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