FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
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 />
a. The maximum permissible height for structures with a minimum set back of<br />
40 feet from the State Route 28 edge of pavement may be increased to 58<br />
feet. Structures set back less than 60 feet from the State Route 28 edge of<br />
pavement may not exceed three stories tall.<br />
Mitigation SR-1A is added to limit the height of buildings located between 40 and 60<br />
feet from the State Route 28 edge of pavement, so that buildings closer to the road<br />
cannot exceed three stories.<br />
Comment 322-q: Comment Summary - Mitigation REC-1 is ineffective because public access rules to<br />
Speedboat Beach need to be analyzed and providing a van to another beach does not<br />
reduce the overuse potential at Speedboat Beach.<br />
REC-1 is proposed to encourage Boulder Bay guests to utilize other publicly<br />
managed beaches that are larger and more organized than Speedboat Beach.<br />
Speedboat Beach is a public beach, and Boulder Bay cannot prohibit guests from its<br />
use. However, by providing guests with a convenient van service, guests will be<br />
encouraged to access the larger beaches.<br />
Comment 322-r: Comment Summary - Mitigation NOISE-1 is inadequate because it is only applied to<br />
a one block area.<br />
A significant increase in traffic noise was only identified along the one block area<br />
along Stateline Road. Therefore, the mitigation was only for that portion of Stateline<br />
Road.<br />
Comment 322-s: Comment Summary - Undergrounding utilities is used for some Alternatives but not<br />
all, which is uneven treatment, and undergrounding has already been done and<br />
cannot apply as a project measure now.<br />
Please see response to comment 93-i. It is true that the benefits of the utility<br />
undergrounding would apply to each Alternative since the work has already been<br />
completed.<br />
Comment 322-t: Comment Summary - Assignment of impact ratings and conclusions are uneven,<br />
unsupported, or superficial.<br />
Please see responses to comments 322-u, 322-v and 322-w below for specific<br />
examples.<br />
Comment 322-u: Comment Summary - Impact LU-1 should not be SU for Alts A and B and LTS for Alt<br />
C. It isn't fair to assume A and B do not support the NSCP, but C does because C<br />
doesn't offer any different amenities than what can be currently found onsite. Alt C is<br />
not a destination resort and does not support the NSCP and should be SU.<br />
As documented in LU-1 and more clearly analyzed in Table 3.2-2, Alternatives A<br />
and B will not help achieve NSCP goals including: 1.1 - Create a more complete,<br />
family-oriented destination resort, 1.4 - Encourage land use patterns that reduce the<br />
need for travel and increased access to transit, 2.2 - Implement and enforce the NSCP<br />
Design Standards and Guidelines, 2.3 and 8.1 - Create a pedestrian friendly and safe<br />
environment, 2.4 - Reduce the visual prominence of parking lots and asphalt, 3.1 -<br />
Increase resident and visitor spending within the NSCP, 3.2 - Strengthen the area's<br />
potential as a world class, nationally renowned tourist destination resort, 4.1 -<br />
Provide housing opportunities for NSCP casino employees, 5.1 - Attain and maintain<br />
LOS at key intersections in the NSCP, 7.1- Improve transit service, 7.2 - Establish<br />
and visitor shuttle service, 10.3 - Implement environmental improvement projects,<br />
SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 85