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 specifics of the cumulative project list, qualitative analysis has been prepared to document potential cumulative impacts (e.g., recreation and public service demands). In terms of impacts to Kings Beach or other beaches within the Kings Beach area, the cumulative impact of additional area developments would lead to visitor increases. Based on the projects within the Tahoe Vista, Kings Beach, Crystal Bay and Northstar areas with known numbers of housing or hotel units, over 2,000 visitors and residents are estimated, of which over half would be from the Northstar developments. Some of these Proposed Projects include lake access, but most do not. The cumulative projects in the north Tahoe Region from Tahoe Vista to Crystal Bay to Northstar, excluding Boulder Bay, would include approximately 1,000 residential and tourist units. Many of these units would replace existing units as part of redevelopment projects, and therefore would not add new visitation to the Basin. However, using all of the potential units, the cumulative project list would increase existing residential and tourist units in the Crystal Bay/Incline, Kings Beach, Tahoe Vista, and Truckee (approximately 23,000 units with 21,000 residential units and 2,000 tourist units) by approximately four percent. Comment 322-be: Comment Summary - Cumulative project scheduling conflicts need to be addressed. NDOT has scheduled a water quality project on SR 28 that will result in lane closures, rerouting that would occur over an extended time frame. Will these lane closures and rerouting conflict with the construction schedule of Alternative C if approved? What is the impact of 6,050 long haul dump trucks removing site soil on SR 28 during the summer with land closures and rerouting? Project plans and mitigation measures require construction activities to be coordinated with local emergency service and transportation agencies. The exact timing for project construction is unknown at this time and therefore coordination cannot be completed until permits are finalized. Comment 322-bf: Comment Summary - The cumulative analysis cannot just state that since project impacts are LTS, then there are no cumulative impacts. The incremental contribution of the Project is considered in the context of potential impacts from other reasonably foreseeable future project in the project vicinity. If the Project will not incrementally contribute to a potential impact (i.e. there is no impact or the level of impact is measured to be less than significant), then the project does not typically contribute to a potential cumulative impact. If a potentially cumulative impact exists outside the project area and the Project could potentially contribute, although impacts within the project area are at levels of less than significant, then the analysis is expanded and mitigation measures for cumulative impacts are recommended. Comment 322-bg: Comment Summary - Attachment A is unanswered NTPA scoping questions: Comments described below. Please refer to responses to comments below for specific examples. Comment 322-bh: Comment Summary - Discuss spot zoning pros and cons. The DEIS analyzes the potential impacts associated with additional height within the project area proposed as part of the Code Chapter 22 amendment. The proposed amendment will not allow increased height for adjacent land uses. Comment 322-bi: Comment Summary - There is no analysis of true cumulative impacts. PAGE 8- 94 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 Cumulative impacts are analyzed in each section of Chapter 4 of the DEIS. While the list of cumulative projects is provided in Chapter 5, the actual analysis per environmental topic area is within the corresponding topic section of Chapter 4. Please refer to the cumulative analysis in each section of Chapter 4. Comment 322-bj: Comment Summary - The potential destination resort mischaracterization is not discussed. Please see response to comment 286-aw. Comment 322-bk: Comment Summary - How do 10 buildings ranging from 45-75 feet qualify as humanscale design. Please see response to comment 93-i. Comment 322-bl: Comment Summary - How can you keep Tahoe a rural place with the transfer and concentration of ERU and TAUs. The densities proposed in the Project are consistent with the existing NSCP. The goals of the NSCP are evaluated in Table 3.2-2 of the DEIS. The NSCP is currently a casino and hotel tourist area. The NSCP does not include goals to return the project area to a rural place. Comment 322-bm: Comment Summary - Buffering between neighborhood uses or adequate setbacks are not addressed. General setback requirements are 20 feet from the property line, but the NSCP includes exceptions. Exceptions include a reduction to ten feet along SR 28 at the completion of main street improvements, allowances for pedestrian shelters or plazas, and casino entrance allowances within 10 feet of the property boundary as presented on page 4.5-35 of the DEIS. Setbacks are discussed in Impact SR-2 of Chapter 4.5. Buffers are addressed on pages 4.1-5 and 4.1-6 and in Impact LU-1 of the DEIS. Landscape buffers between tourist and residential uses are shown on Figure 2 of the NSCP; however, the landscape buffer is only shown south of SR 28 and not along the project area. Buffers between tourist and residential uses are discussed in the NSCP, and to a lesser degree in the Regional Plan, but no buffering depths are established. As discussed in LU-1, landscape buffers between the buildings and the property line as well as building setbacks of 40 feet or more from SR 28 are considered adequate to meet standards for the site. Comment 322-bn: Comment Summary - There is no guarantee the retired gaming sf won't be used for later expansion of CFA. Please see responses to comments 169 and 322-ag. Comment 322-bo: Comment Summary - No massing/volume comparison study to compare relinquished TAU volume to the new structures. Please see response to comment 93-g. Comment 322-bp: Comment Summary - Analysis of TAUs and traffic impacts with the NSCP not adequate. Comment noted. Professional transportation engineers/planners prepared the transportation study in accordance with the standards and practices of the governing jurisdictions. SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 95
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:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
Page 93: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
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?