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 completion. LEED certification can only be completed once an Alternative is selected and the final project drawings and specifications completed to determine the number of points achieved, which will vary between Alternatives C and D. LEED certification is not feasible for the other Project Alternatives. Comment 322-l: Comment Summary - Accessory use vs. designated CFA needs clarification. Please see response to comment 286-y. Comment 322-m: Comment Summary - The range of Alternatives is inadequate and an "as of right" Alternative should be included. The DEIS includes five Alternatives including: "No Project" (Alternative A), minor unit changes within Code limits (Alternative B), the "Proposed Project" with a mix of uses and a Code amendment (Alternative C), a greater density mixed-use development project with a Code amendment (Alternative D), to a timeshare renovation Alternative with moderate development within Code limits (Alternative E). While Alternative A is the "No Project" Alternative, Alternatives B and E can be considered "as of right" Alternatives as no amendments to the TRPA Code of Ordinances or changes to the Settlement Agreement for the Tahoe Mariner site are required, as disclosed in the Chapter 2 description of these Alternatives. Alternative B would result in little change to the site, but does include the construction of three new single-family homes within the open space of the former Tahoe Mariner site. Alternative E would result in new structures on the site and improvements to the existing Tahoe Biltmore structure. Three single-family homes would be developed within the open space on the former Tahoe Mariner site. An ample range of Alternatives is provided and includes two "as of right" Alternatives of differing degrees of development. Without any detail from the commenter regarding an Alternative they would like analyzed in this document, no further response can be made. Comment 322-n: Comment Summary - Mitigation is applied unevenly between the Alternatives. Alternative A should include mitigation actions such as seismic retrofitting of the site, creation of an emergency response plan, reduction in the parking area, visitor/employee shuttles, and general site renovation such as landscaping and architectural upgrades. Alternative A (No Project) will maintain existing conditions within the project area as no project will be approved and therefore no mitigation required. Under existing TRPA Codes and Regulations, the only change required of the Project proponent is compliance with TRPA BMP retrofit requirements to treat stormwater runoff for the 20yr/1hr storm volume. No other mitigation measures are required. Comment 322-o: Comment Summary - Mitigation is not as effective as it claims. This general comment is in regard to Mitigation Measures SR-1A, REC-1, and NOISE-1. Please see responses to comments 322-p, 322-q, and 322-r for additional response. Comment 322-p: Comment Summary - Mitigation SR-1A is unacceptable because it solves a problem by changing the governing regulations. If that is allowed you can fix any problem by just changing the regulations meant to protect the resources. Mitigation SR-1A changes the text of the proposed Chapter 22 height amendment to add a height restriction within the proposed amendment. The mitigation adds the following text to the proposed height amendment (Bold and underlined): PAGE 8- 84 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 a. The maximum permissible height for structures with a minimum set back of 40 feet from the State Route 28 edge of pavement may be increased to 58 feet. Structures set back less than 60 feet from the State Route 28 edge of pavement may not exceed three stories tall. Mitigation SR-1A is added to limit the height of buildings located between 40 and 60 feet from the State Route 28 edge of pavement, so that buildings closer to the road cannot exceed three stories. Comment 322-q: Comment Summary - Mitigation REC-1 is ineffective because public access rules to Speedboat Beach need to be analyzed and providing a van to another beach does not reduce the overuse potential at Speedboat Beach. REC-1 is proposed to encourage Boulder Bay guests to utilize other publicly managed beaches that are larger and more organized than Speedboat Beach. Speedboat Beach is a public beach, and Boulder Bay cannot prohibit guests from its use. However, by providing guests with a convenient van service, guests will be encouraged to access the larger beaches. Comment 322-r: Comment Summary - Mitigation NOISE-1 is inadequate because it is only applied to a one block area. A significant increase in traffic noise was only identified along the one block area along Stateline Road. Therefore, the mitigation was only for that portion of Stateline Road. Comment 322-s: Comment Summary - Undergrounding utilities is used for some Alternatives but not all, which is uneven treatment, and undergrounding has already been done and cannot apply as a project measure now. Please see response to comment 93-i. It is true that the benefits of the utility undergrounding would apply to each Alternative since the work has already been completed. Comment 322-t: Comment Summary - Assignment of impact ratings and conclusions are uneven, unsupported, or superficial. Please see responses to comments 322-u, 322-v and 322-w below for specific examples. Comment 322-u: Comment Summary - Impact LU-1 should not be SU for Alts A and B and LTS for Alt C. It isn't fair to assume A and B do not support the NSCP, but C does because C doesn't offer any different amenities than what can be currently found onsite. Alt C is not a destination resort and does not support the NSCP and should be SU. As documented in LU-1 and more clearly analyzed in Table 3.2-2, Alternatives A and B will not help achieve NSCP goals including: 1.1 - Create a more complete, family-oriented destination resort, 1.4 - Encourage land use patterns that reduce the need for travel and increased access to transit, 2.2 - Implement and enforce the NSCP Design Standards and Guidelines, 2.3 and 8.1 - Create a pedestrian friendly and safe environment, 2.4 - Reduce the visual prominence of parking lots and asphalt, 3.1 - Increase resident and visitor spending within the NSCP, 3.2 - Strengthen the area's potential as a world class, nationally renowned tourist destination resort, 4.1 - Provide housing opportunities for NSCP casino employees, 5.1 - Attain and maintain LOS at key intersections in the NSCP, 7.1- Improve transit service, 7.2 - Establish and visitor shuttle service, 10.3 - Implement environmental improvement projects, SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 85
Page 1 and 2:
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
Page 83: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?