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
completion. LEED certification can only be completed once an Alternative is
selected and the final project drawings and specifications completed to determine the
number of points achieved, which will vary between Alternatives C and D. LEED
certification is not feasible for the other Project Alternatives.
Comment 322-l: Comment Summary - Accessory use vs. designated CFA needs clarification.
Please see response to comment 286-y.
Comment 322-m: Comment Summary - The range of Alternatives is inadequate and an "as of right"
Alternative should be included.
The DEIS includes five Alternatives including: "No Project" (Alternative A), minor
unit changes within Code limits (Alternative B), the "Proposed Project" with a mix of
uses and a Code amendment (Alternative C), a greater density mixed-use
development project with a Code amendment (Alternative D), to a timeshare
renovation Alternative with moderate development within Code limits (Alternative
E). While Alternative A is the "No Project" Alternative, Alternatives B and E can be
considered "as of right" Alternatives as no amendments to the TRPA Code of
Ordinances or changes to the Settlement Agreement for the Tahoe Mariner site are
required, as disclosed in the Chapter 2 description of these Alternatives. Alternative
B would result in little change to the site, but does include the construction of three
new single-family homes within the open space of the former Tahoe Mariner site.
Alternative E would result in new structures on the site and improvements to the
existing Tahoe Biltmore structure. Three single-family homes would be developed
within the open space on the former Tahoe Mariner site. An ample range of
Alternatives is provided and includes two "as of right" Alternatives of differing
degrees of development. Without any detail from the commenter regarding an
Alternative they would like analyzed in this document, no further response can be
made.
Comment 322-n: Comment Summary - Mitigation is applied unevenly between the Alternatives.
Alternative A should include mitigation actions such as seismic retrofitting of the site,
creation of an emergency response plan, reduction in the parking area,
visitor/employee shuttles, and general site renovation such as landscaping and
architectural upgrades.
Alternative A (No Project) will maintain existing conditions within the project area
as no project will be approved and therefore no mitigation required. Under existing
TRPA Codes and Regulations, the only change required of the Project proponent is
compliance with TRPA BMP retrofit requirements to treat stormwater runoff for the
20yr/1hr storm volume. No other mitigation measures are required.
Comment 322-o: Comment Summary - Mitigation is not as effective as it claims.
This general comment is in regard to Mitigation Measures SR-1A, REC-1, and
NOISE-1. Please see responses to comments 322-p, 322-q, and 322-r for additional
response.
Comment 322-p: Comment Summary - Mitigation SR-1A is unacceptable because it solves a problem
by changing the governing regulations. If that is allowed you can fix any problem by
just changing the regulations meant to protect the resources.
Mitigation SR-1A changes the text of the proposed Chapter 22 height amendment to
add a height restriction within the proposed amendment. The mitigation adds the
following text to the proposed height amendment (Bold and underlined):
PAGE 8- 84 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010