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 />
Affordable and workforce housing are similar in that their occupancy is limited to<br />
certain groups of people. Affordable housing serves very low to low-income<br />
populations (TRPA Code of Ordinances Chapter 2), while employee housing serves<br />
employees of the public or private entity owning and maintaining the housing units<br />
(TRPA Code of Ordinances Chapter 18). Employee housing is not necessarily<br />
limited to certain income levels, although they typically serve employees in the<br />
lower-income categories. It should be noted that the NSCP discusses both employee<br />
and affordable housing similarly and proposes them both within the Plan Area. As<br />
stated in the DEIS, the Project proposes affordable housing and not housing limited<br />
to resort employees.<br />
Comment 322-ir: Comment Summary - What new access to recreational amenities does the project<br />
provide that is not pre-existing? Is there an analysis of how it solves and addresses<br />
the adequacy of the onsite population requirements for recreation?<br />
The Project provides public recreational amenities in the form of the park on the<br />
<strong>Tahoe</strong> Mariner Site as well as a playground and public gathering spaces. The project<br />
proposes approximately 5,100 linear feet of pedestrian paths, 900 linear feet of hiking<br />
paths, and 2,000 linear feet of bicycle lanes. Guests of the resort will be able to use<br />
the pools, spa, and fitness facilities onsite. Currently, the only recreational amenity is<br />
a pool. Since guests of the resort do not represent a permanent population,<br />
population requirements for recreation are not applicable to the majority of persons at<br />
the resort. Permanent residents as discussed in Chapter 4.11 represent small<br />
populations and do not indicate a need for additional recreational services. This is<br />
discussed in Impact REC-3 on pages 4.6-22 and 23 of the DEIS.<br />
Comment 322-is: Comment Summary - Does the DEIS analyze the impact of not providing a sidewalk<br />
for the public to Stateline/Lakeview Rd or Wellness Way?<br />
Please see response to comment 322-cn.<br />
Comment 322-it: Comment Summary - Does DEIS analyze the proposed building volumes as they<br />
compare to the context of the residential neighborhood?<br />
Building volume or mass is analyzed in Chapter 4.5 - Scenic Resources in impact<br />
SR-2 and in the figures in Chapter 4.5, particularly 4.5-6, 7, 14, and 15. While the<br />
massing of Alternative D is significant and visually present, the layout and setback of<br />
the tallest structures under Alternative C utilizes the slope and is not overbearing in<br />
comparison to the existing structure or residential developments. The roofline is<br />
more prevalent from Lakeview Avenue, but does not interrupt views or crowd<br />
adjacent structures. Please refer to the analysis on page 4.5-47 and page 4.5-49 of the<br />
DEIS.<br />
Comment 322-iu: Comment Summary - There is no independent analysis of energy use or efficiency.<br />
ARUP study is flawed. Why doesn't DEIS require an independent energy use<br />
analysis?<br />
Please see response to comment 112-a.<br />
ARUP North America Ltd. provided an independent energy consumption study for<br />
Boulder Bay based on existing utility bills and projected use. In developing future<br />
use estimates, the analysis includes the number of proposed units, square footage, and<br />
uses as well as numbers for the energy using equipment proposed onsite.<br />
SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 129