News
Outdoors
ENLARGE
INCLINE VILLAGE, Nev. — The debate over Boulder Bay continued Wednesday before the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Governing Board in the third of three public hearings about the North Tahoe redevelopment project.
Most discussion revolved around alternative C, which boasts a 300-room hotel with a 10,000 square-foot casino, 59 whole-ownership units, a spa and other amenities while promising water quality benefits for the lake.
“I think all of us understand the incredible importance of redeveloping this area and therefore the importance of doing it right,” said board member Steven Merrill.
Those who spoke in favor of the project sited environmental, economic and visual improvement from the project, while those who were either against the project — or just took issue with the project's environmental review documents — pointed to building height and scale, perceived study inadequacies and potential traffic impacts.
“We've owned our resort in Tahoe Vista for years and seen first hand the effect of the declining economy,” said Alex Mourelatos, owner of Mourelatos Lakeshore Resort in Tahoe Vista. “Besides the significant water quality improvements, this project will provide jobs and affordable housing. Why would we say no to this project?”
Some who spoke urged the board not to be slowed by perceived detractors, for fear of losing the economic benefits of the project.
“It's just a win-win-win,” said former governing board member Stuart Yount, of Crystal Bay. “The so-called opposition has died down immensely.”
Those who take issue with either the project or its environmental review urged careful consideration.
“None of the community is against the revitalization of the site; the community wants to make sure we aren't left with a disaster,” said Ann Nichols of the North Tahoe Preservation Alliance.
Ron Grassi, president of the Tahoe Area Sierra Club, took issue with scale and the potential traffic.
“Overall this project does offer several excellent ideas and is a vast improvement; however, while the project appears to be quite beneficial, the question is how will it fit ... there is a size issue,” Grassi said. “To tell us that traffic is going to reduce is not credible.”
Others weren't necessarily against the project or its environmental study, like Mike Berg of a local Carpenters Union, who wanted to make sure any new development uses local labor, keeping those construction dollars in the community.
While some neighbors took issue with the scale of the project, potentially decreasing their lake views, other neighbors spoke in favor of the renovation to the property — including Bill Wood, general manager of the Crystal Bay Club across the street from the proposed project.
“Why would I be supporting our competition? As our infrastructure deteriorates, our business becomes less sustainable. Like it our not, our life is based on tourist based economy,” Wood said.
The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency will continue accepting comments until Feb. 4. From there, feedback will be used to create the Final Environmental Impact Study for future TRPA approval.
Most discussion revolved around alternative C, which boasts a 300-room hotel with a 10,000 square-foot casino, 59 whole-ownership units, a spa and other amenities while promising water quality benefits for the lake.
“I think all of us understand the incredible importance of redeveloping this area and therefore the importance of doing it right,” said board member Steven Merrill.
Those who spoke in favor of the project sited environmental, economic and visual improvement from the project, while those who were either against the project — or just took issue with the project's environmental review documents — pointed to building height and scale, perceived study inadequacies and potential traffic impacts.
“We've owned our resort in Tahoe Vista for years and seen first hand the effect of the declining economy,” said Alex Mourelatos, owner of Mourelatos Lakeshore Resort in Tahoe Vista. “Besides the significant water quality improvements, this project will provide jobs and affordable housing. Why would we say no to this project?”
Some who spoke urged the board not to be slowed by perceived detractors, for fear of losing the economic benefits of the project.
“It's just a win-win-win,” said former governing board member Stuart Yount, of Crystal Bay. “The so-called opposition has died down immensely.”
Those who take issue with either the project or its environmental review urged careful consideration.
“None of the community is against the revitalization of the site; the community wants to make sure we aren't left with a disaster,” said Ann Nichols of the North Tahoe Preservation Alliance.
Ron Grassi, president of the Tahoe Area Sierra Club, took issue with scale and the potential traffic.
“Overall this project does offer several excellent ideas and is a vast improvement; however, while the project appears to be quite beneficial, the question is how will it fit ... there is a size issue,” Grassi said. “To tell us that traffic is going to reduce is not credible.”
Others weren't necessarily against the project or its environmental study, like Mike Berg of a local Carpenters Union, who wanted to make sure any new development uses local labor, keeping those construction dollars in the community.
While some neighbors took issue with the scale of the project, potentially decreasing their lake views, other neighbors spoke in favor of the renovation to the property — including Bill Wood, general manager of the Crystal Bay Club across the street from the proposed project.
“Why would I be supporting our competition? As our infrastructure deteriorates, our business becomes less sustainable. Like it our not, our life is based on tourist based economy,” Wood said.
The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency will continue accepting comments until Feb. 4. From there, feedback will be used to create the Final Environmental Impact Study for future TRPA approval.
