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
Mixed Use Model is based on more studies of mixed-use developments than the
current ITE methodology, which is based on three survey locations in Florida.
Master Response 3 provides additional clarification on internal/external Alternative
mode trips.
Comment 103-f: Comment Summary - The EIS should provide the base numbers of trips on which the
“Alternate Mode Split” is based. It should not include internal trips.
Please see response to comment 103-e.
Comment 103-g: Comment Summary: The internal trip capture and alternate mode trip numbers in
App. W are internally inconsistent in the "Trip Generation Spreadsheets" resulting in
inconsistent numbers of external trips calculated for Alts. A and C. Consequently,
the traffic impact analysis may be flawed.
The internal capture and Alternative mode reductions for the Boulder Bay Project
were calculated using two data sources: the Fehr & Peers mixed use development
model (mixed use equations) and surveys conducted by LSC Transportation
Consultants, Inc. (2007) at the existing Tahoe Biltmore. The data source collected at
the project site (LSC) was applied to Alternative A (Existing Conditions). The Fehr
& Peers mixed use development model data source was used for Alternative C
because the mix of uses is different than the existing conditions. Master Response 3
provides additional clarification on internal/external Alternative mode trips.
Comment 103-h: Comment Summary - The EIS does not adequately document why the Biltmore would
generate 5,581 trips vs. the actual 1,835.
Please refer to Master Response 2, which compares the Proposed Project and
Alternatives to an alternative existing baseline.
Comment 103-i: Comment Summary - The use of higher estimated, instead of actual, trip generation
rates at the Biltmore as the existing baseline condition erroneously reduces the
impact conclusions of the EIS.
Please refer to Master Response 2, which compares the Proposed Project and
Alternatives to an alternative existing baseline.
Comment 103-j: Comment Summary: From Spreadsheet: the analysis assumes all Alt. C trips would
involve interacting uses, but only 1/3 for Alt. A and 1/2 for Alt. E. This seems
erroneously because some Alt. C trips would be to visit external sites and services.
Please see response to comment 100-e.
Comment 103-k: Comment Summary - From Spreadsheet: There appears to be double counting: the
base for computing Alternative mode trips for all Alternatives includes internal
capture trips. It should include only external trips.
Please see response to comment 103-e.
Comment 103-l: Comment Summary - From Spreadsheet: Explain why the internal capture
percentages for some types of interacting trips are different for the different
Alternatives. Alternative E has different mode split percentages than the other
Alternatives.
Please see responses to comments 103-d and 103-g.
Comment 103-m: Comment Summary - From Spreadsheet: Explain why the external trips are
inconsistent with other pages in Appendix W.
PAGE 8- 44 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010