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