FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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 Comment 322-iv: Comment Summary - The 19,089 sf of space for the health and wellness center should be used in the calculations for traffic and parking because it is a separate use from the Hotel Use. Master Response 3 provides additional detail on project trip generation associated with accessory uses. The spa and wellness services will be scheduled, operated and billed through the hotel operations. To access the spa, guests will have to enter the main hotel entrance located at the front of Building C. There is no separate entrance for the spa, and guests will use the hotel parking lot, not separate or dedicated parking. Therefore, it is not considered a separate use for purposes of the traffic and parking analysis. Comment 322-iw: Comment Summary - How can the wellness center and conference center be used for the community and community events without generating additional VMT or without advertising? Will facilities be truly run solely and exclusively by project operators? Please see response to comment 322-ih. Comment 322-ix: Comment Summary - DEIS does not discuss any request for transfer additional CFA to the Community Plan area. The proposed wellness center alone should require 19,089 CFA. Please clarify. Please see responses to comments 286-y and 286-ab. The wellness center is considered accessory floor area, not commercial floor area. As discussed in Chapter 2, the current CFA (including certified gaming area) is 56,322 square feet. Under Alternative C, total CFA will be reduced by 17,835 square feet, and 38,487 square feet of existing CFA will be utilized. There is no need to transfer additional CFA to the NSCP for this Project. Comment 322-iy: Comment Summary - DEIS is confusing and misleading as Figure 2-6 shows a "Proposed Roadway Realignment" that conforms to the County approval while Figures 2-4 and 2-5 show a combined driveway configuration. Figures 2-4 and 2-5 illustrate the Proposed Project Site Plan and the Proposed Pedestrian and Bike System, respectively. The proposed roadway alignments can be identified within these figures. Figure 2-6, however, specifically illustrates the Proposed Roadway Realignment that underlies the configurations depicted in Figures 2-4 and 2-5, including driveway access easements, portions of which will serve as pedestrian gathering areas when not necessary for emergency access routes. Washoe County, at the time of a project approval by TRPA, can consider changes to the internal roadway configuration that have been modified since the time of the right-ofway abandonment hearings. Comment 322-iz: Comment Summary - If Figures 2-4 and 2-5 represent the preferred Alternative the driveway configuration should be reconsidered by the County as the County Engineer's authority to approve modifications is limited to width and entrance dimensions. Please see response to comment 93-q. Comment noted. Project roadways will be designed and constructed in accordance with appropriate Washoe County standards. Comment 322-ja: Comment Summary - Given the need for ready access in all weather and potentially during fire emergencies it appears reckless to provide a road less than what would be required for public roads. PAGE 8- 130 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010
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 Please see response to comment 93-q. As stated on page 4.12-12, "A January 29, 2008 letter from the NLTFPD to the Washoe County Department of Community Development states that 'the abandonment and realignment of public streets…are acceptable.' The letter further states, 'The increased slope of the proposed alignment of Lakeview Avenue is acceptable due to the south facing slope of the roadway' (personal communication, NLTFPD, 2008). Since emergency response providers indicate there is adequate access, no change is warranted. Comment Letter 332 - Gergans, Nicole, League to Save Lake <strong>Tahoe</strong>, 02/04/10 Comment 332-a: Comment Summary - The impacts analyses and conclusions for traffic and air quality are flawed. The baseline for VMTs is incorrect and should be based on actual observed VMTs, not theoretical capacity. This results in an understatement of project impacts. Please refer to Master Response 2, which compares the Proposed Project and Alternatives to an alternative existing baseline. Comment 332-b: Comment Summary - Trip generation rates were not based on data from the existing site data or from other casinos in the region, but instead on casinos in Illinois, Iowa, and California. Therefore, trip generation estimates are considered inaccurate. Please see response to comment 79-c. Comment 332-c: Comment Summary - Competitive pressures indicate gaming traffic is declining at the Biltmore; therefore existing trip generation rates based on current theoretical capacity is unrealistically large, and not an appropriate baseline for the analysis. Please refer to Master Response 2, which compares the Proposed Project and Alternatives to an alternative existing baseline and response to comment 100-b regarding effects from gaming competition. Comment 332-d: Comment Summary - The F&P trip generation model for the analysis is inappropriate because it is for mixed-use development without hotel or intervalownership units. Please see response to comment 79-d. Comment 332-e: Comment Summary - The trip generation model does not account for external vehicle trips by residents and guests for recreation, retail, and services in the region. The internal trip capture rates assumptions may be flawed because it does not consider hotel uses. External project traffic estimates (vehicle trips in/out of the project area) includes trips to the project that are attracted to the onsite project amenities (non-guests) and trips to and from the proposed hotel and residential uses on the project area to other destinations (such as recreation, shopping, etc.). The Fehr & Peers mixed-use development trip generation model does provide an input and information for hotel uses. Master Response 3 provides additional detail on the Fehr & Peers mixed-use development trip generation model. Comment 332-f: Comment Summary - Accessory floor area uses are not adequately accounted for in the trip generation model because the model assumes no new trips would be generated, but uses could include restaurants or other uses that would generate trips. SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 131
Page 1 and 2:
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
Page 3 and 4:
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Page 9 and 10:
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
Page 53 and 54:
Page 55 and 56:
Page 57 and 58:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
Page 129: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187:
Page 190 and 191:
REVISIONS TO THE DEIS B o u l d e r
Page 192:
REVISIONS TO THE DEIS B o u l d e r
show all

FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?