FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
FEIS - Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ON THE DEIS<br />
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<br />
comment 112-a for additional detail on the contents of the energy study prepared by<br />
ARUP North America Ltd.<br />
Comment 322-f: Comment Summary - There are concerns over the ARUP study because it includes<br />
191 hotel units that are currently unused and therefore not consuming energy. Also,<br />
no air conditioning is considered for the hotel rooms, which is unrealistic. Other<br />
problems are that it does not assume an increase in icemakers, and omits heated<br />
roadways. It assumes signage is the same as for the Crystal Bay Motel (why?) and<br />
includes only 50,000 sf of underground garage space, which is less than proposed.<br />
Explain.<br />
Please see response to comment number 112-a.<br />
Although each of the 191 units may not be currently used, they were in use or have<br />
the potential to consume energy as existing units. Therefore, it is appropriate to<br />
include them in the estimates of potential energy use. It should be noted that the<br />
bonus units were not included. No air conditioning is proposed for the units as the<br />
structures are designed to not need refrigerant air conditioning systems. Since the<br />
Project utilizes energy efficient design models and features including energy efficient<br />
windows, insulation, outdoor air ventilation, overhangs and shades, and other<br />
building placement and layout features that maintain comfortable indoor<br />
temperatures, refrigerant air conditioning is not needed. Additional icemakers are not<br />
proposed for multi-family units. Signage is assumed to be the same for the Crystal<br />
Bay Motel as the signage for that site reflects proposed signage energy consumption.<br />
Comment 322-g: Comment Summary - Substantiate net CEP environmental gains for Alt. C over the<br />
other Alternatives.<br />
Please see response to comment 286-as.<br />
Comment 322-h: Comment Summary - Describe the CEP "measures of Progress - Environmental<br />
Improvements Progress" for the project.<br />
Please see response to comment 286-as.<br />
Comment 322-i: Comment Summary - Alt C. is not in compliance with CEP: 1) fails to reduce energy<br />
consumption, 2) fails to address impacts of shade 3) does not incorporate reuse of<br />
existing buildings, 4) doesn't protect cultural resources, 5) does not adequately<br />
minimize noise, 6) inconsistent with NSCP, 7) doesn't provide consolidated<br />
commercial use materially different from existing conditions, 8) no additional public<br />
access to lake (shuttle service to existing does not count).<br />
Please see response to comment 286-as.<br />
Comment 322-j: Comment Summary - Alt. C results in changes to the Code with significant impacts,<br />
which is not consistent with CEP.<br />
Please see response to comment number 93-b. The Project proposes one amendment<br />
to the TRPA Code of Ordinances. The proposed amendment will not result in<br />
significant impacts as mitigated in the DEIS.<br />
Comment 322-k: Comment Summary - There is no evidence to support LEED certification.<br />
The discussion of LEED certification on pages 2-22 through 2-23 in Chapter 2-<br />
Project Description states that the Project is registered with the U.S. Green Building<br />
Council (Registration number 2424574999124310) and has completed the LEED-ND<br />
pilot project checklist with a goal of scoring greater than 40 points upon project<br />
SEPTEMBER 8 , 2010 HAUGE BRUECK ASSOCIATES PAGE 8- 83