FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

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
The DEIS does not state that California consent is required to the extent that the
Proposed Project conflicts with “any” of the previous Mariner Agreements. As stated
above, the State of California is not a signatory to the 2001 agreement between the
former land owner and TRPA. Page 4.1-28 of the DEIS states, “The proposed
amendment to the Tahoe Mariner Settlement Agreement must be approved and
signed by TRPA and the State of California to reflect the change in open space deed
restrictions to allow for the TRPA approval of Alternative C.” Page 4.1-33 includes
the same statement for Alternative D. Discussions of the Settlement Agreement in
Chapters 2 and 4.1 refer to the terms established in the existing agreement, not the
previous agreements that are no longer valid. For the State of California, the most
recent agreement signed by the State (1996) remains valid, not the portions of the
1981 or 1984 agreements superseded by the 1996 amendment as discussed in
Appendix M of the DEIS. Consent from the State of California will result in
complete validity of the proposed amendment to the agreement and voids the 1996
agreement, resulting in an accurate account of property owners and uses onsite.
Comment 322-ib: Comment Summary - DEIS does not specify the development rights that have been
transferred off the Site. The handlings of residual transfers is not addressed.
DEIS Appendix D documents the remaining development rights located within the
project area. The proposed transfer of ERUs and TAUs is analyzed in Chapter 4.1,
Land Use.
Comment 322-ic: Comment Summary - DEIS does not clearly address the transfers or the use of
conversions that have occurred. Are TAUS and ERUS restricted from being
transferred onto and designated less than Class 4?
Please see response to comment 322-fk. The transfer of TAUs and ERUs is
discussed on page 4.1-27 of the DEIS. Section 34.4 of the TRPA Code of
Ordinances states that the receiving parcel be land Class 4 capability or greater unless
certain provisions are met for land coverage reduction, restoration, and other actions
as described on page 4.1-27 of the DEIS. Because Alternative C meets the
requirements of the provisions, units can be transferred to lower capability LCD
classes.
Comment 322-id: Comment Summary - DEIS does not adequately address the environmental effects of
the proposed development compared to the effects of the development currently
allowed on the Mariner site.
Please see response to comment 322-hx.
Comment 322-ie: Comment Summary - "Community Center" implies many trips into and out of the
project by community members. Without a guaranteed source of funding for transit
operations and bike and pedestrian path maintenance, there will be no greater
variety of transportation options than now.
The CEP goal of creating Community Centers is to “Enhance community character in
town and tourist centers”. Crystal Bay is designated as a tourist center in the NSCP.
As noted in the Project description in Chapter 2 of the DEIS, Alternative C and
Alternative D propose a mix of tourist uses on site. Implementation of the proposed
Alternative Transportation Program outlined in TRANS-5 will become a condition of
project approval in the event either of these Alternatives are approved by TRPA.
Please see responses to comments 54 and 137-h regarding the requirements to
describe funding for project components and mitigation measures.
PAGE 8- 126 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010