Homewood Mountain Resort
For years, Homewood Mountain Resort (HMR) has been planning and seeking financing for their Ski Area Master Plan, an expansion that will add more chairlifts, lodging, and commercial space to the existing property, and increase traffic on our already-congested two-lane road. FOWS has many concerns about the impact this development will have on the West Shore.
In 2012, after extensive public efforts to adequately reduce the project’s impacts to the West Shore had failed, the Friends of the West Shore and the Tahoe Area Sierra Club, represented by Earthjustice attorneys, filed litigation against TRPA and the Homewood developers regarding the insufficiency of the environmental review. Placer County was also named in the suit for violating the California Environmental Quality Act.
In 2014, FOWS reached a settlement with JMA Ventures, the developer for the Homewood Mountain Resort expansion project, for a modified project which will reduce the impacts of the resort’s expansion.
Some of the highlights of our efforts include the following project modifications:
A total reduction of 13 new units compared to the larger project approved in 2011 (including 7 units on the gravel parking lot aka the “Fawn Parcel”)
Restoration of sensitive areas of the Fawn Parcel to a naturally-functioning stream environment zone
The retirement of an additional 44,000 square feet of coverage, in addition to the 178,000 sq. ft. of coverage already required, benefiting water quality and the health of our forest soils
At least 20 years of extensive traffic monitoring after the first Phase of the project is constructed
Agreements which will reduce the extent of future development allowed both at the base and on the mountain, and which protect the natural areas on the mountain from more intensive and polluting recreational uses into the future.
Image Source: HMR Master Plan
Timeline
July 2021: Last spring, the developers of HMR proposed a revision to the design and configuration of a portion of the approved project. FOWS objected to the new “modern” design, which we believe is not consistent with what was analyzed in the environmental document and included in the HMR Master Plan (read FOWS’ objection here). FOWS also believes HMR and Placer County should have reached out to and engaged the public well in advance of the Placer County Design Review Committee (DRC) meeting in March where the revisions were brought forward, especially after the public spent years involved in the approval process.
FOWS and others’ requests to return to the “mountain-style” look approved in the Master Plan led to modifications to some of the structures (e.g. adding more stonework to the exterior walls/chimney), however the developers were not willing to revise the new flat roof design. Unfortunately, although some members of the DRC also expressed unfavorable views of the flat roofs, they ultimately approved the new design on 6/26/2021.
January 2020: According to TRPA, HMR started construction on a new chairlift last summer, thereby activating the permit that would otherwise have expired in February.
March 2019: TRPA advises that the permit for Homewood Mountain Resort, originally set to expire in 2019, has been extended and the expiration date is now set for February 26, 2020.
July 2017: The Settlement Agreement between the owner of HMR, Placer County, and the California Clean Energy Committee (CCEC) was finalized, which requires an Emergency Evacuation Plan (Plan). The Plan (released in September 2016) includes a new fire station, more equipment, and additional staff for the North Tahoe Fire Protection District (NTFPD) as well as the implementation of a "shelter in place" concept. FOWS is ready to assist the NTFPD with a public meeting regarding the new Plan. At this time, the NTFPD is waiting for final development plans before proceeding. Thus, construction of the new resort expansion has also been delayed.
March 2017: FOWS has been in contact with the North Tahoe Fire Protection District (NTFPD) regarding the Homewood Evacuation Plan and will bring you updates regarding upcoming public meetings and other opportunities to learn about the plan.
December 2016: No public hearing has been scheduled regarding the new Evacuation Plan for the Homewood Village Resort released in September.
September 2016: Per the recent Settlement Agreement between Homewood Village Resort (HVR) and the California Clean Energy Committee, HVR was required to work with the North Tahoe Fire Protection District (NTFPD) to prepare the "Homewood Evacuation and Life Safety Report" and schedule at least one public meeting to discuss it. The Clean Energy Committee received the report at the end of September (available here). No date for the public meeting has been provided.
December 2015: On 12/22 a legal ruling from the Court of Appeals of California, Third District regarding the Clean Energy Committee's (CEC) challenge of the Homewood Village Resort's environmental impact report (EIR) was released.* While the Court did not agree with all claims, one of the most notable outcomes is the Court's decision regarding emergency evacuation: "There are two components to the wildfire evacuation risk - evacuation by residents, workers, and visitors, and the impact of that evacuation on access by emergency entities responding to wildfire. The EIR fails to evaluate both."The Court also stated: "...evacuation [of people from the project area] could also impact the environment by impeding emergency responders who might otherwise be able to prevent the spread of wildfire," and the EIR also "failed to identify the capacity of SR 89 or connecting roads to accommodate the evacuation of people, including additional people from the project."The CEC noted that analyzing this impact must involve the evaluation of "the total number of residents, businesses and tourists that can be safely evacuated from the West Shore, without impeding emergency vehicle access, in the event of wildfire, earthquake or seiche and evaluate the cumulative impact of the project on natural disaster evacuation and emergency vehicle access to the West Shore." The Court also pointed out that while the EIR concluded significant and unavoidable impacts to congestion on SR 89, the EIR "inexplicably" did not conclude those "same inadequate roads to be a significant, unavoidable impact in the context of a wildfire requiring emergency evacuation."The Court directed Placer County to comply with CEQA, which will require addressing the failure to identify, describe, and analyze the wildfire evacuation risk. As of late December 2015, the developers had not yet decided their next course of action. FOWS will keep you updated on opportunities to engage on this topic.* The ruling notes it is "not to be published." This means it cannot be cited by other legal documents; however, the ruling is public information.
