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
scenic impact and visual simulations was consistent with and in compliance,
procedurally and substantively with the TRPA Code of Ordinances.
Comment 93-h: Comment Summary – SR-2: Alt. C. 2001 TRPA letter discusses concerns with scenic
impacts of 3 SFR, so portions of 2 hotels and 24 units on Mariner site will be
significant.
As documented in DEIS Figures 2-4 (Alternative C site plan) and 2-11 (Alternative E
site plan that includes the three single-family homes), the three single-family homes
contemplated in the Tahoe Mariner Settlement Agreement are located in a different
location than the structures proposed for Alternative C. The three single-family
homes allowed for in the Tahoe Mariner Settlement Agreement would be located in
an area with no natural tree screening and would be visible from Lake Tahoe. The
proposed structures for Alternative C are located behind natural tree screening and
are closer to the current Tahoe Biltmore. The visual simulations and scenic analysis
have confirmed the Alternative C proposed structures are not visible from Lake
Tahoe.
Comment 93-i: Comment Summary - SR-3: Alt. C. Undergrounding utilities should not be applied as
a benefit of the project. The project scale is not human-sized, with a 76 ft. structure
and 10 buildings at 4x the sf from 45 to 75 feet high.
Boulder Bay agreed to pay for the removal of above ground utilities in the project
area at the time of application for the CEP. Their proposal to underground existing
utilities is consistent with TRPA EIP project number 970. This EIP project is a direct
benefit of the Project even though the work has already been completed with funding
from Boulder Bay, LLC. Human scale design isn't related simply to the height of the
proposed buildings, but the portion of the building design located at the ground level.
Boulder Bay building design includes active uses on the ground floor that are
consistent with human-scale design.
Comment 93-j: Comment Summary - SR-C1: Alt. C. Significant new massing occurs and no massing
study was performed, plus new height will be applicable to Crystal Bay Motel site.
Please see response to comment 93-g.
Comment 93-k: Comment Summary - REC-1: Alt. C. New population will result in the degradation
of Speedboat beach. The 1800-2000 population will stress all beaches and project
has no beach access.
REC-1 recognizes that the Project has substantial ability to impact local beaches in
the vicinity of the Project. It is unclear where the 1,800 to 2,000-person population
increase numbers are derived from, as these are not the population numbers
calculated and used in the DEIS (see Chapter 4.11). It is important to note that the
management strategy for the NSCP is redirection. Per TRPA Code of Ordinances,
Chapter 13, "the redirection of development designation is designed primarily to
improve environmental quality and community character by changing the direction of
development or density through relocation of facilities and rehabilitation or
restoration of existing structures and uses." This means that commodities may be
used in better locations than they came from to promote the overall health of the
basin. While the goal of redirection is not to overburden existing recreational
facilities, visitor numbers may increase on nearby public lands (e.g., area beaches)
from redevelopment projects. Mitigation REC-1 states that shuttle service will not be
provided to Speedboat Beach by Boulder Bay for guests.
PAGE 8- 32 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010