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 These parking spaces are not included in the parking space counts listed above for the Alternatives, but will continue to be open for public use. Comment 63-b: Comment Summary - Redo of traffic study - decline in traffic hard to believe. Alternative C results in fewer trips than Alternative A existing conditions and the baseline existing conditions shown on Table 8.5-2. Master Response 2 provides an alternative baseline analysis, that utilizes existing conditions, adjusted to 2006 economic conditions as the baseline. This analysis indicates Alternative C decreases traffic. Comment Letter 79 – Gergans, Nicole, League to Save Lake Tahoe, 12/9/2009 Comment 79-a: Comment Summary – Does not believe VMT will decrease with Project. Alternative C results in fewer trips than Alternative A existing conditions and the baseline existing conditions shown on Table 8.5-2. Master Response 2 provides information related to an Alternative existing baseline analysis. A reduction in vehicle trips corresponds to a reduction in VMT. Comment 79-b: Comment Summary – Existing VMTs based on potential full capacity uses, instead of actual existing VMTs, leads erroneous conclusions about Project VMTs. Please see response to comment 79-a. Comment 79-c: Comment Summary - Trip generation rate assumptions may be flawed because they were not based on data from the Biltmore or other casinos in Nevada, but instead on rates from casinos in Illinois, Iowa, and California. The information available for casino trip generation is limited and varied among sources. Several sources of casino trip generation were evaluated, including information on Nevada casinos, to determine the most appropriate and similar casino uses to the Proposed Project and Alternatives. The following sources contain Nevada casino trip generation information: • Trip Generation Rates for Las Vegas Area Hotel-Casinos, Ackeret, Hosea, ITE Journal, May 1992. • Recalibration of Trip Generation Model for Las Vegas Casinos, Rowe, Kaseko, Ackeret, ITE Journal, May 2002. • Hotel/Casino Trip Generation Study, Reno, Nevada, Barton-Aschman Associates, Inc., 1985. The casinos surveyed for these studies have different characteristics than the Proposed Project and Alternatives. The surveyed casinos in the Nevada studies above are larger in size, with an average of over 2,000 gaming positions, and an average number of employees over 1,600. In addition, these casinos are located in downtown settings and have trip characteristics that are different than the Proposed Project and Alternatives. It is likely that the overall trip generation estimate would have been lower if the Las Vegas Casino trip generation rate was applied to the Boulder Bay. The trip generation rates developed for the Las Vegas casinos studied are lower than a facility such as Boulder Bay because most Las Vegas casino guests park once at the casino and use other transportation to get around (e.g., take transit or walk to other casinos) and the Las Vegas casinos are larger with more amenities and can better keep guests on-site (e.g., there is also less draw to other recreation opportunities). PAGE 8- 26 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 The trip generation characteristics at the existing Tahoe Biltmore are also not considered to be representative of a new casino development envisioned in the Boulder Bay Project. The casino trip generation rate used in the DEIS was developed using information from casino sites that are representative in size and character to the Proposed Project and Alternatives. There is not surveyed trip generation data available for every casino use. The selected survey sites used to develop trip generation rates have a gaming floor area of 85,000 square feet or less. It is common for traffic engineers/planners to use data based on national surveys to develop trip generation estimates. For example, the ITE Trip Generation Manual is a compilation of national trip generation surveys for a variety of land uses and is typically used to develop trip generation estimates for projects. Comment 79-d: Comment Summary - The Fehr & Peers mixed-use development trip generation model may be inaccurate because it does not include interval-ownership or hotels. The Fehr & Peers mixed-use development trip generation model provides a methodology for estimating the reduction in personal vehicle trips for mixed use sites that include retail, residential, office, and other uses. The ownership uses included as part of the Proposed Project and Alternatives will function as residential uses. The visitors staying in these units will have trip making characteristics to retail, recreation, and services similar to that of a resident living in a condo or apartment that is part of a mixed use site. 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 79-e: Comment Summary - It is not clear if the trip generation model considers new trips into the area for users attracted to project amenities. External Project traffic estimates (vehicle trips in/out of the project area) include trips to the Project that are attracted to the onsite Project amenities and trips from the proposed hotel/residential uses on the project area to other destinations (such as recreation, shopping, etc.). Comment 79-f: Comment Summary - The transportation study needs to be valid for the air quality impacts to be understood. Master Response 2 provides information related to baseline transportation conditions. Professional transportation engineers/planners prepared the transportation study in accordance with national standards and practices. Comment 79-g: Comment Summary - The EIS does not quantify the reduction in average annual fine sediment load. Master Response 1 summarizes the results and conclusions from the supplemental water quality analysis that was completed in response to public comments concerning quantification of surface water quality benefits. The supplemental analysis, titled Surface Water Quality - Quantification of Design Benefits for the Boulder Bay Community Enhancement (CEP) Project Stormwater Treatment System, is added as Appendix AB of the FEIS. Comment 79-h: Comment Summary - Questions reliability of TSS loading estimates. App. P states, “Loading estimates to be used with caution. Flows are grossly estimated." SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 27
Page 1 and 2: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
Page 25: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
Page 77 and 78:
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160:
Page 161 and 162:
Page 163 and 164:
Page 165 and 166:
Page 167 and 168:
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
Page 179 and 180:
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?