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
Comment Letter 112 – Nichols, Ann, North Tahoe Preservation Alliance, 12/17/2009
Comment 112-a: Comment Summary - The energy use assumptions underlying the GHG analysis are
considered inadequate and inaccurate, and requests an objective carbon footprint
analysis.
A Carbon Footprint analysis is not required as part of a TRPA EIS per the Code of
Ordinances and Rules of Procedure. The analysis completed by ARUP North
America, Ltd was provided by the applicant as additional information to quantify the
potential benefits of LEED green building practices. The study was completed by
licensed professional engineers. The design criteria were developed by comparing
utility data from existing or demolished facilities (owned by Boulder Bay) with
energy simulation results from the new Boulder Bay development. The new site was
modeled using eQuestTM, a graphical interface used to link with the Department of
Energy (DOE) 2.2 whole building simulation calculation engine. eQuestTM is
accepted by both LEED and California Title-24 as acceptable software for predicting
relative energy performance. eQuestTM uses hourly weather information, hourly load
and control schedules, and robust HVAC system modules to approximate energy use
at every hour of the year. Since the model for Boulder Bay consists of multiple
buildings, only residential, casino, and fitness end uses were modeled explicitly, to
reduce the size and duration of the simulation. Non-typical and non-building energy
uses were estimated with spreadsheets and added to the eQuestTM results to generate
overall anticipated site energy for comparison with the existing buildings.
The primary source related to the green house gas analysis is mobile sources (autos)
and the primary factor is vehicle miles of travel. The DEIS indicates that Alternative
C will generate less traffic/VMT than Alternative A, which was used as the baseline
for traffic comparisons. An alternative baseline condition is evaluated as described in
Master Response 2. Alternative C generates less VMT than the alternative baseline
existing condition.
Comment Letter 117 – Shankle, Samantha, 12/29/2009
Comment 117-a: Comment Summary - Disregard for their property - due to height amendment they
will lose their view according to Viewpoint 16 Figure 4.5-15.
Figure 4.5-15 depicts potential building massing under Alternative D as viewed from
Lakeview Road. The impact to viewpoints from Lake Tahoe and to Lake Tahoe from
the adjacent public roadways has been identified as a significant impact for
Alternative D as discussed in Impact SR-2. Under Alternative C, building rooftops
are lower and would not block existing views of Lake Tahoe from public roadway
viewpoints (see Figure 4.5-14).
Comment 117-b: Comment Summary - Noise from construction will create an impact with construction
being 6 days a week from 6 am to 6 pm.
Please see response to comment 93-w.
Comment 117-c: Comment Summary - Traffic studies need to include increased Traffic on Lakeview
and Wassou, and parking in the surrounding neighborhoods.
The traffic analysis evaluates trip distribution characteristics for each project
Alternative based on existing traffic volumes, the location of complementary land
uses such as where a guest might travel from or where off-site amenities are located,
and the location of parking and driveways to the site. Vehicle traffic on Wassou
SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 47