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 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
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 103-g. Comment Letter 108 – North Tahoe Preservation Alliance, 12/16/2009 Comment 108-a: Comment Summary - The NSCP needs to be amended to accommodate project heights up to 75'. A plan amendment should be analyzed. Please see response to comment 93-a. Comment 108-b: Comment Summary - The EIS does not use the right density calculation: it should be Category E, not F. None of the deed restricted site zoned general forest should be used for calculations. The note below the Table in TRPA Code Subsection 21.4.B(1) states that "Any other combination of uses, including three or more uses in a project area, is assigned to Category F." The Project includes tourist accommodation, multi-family residential for sale, multi-family residential for rent (affordable) and commercial uses. The portion of the former Tahoe Mariner site located outside of the NSCP boundary is not used for density calculations. Comment 108-c: Comment Summary - The EIS needs to address changes to the Mariner settlement agreement. Please see responses to comments 37-a and 93-a. The EIS analyzes the proposed changes to land uses within the portion of the former Tahoe Mariner site proposed for development. Comment 108-d: Comment Summary - The size of the casino and the gaming and CFA assumptions in the traffic analysis needs to be clarified. The size of the casino space used in the traffic analysis is based directly on the project description for each Alternative. The Alternatives include the following casino square footages: • Alternative A – 22,400 s.f. • Alternative B – 29,744 s.f. • Alternative C – 10,000 s.f. • Alternative D – 10,000 s.f. • Alternative E – 29,744 s.f. Comment 108-e: Comment Summary - The carbon footprint analysis should include snowmelt and air conditioning. Please see response to comment 93-u. Snowmelt is evaluated as part of impact HYDRO-1 for potential impacts to surface water quality. Heated walkways and roof catchments will collect snowmelt for use as supplemental irrigation waters. The carbon footprint analysis includes evaluation of air-conditioned areas and the HVAC system. Note that the residential units do not include air conditioners (compressors/refrigerant). Comment 108-f: Comment Summary - The 89,000 sf accessory space needs to be included for traffic and parking analyses. Master Response 4 provides additional detail on project trip generation associated with accessory uses. SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 45
Page 1 and 2: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
Page 43: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
Page 95 and 96:
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
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?