Table 4.4-6 of the DEIS, 109 of the 225 trees proposed to be removed are based on arborist recommendations associated with tree health. The project area does not provide habitat for sensitive wildlife species. As such, the removal of existing trees is not considered to be a significant impact. The TRPA required findings for the removal of trees larger than 24 inches dbh is addressed in Impact BIO-6. The analysis and findings completed for the DEIS regarding biological resources was consistent with and in compliance, procedurally and substantively with the TRPA Code of Ordinances. Comment 93-g: Comment Summary - SR-1: Alt. C is inconsistent with allowed NSCP height maximum. A massing study was requested but not supplied during NOP. Community plans do not provide substitute standards for height as they do for some other areas of the TRPA Code of Ordinances. A Community Plan does not override height standards provided in TRPA Code Chapter 22. Massing studies allow the designer to explore design ideas by using shapes to conceptualize a building model. For the Boulder Bay Project, the use of detailed scenic simulations from TRPAselected viewpoints served as the massing study/visual assessment of the proposed development changes. The analysis and findings completed for the DEIS regarding SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 31
Page 1 and 2: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
Page 29: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
Page 81 and 82:
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187:
Page 190 and 191:
REVISIONS TO THE DEIS B o u l d e r
Page 192:
REVISIONS TO THE DEIS B o u l d e r
show all

FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?