May 2015: According to JMA Ventures, the owners of Homewood Mountain Resort, the project's construction has been delayed until 2016 due to the unresolved lawsuit filed by the California Clean Energy Committee.
December 2014: The Forest Service recently solicited comments on a proposal submitted by Homewood Mountain Resort to offer guided snowcat skiing/snowboarding tours in the Ellis Peak area during the winter of 2014-2015. The proposed area of use is identified in the current Lake Tahoe Basin Management Unit (LTBMU) Snowmobile Guide as open for motorized use.The guided snow cat tours will begin on private land within Homewood Mountain Resort near the top of the Old Homewood Express lift. From that location, a snow cat with a passenger cabin will transport 10-12 participants along a southwesterly route, across National Forest System lands into the Ellis Peak area. Participants and guides will ski from the designated drop-off point back to Homewood Mountain Resort via existing open glades, bowls, and treed terrain. Homewood Mountain Resort hopes to provide roughly 6-8 trips per day, 3 days per week, depending on weather and snow conditions. The Forest Service intends to issue a temporary special use permit, and evaluate the operation to determine the viability and appropriateness of the use for future seasons.
Scoping information and map 10/17/2014
FOWS Comments on scoping 10/31/2014
USFS Scoping Summary Report/Response to Comments 12/29/2014
January 2014: After years of effort and the continued support of our members and friends, we have reached a settlement with JMA Ventures, the developer for the Homewood Mountain Resort expansion project, for a modified project which will reduce the impacts of the resort's expansion.
Some of the highlights of our efforts include the following project modifications:
A total reduction of 13 new units compared to the larger project approved in 2011 (including 7 units on the gravel parking lot aka the "Fawn Parcel")
Restoration of sensitive areas of the Fawn Parcel to a naturally-functioning stream environment zone
The retirement of an additional 44,000 square feet of coverage, in addition to the 178,000 sq. ft. of coverage already required, benefiting water quality and the health of our forest soils
At least 20 years of extensive traffic monitoring after the first Phase of the project is constructed
Agreements which will reduce the extent of future development allowed both at the base and on the mountain, and which protect the natural areas on the mountain from more intensive and polluting recreational uses into the future.
FOWS graciously thanks the hard work of countless community members and volunteers who supported our efforts to protect our community and environment. We encourage you to read the press release for more information, and we will keep you updated as we proceed with our efforts to monitor and participate in the resort's construction and implementation.
February 2013: In January, U.S. District Court Judge William Shubb rejected the claims of HMR's developer, JMA, that it would lose money if it reduced the size of the planned resort. He noted that the combined Environmental Impact Report and Environmental Impact Statement (EIR-EIS) inexplicably failed to consider all streams of income, including condominium and hotel revenues. "The EIR-EIS misleads the public by suggesting that [ski lift] ticket sales revenue is the only relevant factor in assessing the financial viability of Homewood..." the judge wrote. He ruled that no construction could begin until a "legally adequate" EIR-EIS that properly considered a scaled-down project had been prepared and circulated. A recirculation would provide a 60 day comment period for us to raise our thoughts and questions. Read the Press Release. FOWS and other community members have also been extremely concerned with the increases in summer traffic congestion that would result from the project.
January 2012: FOWS and the Tahoe Area Sierra Club recently acted to take up unsettled issues over the newly approved Homewood Mountain Resort project to the US District of Eastern California. Earthjustice filed the lawsuit against TRPA and the Homewood developers. Placer County is also named in the suit for violating the California Environmental Quality Act. Earthjustice attorneys are representing both groups.
Press Release: Ski Resort Expansion Threatens Damage to Lake Tahoe - Local residents and Sierra Club ask judge to limit massive Homewood development
Press Release: Lawsuit Filed to Halt Massive Overbuilding at Lake Tahoe
April 2011: View these comments and analysis provided by professional consultants and experts who have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (“DEIS”)
Michael R. Lozeau - Environmental Attorney, Lozeau Drury LLP
Matt Hagemann, P.G., Ch.G. - Hydro-geologist, SWAPE Technical Consultation, Data Analysis and Litigation Support for the Environment
Tom Brohard, P.E. - Traffic ConsultantTom Brohard and Associates
Eldon Gath, C.E.G. - GeologistEarth Consultants International
2008: In February of 2008 HMR was encouraged by TRPA Governing Board to continue their application to develop a site plan. HMR submitted their plan in May of 2008 and in the summer the Notice for Public Scoping was held both at the TRPA Governing Board meeting and a Placer County meeting. There was great public participation. The Notice of Preparation was completed in September of 2008 by Placer County & TRPA and address details of the plan and the Initial Study was released.
What Can I Do?
Every West Shore resident should understand this project and its potential impact on our community, so thank you for reading this and staying active! More ways to help:
Write letters to Placer/El Dorado County Board of Supervisors and the TRPA Governing Board.
Attend Placer/El Dorado County and TRPA public meetings and workshops. Check our site for updates on upcoming meetings.
Read our newsletters and connect with us on facebook to stay informed on opportunities to take action.
Get in touch with us. Let us know your concerns and what can we do to help you understand this project.
Support us through membership, volunteering, or donation.