FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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 Bay employment growth." Therefore, the uncertainty over these units has been fully disclosed in the document. Comment 322-gf: Comment Summary - Kings Beach housing projects developed by Domus are replacing existing substandard and blighted inventory, it is unclear if there will be capacity for new employees based on this replacement. DEIS needs to address issue. As stated in the response to comment 322-ge, the DEIS fully discloses that "it is assumed [these units] will not be available for Boulder Bay employment growth." Perhaps some units will be occupied by Boulder Bay employees, but the DEIS does not state that they will be occupied by Boulder Bay employees. Comment 322-gg: Comment Summary - Does traffic analysis take into consideration that 45% of employees will have to travel to work? The trip generation rates for each land use take into account visitors to that land use, including guests, residents, employees, etc. The external trips generated by each Alternative account for employees who commute into work. Comment 322-gh: Comment Summary - The DEIS should provide an updated analysis of what true impacts on housing projection are based on current economic conditions. Updates to the analysis are not required to reflect minor changes in economic conditions since the preparation of the DEIS. When the impacts were analyzed, economic conditions revealed high unemployment and recession within the area. Those conditions have not changed substantially in the last year to alter the analysis. Unemployment is still high and there is a considerable supply of potential employees seeking employment in the area. Further, many of the projects listed in the cumulative impacts section of the DEIS have been cancelled or put on hold. As such, the cumulative development assumptions certainly represent a worst case scenario. Comment 322-gi: Comment Summary - What is the true demand for employee housing based on current economic conditions? The true demand for employee housing is based on the number of new employees already residing in the area, including areas such as Truckee and Reno who will be able to use transit service promoted by Boulder Bay to travel to and from work. This is analyzed within Impact SPH-2 on DEIS pages 4.11-10 through 13. Comment 322-gj: Comment Summary - What changes have occurred since report has been prepared? What are realistic growth projections taking into consideration full build out of the CEP projects and Community Plans on the North Shore? Please see response to comment 322-gh. Comment 322-gk: Comment Summary - A cumulative impacts analysis of housing need and demand should be completed in relation to Boulder Bay. A cumulative impacts analysis regarding population growth and housing is included under Impact SPH-C1of Chapter 4.11-Socioeconomics, Population, and Housing. Comment 322-gl: Comment Summary - How many employees currently working in Crystal Bay live in CA versus NV? Where do employees currently live and commute from? The trip generation rates for each land use take into account visitors to that land use, including guests, residents, employees, etc. The external trips generated by the Alternatives account for employees who commute into work. The direction of trips was established by analyzing the trips generated by the project area and assigning PAGE 8- 118 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010
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 them to the local roadway network. If Boulder Bay can accommodate a greater number of employees in onsite affordable housing, then trip generation associated with employees of the resort will be less than predicted in the DEIS analysis. Comment 322-gm: Comment Summary - Does traffic analysis take into consideration the employees that currently commute to work and those who will continue to commute if not living in onsite housing? Please see response to comment 322-gl. Comment 322-gn: Comment Summary - Do Boulder Bay employees have first priority to stay in the onsite housing before it is offered to the general public? The Project proposes workforce housing that is dedicated to employees of the project area. . Comment 322-go: Comment Summary - What are the qualifications to stay in the housing? 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 322-gp: Comment Summary - Explain differences in the housing mix per Chapter 21? Differences in the housing mix are described in Chapter 2 of the DEIS for each Alternative and analyzed in Chapter 4.1-Land Use, Impact LU-1. Comment 322-gq: Comment Summary - If the leisure sector is experiencing high unemployment rates what does it say about this industry? Is there a demand for a resort as large as Boulder Bay? Cal Neva is bankrupt and has many of the same things as Boulder Bay this needs to be addressed in the DEIS. 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 322-gr: Comment Summary - 4.11-13 There is confusion in the analysis about "little or no projected growth in the near term" but on the next page it states there will be 2-3% projected growth and 4% growth already occurred in Crystal Bay. Does 2-3% take into a account cumulative impacts of all the future CEP projects, and build out of the Community Plans? The text on page 4.11-14 states none of the Alternatives will exceed the 2% annual growth rate for Crystal Bay/Incline Village or the 3% growth rate for Washoe County. It does not state that 2-3%-projected growth will occur as a result of the project. 4% growth is discussed on page 4.11-2 in regard to the annual growth rate for Crystal Bay/Incline Village between 1990 and 2000. The analysis in SPH-3 does not include cumulative projects, which are discussed in SPH-C1. Comment 322-gs: Comment Summary - What do growth projections mean in terms of demand for resort facilities the size and scope of Boulder Bay? Could the project be too large to support a declining population and reduced visitor base? The generation of community-wide population growth projections is not a goal or element of this project. Rather, growth projections taken from census data or other demographic databases are used to analyze this project. Growth projections are related to full-time populations and not transient tourist populations. Such projections provide little information in terms of demand for resort facilities. The SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 119
Page 1 and 2:
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
Page 117: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187:
Page 190 and 191:
REVISIONS TO THE DEIS B o u l d e r
Page 192:
REVISIONS TO THE DEIS B o u l d e r
show all

FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?