Homewood resident, FOWS board member sounds off
Dear Publisher,
On July 7, Mr. Dave Tirman, senior vice president for JMA Ventures, wrote a rebuttal to an article written by Mr. Tom Rosenberg in the Sacramento Bee on July 4 regarding Homewood Mountain Resort (HMR). It was inappropriate for Dave Tirman to mention Friends of the West Shore in his rebuttal. Friends had nothing to do with the article and members first saw it when published by the Sacramento Bee.
As Tom Rosenberg has stated, he is not a member of Friends and does not represent Friends. Friends has over 300 members, so the only comments attributable to Friends are from a board member specifically writing or speaking on behalf of Friends [not as an individual] or from our letterhead or website.
Dave Tirman’s last comment is misleading that “certain members of Friends of the West Shore are resorting to misinformation and distortion of fact to further their agenda”.
Friends relies primarily on information from HMR’s or Tahoe Regional Planning Agency’s website or official written documents. Because of its size and complexity, clarification on certain aspects of the proposed resort has been necessary, including confusion over the measurement of total height and the number of units to be included in the project. These items were clarified at the May 27 TRPA meeting. In particular, TRPA advised that under the EIR/EIS analysis, the project includes 349 units, not the 316 as noted in the presentation by JMA, the project developer. Also, Friends appreciated that Dave Tirman attended the Friends community meeting on July 2 and, at the request of Friends, spoke to the group and provided information and clarification on the HMR project.
Friends supports a revitalized HMR that is smaller in size and scope, with a much reduced number of units. Some concerns noted by members of West Shore communities regarding this project:
1. Density, size and scope of the project are not compatible with the long-time character and scale of the neighborhood or the West Shore.
2. What is the impact on wetlands, watersheds and any development on raw, vacant land, especially the Fawn St. wetland area and the steep hillside slopes of the mountain.
3. Potential traffic congestion from 349 units (number of bedrooms undisclosed) could easily result in 300–500 cars, not including service and employee vehicles or boats and trailers. The proximity of the resort to Highway 89 could cause a backup on the highway during peak activity.
4. What is the availability of water and the impact on the aquifer level of other nearby communities. Who pays for any required new water and sewage infrastructure? What will be the impact of the Truckee River Operating Agreement?
5. To what extent is the project economically feasible and sustainable over a long period of time? Can the West Shore homeowner/rental base absorb such a high density project?
Friends is trying to obtain accurate information about the HMR project to disseminate to residents of the West Shore so they can evaluate the extent of this development but the information changes frequently and is sometimes incomplete. Therefore, full disclosure and understanding of the project details is important and Friends asks the public to refer to the HMR or TRPA websites for available facts and clarification. We also look forward to the release of the draft EIR/EIS for further details. We are aware that there many divergent views on the size and scope of the proposed resort but Friends is hopeful, through community meetings and communication with JMA Ventures, that the development process can be respectful of all opinions and result in a development that satisfies the needs and concerns of the West Shore Community and HMR, a resort that everyone can appreciate and accept.
Judith Tornese, West Shore homeowner and board member of Friends of the West Shore
PS: Friends of the West Shore is a Lake Tahoe, non-partisan community organization established to help preserve and enhance the character, scale and historical significance of the West Shore. It is a resource to the community and uses the collaborative efforts of the residents to make a positive impact on the West Shore neighborhoods.
Five good questions. Who and how will they be able to answer, without double talk.
I attended the meeting. Mr Rosenberg was on the agenda as a member of the ‘Friends’. He was introduced as a member of the ‘Friends’. Right after the Fact Sheet was discussed that was full of misinformation and has since been pulled. But the damage, I think, has been done. Talk about double talk!
Talk about misinformation! Mr. Rosenberg is not a member of Friends & said so at the meeting. Just ask him and anyone else at the meeting who was paying attention.
For the Record…
As a long standing Lake Tahoe local who also ran a successful business here, it is my firm belief that the update of the Homewood ski area will be good for both the West Shore and our region.
Here is why…
The Homewood ski area master plan is designed to create one the most environmental resorts in the country. We are in dire need of a boost to our local economy; one that will allow individuals and families to stay here and help get our economy get back on track. With an estimated 200 local jobs and additional 500 construction jobs linked to updating the ski area, I’m convinced that redeveloping the base areas of Homewood will help to get people to visit and stay on the West Shore, which, as we all know, will benefit everyone.
