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 Comment Letter 37 – Volkmann, Wendy, 11/17/2009 Comment 37-a: Comment Summary – The existing Mariner Settlement Agreement should be enforced. Maintain current height and densities in the existing Regional Plan. The Mariner Settlement Agreement is a private agreement entered into by parties to settle litigation. The Settlement Agreement can be modified by the parties to the litigation separately from and in conjunction with project review. Because the Settlement agreement is not a TRPA Regional Plan document, it is not a threshold for determining the significance of impacts. The Regional Plan Update for the existing 1987 Regional Plan has not been completed; therefore, the existing regulations, including the Code of Ordinances, remain valid, enforceable, and applicable to currently Proposed Projects. Amendments to the Code of Ordinances may continue to occur as established in the Rules of Procedure and at the discretion of the Executive Director. Comments stating the position for or against Code amendments during the Regional Plan update process are not relevant to the content or adequacy of the environmental analysis and documentation in the DEIS, but may be used by the decision maker(s) in reaching a conclusion on the Proposed Project. At the December 17, 2008 TRPA Governing Board meeting, the TRPA Governing Board unanimously voted “to allow CEP projects to move forward concurrently with the Regional Plan Update, as originally planned.” Comment 37-b: Comment Summary – Traffic and parking analysis should be done with an understanding that Boulder Bay is retaining the right to use 29,000 plus sq. ft. of gaming. The traffic analysis was performed using the project description provided in Chapter 2 of the DEIS. If the project proponent revisits the size/type of uses on the site, it would require review by TRPA and re-evaluation of transportation impacts. Comment Letter 40 – Delaney, Tim , 11/18/09 Comment 40-a: Comment Summary - Opposes project until a regional plan is prepared; does not believe traffic will decrease with project. Please see response to comment 37-a. As discussed in Master Response 2, Alternative C results in fewer trips than Alternative A existing conditions and the baseline existing conditions shown on Table 8.5-2. This table indicates an increase in daily trip generation and PM peak traffic volumes when the proposed Action Alternatives are compared to existing conditions based on the 2008 traffic counts. However, as discussed in Master Response 2, comparison between the trip generation during 2008 and the ITE trip generation rates is not valid because it represents different economic conditions assumptions. Furthermore, the TRPA standard of impact significance is based on a comparison to traffic volumes calculated for the land uses included in the No Project Alternative, not on existing traffic counts. Comment Letter 46 – Delaney, Tim , 11/19/09 Comment 46-a: Comment Summary - Opposes project until a regional plan is prepared. Please see response to comment 37-a. PAGE 8- 24 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 Comment Letter 54 - Todoroff, Pete, 11/30/09 Comment 54: Comment Summary - Asked questions about money. Providing details regarding project funding is outside the required scope of the DEIS and environmental documentation and analysis. The addition of financial data does not improve the environmental analysis in the DEIS; however, decision maker(s) may use financial information to arrive at a decision. Funding and financial information may be requested by the Agency separate from the DEIS for decisionmaking purposes. The project proponent has indicated full funding for the Project will be secured prior to construction to ensure completion. Comment Letter 62 – Trimble, Tom, 12/01/2009 Comment 62-a: Comment Summary - Traffic light between Biltmore and Crystal Bay Club needs to be much more controlled. Favors tunnel under street with an elevator at both ends. Pedestrians currently have a protected crossing on SR 28 at the pedestrian traffic signal and would continue to have a protected crossing with the Project. Please see response to comment 93-s regarding potential cumulative impacts at this crossing location. Even with construction of a tunnel, it is likely that pedestrians would continue to cross SR 28 at the street level because pedestrians typically follow the path with the shortest distance and travel time. A grade separated crossing would not reduce travel distance or time. Comment Letter 63 – Trimble, Thomas, 12/01/2009 Comment 63-a Comment Summary: Identify parking spots. How many available for residents, and how many public parking spots there are? Alternatives A and B will not change the existing parking supply or locations. The existing surface parking in the overflow parking lot on the lakeside of SR 28 will not change under any of the Alternatives and will continue to be used for employee parking. The Alternatives with residential uses will include a minimum of one reserved parking space per residential condominium. The remaining parking spaces will be open to the public for use by hotel guests and visitors to the site. The number of parking spaces documented in the DEIS are new parking spaces on the mountain-side of SR28 and are necessary for new land uses in the project area. The Proposed Project (Alternative C) will include 63 parking spaces reserved for residents. The remaining parking spaces will be flexible and public. Valet parking will be available for the hotel, however the number of spaces designated for valet will be flexible and adjusted based on peak demand for public parking. The Proposed Project will include a total of 540 parking spaces (530 in underground structures). Alternative D will include a total of 575 parking spaces (565 in underground structures), with 30 parking spaces reserved for residents, and the remainder open to the public. Alternative E will include a total of 456 parking surface and pedestal (structured) spaces, with 33 parking spaces reserved for residents, and the remainder open to the public. It should be noted that the existing overflow parking lot located on the south side of SR 28 near the Nugget Casino will remain with the project. The overflow parking lot has 55 spaces available. The spaces have no restrictions and are currently available to Tahoe Biltmore employees, and employees and patrons of other area businesses. SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 25
Page 1 and 2: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
Page 23: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
Page 75 and 76:
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
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?