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
Table 8.5-8
Project Alternative Resident, Guest and Employment Specifications
Alternative Residents (including
affordable housing units) 1
Notes:
TAU Guests 2 Employees Parking Spaces
A 0 263 131 296
B 8 263 145 296
C 206 651 205 540
D 94 884 214 575
E 83 529 185 465
Source: Boulder Bay DEIS, 2009
1 Includes residents of market rate (2.52 people per unit) and affordable housing (1.5 people per bedroom) units.
2 Assumes 2 persons per standard room and 3 persons per cottage/suite/timeshare unit (timeshares in Alts D and E).
Professional transportation engineers/planners prepared the transportation study in
accordance with national standards and practices, and the impacts to traffic and
parking are presented in the DEIS.
Comment 335-e: Comment Summary - The EIS must detail mitigation measures to address traffic and
parking impacts.
The DEIS provides mitigation recommendations for traffic related significant impacts
identified in the document. There are no significant impacts associated with parking
for the Alternatives. A Shared Parking analysis (based on the methodology presented
in the Urban Land Institute’s (ULI) Shared Parking), which accounts for
internalization between uses and time of day factors, was performed to determine the
minimum number of parking spaces that will be needed to adequately serve the uses
included in each Alternative. The maximum number of parking spaces allowed by
the North Stateline Community Plan (NSCP) was also calculated based on the land
uses included in each Alternative. The number of parking spaces proposed as part of
each Alternative falls between the minimum and maximum required number of
parking spaces.
Please refer to Master Response 2, which compares the Proposed Project and
Alternatives to a alternative existing baseline.
Comment 335-f: Comment Summary - As a CEP project the EIS must quantify (not just give
percentages) the fine sediment loading and reduction for existing conditions and for
each Alternative for water quality, and then compare these values to regulatory
requirements.
See Appendix AB, which provides these calculations and comparisons in Tables 2
and 3 for "wet" (worst-case scenario) and "dry" water years. Loads are presented in
pounds/year (lbs/yr).
Comment 335-g: Comment Summary - The EIS needs to document and support the claim of a 90%
reduction of fine sediment.
See Master Response 1 and Appendix AB. Supplemental surface water quality
analysis using the LSPC model supports the claim of 90% reductions in fine
PAGE 8- 144 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010