And finally…
I want to add one last thing, for the record——I was at the July 2nd Friends of the West Shore meeting and have also read the Sac Bee articles listed above. The Friends meeting agenda specifically included an agenda item with the author of the original Sac Bee opinion piece on Homewood and in fact introduced the author, Mr. Rosenberg, as a member. Although there appeared to be confusion between the board of the Friends and Mr. Rosenberg as to his membership status, it was pretty clear to me that some type of link did exist between the two parties. Just wanted to state this point of view for the record.
-Roger Kahn
I am visited your website for the 1st time and saw this article. I was at that meeting on July 7th and witnessed a very different version of the meeting than this article describes. I am a long time, year-round resident of the West Shore and an avid skier at Homewood resort in the winters.
I am very frustrated by the “tactics” of the FOWS group to stop the development at Homewood. Even though they stand up in front of folks and say with a smile, “we are not opposed to the development at Homewood” their actions speak quite differently. For them to state they had “nothing to do with the article in the Sacramento Bee” is a flat out lie. They had this writer on their agenda and introduced him as a member of the FOWS. When he said, I am not a member, the meeting leader, Susan Gerhardt, disagreed with him then said, “we will look into that and get some money from you”! Shocking way to introduce someone. In addition, at the meeting they handed out their “Fact Sheet” which was nothing but a list of opinions and innuendoes. One person in the audience even called it “inflammatory”.
I have found that folks who take a little bit of information, then adds alot of their opinion to it then twist it and restate it as “fact”, are dangerous type of people. The “FOWS” act more like their name sounds, FOES than friends and judging by their actions, it truly is their intention to stop or stall the development.
For the record, I am all for the development at Homewood. The resort badly needs a good, environmentally sound developer to give it the money it needs to continue to operate as a ski area and bring economic health to the West Shore of Lake Tahoe. I believe JMA Ventures is exactly the right match. The West Shore, along with all of Lake Tahoe needs to balance environment, social and economic needs in our area.
First of all, the above quote from Michael Hogan’s wife is beyond just an error, it is total confabulation. I did know a story was going to be printed but I didn’t know the content. That is why the Agenda read mystery writer, I often allow all interesting items, even Dave Tirman to address the group.
Once again, HMR few attempts to attack Friends of the West Shore who do use the facts. You have been wrong every time but I guess HMR can re-apply if they don’t want to use the facts the Draft EIS/EIR is using to be developed.
Right now TRPA has stated to HMR, the amount of hard surface area/asphalted is 400,000 sq. ft. At 43,560 sq. ft. per acre that is 9.18 acres for both the north and south base. However; his proposal for development is 36.1 acres of hard surface which is 361% increase in hard surface coverage. Under the Special Project or Community Enhancement Program, Mr. Chapman is “to provide a reduction in overall land coverage; results in reduction of overall site coverage from existing site coverage”, this doesn’t include undeveloped land or raw land. This is a fact that Michael Hogan knows is true but his purpose was to disrupt our neighborhood meeting, create doubt within the audience.
Cumulative impacts/effects to the watershed and groundwater does not improve the environment. What is achieved with the loss of many of the other thresholds under TRPA’s compact such as visual quality and views from scenic roadway units, shoreline units and resource areas?
You can not provide a Pedestrian Oriented Development (PTOD) for 12 months out of the year when the Placer County Supervisor states at the TRPA Governing Board, they cannot provide more than a six month or part time PTOD? This project does not enhance community character in urban center without any Community Plan? This project is not compatible with the scale, massing with existing neighborhood character, provides for appropriate scale transitions. What transitions? North base goes to the height of 108.5’ according to HMR application and then HMR re-writes the rules in how to measure height in the Tahoe Basin, or for this project only. Dave Tirman illustrated himself you can take 108’ of height down to 77’ by not using the base of the parcel to the highest point but the mean of the grade. This is very inventive but not one unit was decreased, it is still the same height of floors and will still impact views.
The Special Projects or CEPs are not supposed to be: A Code Avoidance, but this development will demand multiple code changes. We desire a redevelopment of the present parking lots, without any additional acres and certainly not to develop on raw land. How far has HMR gone from the original days in 2006 when it was written, “It is the intent of the owners of Homewood to operate a community, family oriented ski area with the additional base facilities including a bed base to allow guests to come and stay for several days at a time”. Well, families do come here for several days at a time, they rent homes with kitchens and bedrooms so they can ski all day and save money by cooking. Many home leases and small motels have been part of the West Shore Community for decades. This is the economical bed base for families wanting to ski at Homewood, not another five star Ritz-Carlton. We can’t afford the failure.