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
Speaker 4 – Robert Maxson, Sierra Nevada College
Comment 4-a: Comment Summary – See comment letter number 60 for a transcript of the oral
comments.
Comment noted and responses are referenced to comment letter 60.
Speaker 5 – Ann Nichols, North Tahoe Preservation Alliance
Comment 5-a: Comment Summary – NOP did not describe whole project area – it left out the
Crystal Bay Motel.
The Project did not substantially change following the publication of the NOP. The
Crystal Bay Motel parcel was added to the project area upon agreement that the
Project would remove the hotel structure to allow for use of TAUs and to provide
expansion of stormwater treatment systems per CEP participation requirements.
Comment 5-b: Comment Summary – Analyze height amendment by itself separate from the project.
This is not a comment on the content or adequacy of the DEIS. This information is
passed on to the Project proponent and decision maker(s) for consideration. No
further response to this comment in relation to the DEIS is warranted.
Comment 5-c: Comment Summary – Worried about the precedence that Boulder Bay will set for the
region.
The commenter expresses an opinion. This is not a comment on the content or
adequacy of the DEIS. This information is passed on to the Project proponent and
decision maker(s) for consideration. No further response to this comment in relation
to the DEIS is warranted.
Comment 5-d: Comment Summary – The height amendment is not clear – it references additional
height modifiers.
The proposed height amendment (DEIS Appendix U) includes a list of requirements
that Boulder Bay must meet in order to earn additional height. These requirements
are included in Section 1.a, 1.b, 1.c, 1.e, 1.f, 1.g, and 1.h. It also lists findings that
TRPA must make to approve the additional building height – these are listed in
Section 1.i. The maximum building heights that can be constructed if additional
height is granted is listed in Section 1.d.
Comment 5-e: Comment Summary – Worried about impacts to nearby beaches.
Please see responses to comments 93-k, 93-l, 122-c, 171-d, 286-ap, 286-aq, 322-ba,
322-bx, 322-bz, 322-fx, 322-fz, 322-ba and 322-bb.
Comment 5-f: Comment Summary – Does not think the scenic simulations are accurate.
Please see responses to comments 322-hs, 332-an and 335-ah.
Comment 5-g: Comment Summary – Thinks that the open space discussion is misleading – the
project will result in a loss of open space.
Open space is declared in Chapter 2 and analyzed in Chapters 4.1, 4.2, 4.3 and 4.6.
Deed-restricting land for a stated, specific use protects this acreage from future
development and changes in land uses. The project will deed-restrict acreage within
the project area that is currently not designated as open space in an amount
equivalent to that provided for in the Mariner Agreement.
PAGE 8- 164 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010