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 frontage along the roadway, at the Crystal Bay Motel and Stateline parcel sites, and at more minor locations throughout the project area where pavement or structures will be removed. Coverage will occur within the areas shown on the site plans located in Chapter 2. Comment 322-b: Comment Summary - The traffic study assumes an incorrect baseline. Master Response 2 provides information related to an alternative baseline analysis. Comment 322-c: Comment Summary - The energy study uses flawed baseline assumptions, due to the inaccurate traffic study, which results in misleading conclusions of energy savings (AC and road snow melt should be included). The baseline assumptions of the energy study were developed by analyzing the existing conditions onsite. This means the baseline energy usage numbers reflect actual energy and water bills for the Biltmore and Crystal Bay Motel. The 117 bonus units allotted to Boulder Bay were not included in the baseline since they have not and do not presently exist to avoid skewing the results in favor of the Project. The baseline includes fewer units than would be developed under the Project. While the energy study includes traffic, this does not affect the analysis of water and energy consumption, rather the analysis of the overall carbon footprint. The study shows that overall electrical and natural gas consumption will decrease by 38% under Alternative D, and even more so for Alternative C. The same 38% savings also applies to water consumption. For energy and water use, the per unit use numbers are significantly less than the existing per unit use numbers, resulting in 55% use reductions per unit. The numbers are even greater when use per square foot is compared with a 74% reduction in energy and water use over existing conditions. Therefore, although the number of units and square feet increase, there is an energy and water savings. Air conditioning is included for public spaces such as the casino and wellness areas, but is not included for individual occupancy units as the building is designed to not need air conditioning. The alignment of the building in relation to the sun, use of overhangs, outdoor air ventilation systems, windows, and evaporative cooling systems eliminate the need for refrigerant cooling systems. Please see response to comment 108-e regarding the use of roadway snowmelt. Comment 322-d: Comment Summary - An objective evaluation of the Boulder Bay carbon footprint is needed. Please see response to comment number 112-a. Comment 322-e: Comment Summary - The energy goal of 50% decrease in energy use per guest is not supported by any evidence or analysis. As stated on page 4.12-14, ARUP North America Ltd. was hired to prepare a comparison of energy use between existing Boulder Bay owned and purchased structures (<strong>Tahoe</strong> Biltmore, Crystal bay Club, and TAUs) and proposed structures. This study found that even under Alternative D, which is the largest development Alternative, overall energy consumption decreased. When considering energy use, it is important to understand that older structures did not employ energy saving design or devices when constructed; therefore, they do not contain energy efficient building materials that reduce the demand for heating, cooling, and electricity and they are not designed to capture energy. Even if the guest population increases, the energy use can decrease by substantially increasing energy efficiency. Please see response to PAGE 8- 82 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 comment 112-a for additional detail on the contents of the energy study prepared by ARUP North America Ltd. Comment 322-f: Comment Summary - There are concerns over the ARUP study because it includes 191 hotel units that are currently unused and therefore not consuming energy. Also, no air conditioning is considered for the hotel rooms, which is unrealistic. Other problems are that it does not assume an increase in icemakers, and omits heated roadways. It assumes signage is the same as for the Crystal Bay Motel (why?) and includes only 50,000 sf of underground garage space, which is less than proposed. Explain. Please see response to comment number 112-a. Although each of the 191 units may not be currently used, they were in use or have the potential to consume energy as existing units. Therefore, it is appropriate to include them in the estimates of potential energy use. It should be noted that the bonus units were not included. No air conditioning is proposed for the units as the structures are designed to not need refrigerant air conditioning systems. Since the Project utilizes energy efficient design models and features including energy efficient windows, insulation, outdoor air ventilation, overhangs and shades, and other building placement and layout features that maintain comfortable indoor temperatures, refrigerant air conditioning is not needed. Additional icemakers are not proposed for multi-family units. Signage is assumed to be the same for the Crystal Bay Motel as the signage for that site reflects proposed signage energy consumption. Comment 322-g: Comment Summary - Substantiate net CEP environmental gains for Alt. C over the other Alternatives. Please see response to comment 286-as. Comment 322-h: Comment Summary - Describe the CEP "measures of Progress - Environmental Improvements Progress" for the project. Please see response to comment 286-as. Comment 322-i: Comment Summary - Alt C. is not in compliance with CEP: 1) fails to reduce energy consumption, 2) fails to address impacts of shade 3) does not incorporate reuse of existing buildings, 4) doesn't protect cultural resources, 5) does not adequately minimize noise, 6) inconsistent with NSCP, 7) doesn't provide consolidated commercial use materially different from existing conditions, 8) no additional public access to lake (shuttle service to existing does not count). Please see response to comment 286-as. Comment 322-j: Comment Summary - Alt. C results in changes to the Code with significant impacts, which is not consistent with CEP. Please see response to comment number 93-b. The Project proposes one amendment to the TRPA Code of Ordinances. The proposed amendment will not result in significant impacts as mitigated in the DEIS. Comment 322-k: Comment Summary - There is no evidence to support LEED certification. The discussion of LEED certification on pages 2-22 through 2-23 in Chapter 2- Project Description states that the Project is registered with the U.S. Green Building Council (Registration number 2424574999124310) and has completed the LEED-ND pilot project checklist with a goal of scoring greater than 40 points upon project SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 83
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: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
Page 81: RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS B
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?