FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
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 />
them to the local roadway network. If Boulder Bay can accommodate a greater<br />
number of employees in onsite affordable housing, then trip generation associated<br />
with employees of the resort will be less than predicted in the DEIS analysis.<br />
Comment 322-gm: Comment Summary - Does traffic analysis take into consideration the employees that<br />
currently commute to work and those who will continue to commute if not living in<br />
onsite housing?<br />
Please see response to comment 322-gl.<br />
Comment 322-gn: Comment Summary - Do Boulder Bay employees have first priority to stay in the onsite<br />
housing before it is offered to the general public?<br />
The Project proposes workforce housing that is dedicated to employees of the project<br />
area. .<br />
Comment 322-go: Comment Summary - What are the qualifications to stay in the housing?<br />
This is not a comment on the content or adequacy of the DEIS. This information is<br />
passed on to the Project proponent and decision maker(s) for consideration. No<br />
further response to this comment in relation to the DEIS is warranted.<br />
Comment 322-gp: Comment Summary - Explain differences in the housing mix per Chapter 21?<br />
Differences in the housing mix are described in Chapter 2 of the DEIS for each<br />
Alternative and analyzed in Chapter 4.1-Land Use, Impact LU-1.<br />
Comment 322-gq: Comment Summary - If the leisure sector is experiencing high unemployment rates<br />
what does it say about this industry? Is there a demand for a resort as large as<br />
Boulder Bay? Cal Neva is bankrupt and has many of the same things as Boulder Bay<br />
this needs to be addressed in the DEIS.<br />
This is not a comment on the content or adequacy of the DEIS. This information is<br />
passed on to the Project proponent and decision maker(s) for consideration. No<br />
further response to this comment in relation to the DEIS is warranted.<br />
Comment 322-gr: Comment Summary - 4.11-13 There is confusion in the analysis about "little or no<br />
projected growth in the near term" but on the next page it states there will be 2-3%<br />
projected growth and 4% growth already occurred in Crystal Bay. Does 2-3% take<br />
into a account cumulative impacts of all the future CEP projects, and build out of the<br />
Community Plans?<br />
The text on page 4.11-14 states none of the Alternatives will exceed the 2% annual<br />
growth rate for Crystal Bay/Incline Village or the 3% growth rate for Washoe<br />
County. It does not state that 2-3%-projected growth will occur as a result of the<br />
project. 4% growth is discussed on page 4.11-2 in regard to the annual growth rate<br />
for Crystal Bay/Incline Village between 1990 and 2000. The analysis in SPH-3 does<br />
not include cumulative projects, which are discussed in SPH-C1.<br />
Comment 322-gs: Comment Summary - What do growth projections mean in terms of demand for resort<br />
facilities the size and scope of Boulder Bay? Could the project be too large to<br />
support a declining population and reduced visitor base?<br />
The generation of community-wide population growth projections is not a goal or<br />
element of this project. Rather, growth projections taken from census data or other<br />
demographic databases are used to analyze this project. Growth projections are<br />
related to full-time populations and not transient tourist populations. Such<br />
projections provide little information in terms of demand for resort facilities. The<br />
SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 119