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