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 />
Cumulative impacts are analyzed in each section of Chapter 4 of the DEIS. While<br />
the list of cumulative projects is provided in Chapter 5, the actual analysis per<br />
environmental topic area is within the corresponding topic section of Chapter 4.<br />
Please refer to the cumulative analysis in each section of Chapter 4.<br />
Comment 322-bj: Comment Summary - The potential destination resort mischaracterization is not<br />
discussed.<br />
Please see response to comment 286-aw.<br />
Comment 322-bk: Comment Summary - How do 10 buildings ranging from 45-75 feet qualify as humanscale<br />
design.<br />
Please see response to comment 93-i.<br />
Comment 322-bl: Comment Summary - How can you keep <strong>Tahoe</strong> a rural place with the transfer and<br />
concentration of ERU and TAUs.<br />
The densities proposed in the Project are consistent with the existing NSCP. The<br />
goals of the NSCP are evaluated in Table 3.2-2 of the DEIS. The NSCP is currently<br />
a casino and hotel tourist area. The NSCP does not include goals to return the project<br />
area to a rural place.<br />
Comment 322-bm: Comment Summary - Buffering between neighborhood uses or adequate setbacks are<br />
not addressed.<br />
General setback requirements are 20 feet from the property line, but the NSCP<br />
includes exceptions. Exceptions include a reduction to ten feet along SR 28 at the<br />
completion of main street improvements, allowances for pedestrian shelters or plazas,<br />
and casino entrance allowances within 10 feet of the property boundary as presented<br />
on page 4.5-35 of the DEIS. Setbacks are discussed in Impact SR-2 of Chapter 4.5.<br />
Buffers are addressed on pages 4.1-5 and 4.1-6 and in Impact LU-1 of the DEIS.<br />
Landscape buffers between tourist and residential uses are shown on Figure 2 of the<br />
NSCP; however, the landscape buffer is only shown south of SR 28 and not along the<br />
project area. Buffers between tourist and residential uses are discussed in the NSCP,<br />
and to a lesser degree in the <strong>Regional</strong> Plan, but no buffering depths are established.<br />
As discussed in LU-1, landscape buffers between the buildings and the property line<br />
as well as building setbacks of 40 feet or more from SR 28 are considered adequate<br />
to meet standards for the site.<br />
Comment 322-bn: Comment Summary - There is no guarantee the retired gaming sf won't be used for<br />
later expansion of CFA.<br />
Please see responses to comments 169 and 322-ag.<br />
Comment 322-bo: Comment Summary - No massing/volume comparison study to compare relinquished<br />
TAU volume to the new structures.<br />
Please see response to comment 93-g.<br />
Comment 322-bp: Comment Summary - Analysis of TAUs and traffic impacts with the NSCP not<br />
adequate.<br />
Comment noted. Professional transportation engineers/planners prepared the<br />
transportation study in accordance with the standards and practices of the governing<br />
jurisdictions.<br />
SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 95