Document Alpinecountyca_doc_4d8a9a17e4

Board of Supervisors Agenda for Thursday, December 10, 2009 NOTICE OF SPEClAL MEETING BOARD OF SUPERVISORS COUNTY OF ALPINE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AGENDA Thursday, December 10, 2009 6:30 PM PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE §54956, the Alpine County Board of Supervisors will hold a Special Meeting, as follows: MEETING TO BE HELD AT - 6:30 p.m. at the Cathedral Lounge Bear Valley Lodge 3 Bear Valley Rd, Bear Valley, CA Donald M. Jardine District 1 Vice Chair Henry "Skip" Veatch District 2 Phillip D. Bennett District 3 Chair Terry Woodrow District 4 Tom Sweeney District 5 Pameia Knorr Martin Fine County Administrative Officer County Counsel 530-694- 2287 530-694- 2287 8oard Chambers Administratrve Office Building P.O. Box ?58 99 Water Sfreet Markleeville, CA - 96120 Barbara Howard County Clerk and Ex officio Clerk to the Board 530-694- 2281 NOTICE: Pursuant to Government Code §54954.3( any member of the public shall be provided with the opportunity to directly address the Alpine county Board of Supervisors concerning any item that has been described in the notice for the meeting before or during consideration of that item. No other business shall be considered at these meetings by the legislative body. No action can be taken on items not appearing on the agenda. CALL TO ORDER SPECIAL MEETING - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. REGULAR AGENDA-NEW BUSINESS 2.1 Bear Valley Village Development Project: Public hearing on the proposed Bear Valley Village development project and possible action to approve the following items: Adopt a resolution to amend the Alpine County General Plan that will modify the 1978 Bear Valley Master Plan specific to the Bear Valley Village development project; Adopt a resolution establishing detailed findings for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA findings"); ---PAGE BREAK--- Board of Supervisors Agenda for Thursday, December 10, 2009 3. First reading of an ordinance to amend the zoning for the Bear Valley Viilage project site and approve a development plan for the Bear Valley Village development project that will modify the 1978 Bear Valley Master Plan. - Community Development Director 3. ADJOURNMENT The Board will adjourn to the next regular meeting of Tuesday, December 15, 2009 at 8 30 a.m. at the County Administrative Office Building, Markleeville, California. Notice of Special Meeting posted 1 2 /412 009) Barbara Howard, County Clerk and ex officio Clerk to the Board of Supervisors By Sarah Simis, Assistant County Clerk ---PAGE BREAK--- AGENDA TRANSMITTAL To: Board of Supervisors Frtonn: Brian Peters oaTE: December 10, 2009 PREPARED BY: Brian Peters TITLE: (Action Requested, Subject And JustificationJ Sear Valley Village Development Project: Public hearing on the proposed Bear Va!!ey Village development project and possible action to approve the following items: 1. Adopt a resolution to amend the Alpine County General Plan that will modily the 1978 Bear Valley Master Plan specific to the Bear Valley Village development project; 2. Adopt a resolution detailed findings for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act CEQA findings 2. First reading of an ordinance to amend the zoning for the Bear Valley Village project site and approve a development pfan for the 8ear Valley Village development project that wi!! modify the 1978 Bear Valley Master Plan. SUMMARY: (Description of lssue - Background and History) On September 24, 2009 the Alpine County Planning Commission recommended approva! of the above listed actions. See attached staff report and materials formore information. RECOMMENDED ACTION: The following three actions are recommended: 1. Adopt the resolution amending the Alpine County General Plan; 2. Adopt the resolution establishing detailed CEQA 3. Waive the first reading of the ordinance to amend the zoning for the Bear Valley Village project and set the second reading and possible adoption of the ordinance for the January 5, 2010 regular meeting oi the 8oard of Supervisors. ISSUE STATEMENT AND DISCUSSION: See staff report and otherattached materials Not Applicable) 0.00 0.00 0.00 SOURCE Unanticipated 0.00 Revenue From Contingency 0.00 Other: 0.00 FISCAL IMPACT: 1) Budgeted Current Fiscal Year 2) Total Anticipated Cost Current Year 3) Total Anticipated Cost Annual Year NOTATIONS / INSTRUCTIONS: PERSONNELIMPACT: ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- COUNTY OF ALPINE Community Development Brian Peters, Director Memo To: Board of Supervisors From: Brian Peters Date: 12l3l2009 Re: Bear Valley Village Development Project Introduction An application to amend the Alpine County General Plan and modify the County zoning ordinance specific to the Bear Valley Village development project was submitted to the County in late 2006. On September 24, 2009, the Alpine County Planning Commission recommended approval of this application. The Planning Commission's recommendation is being fonrrarded to the Board of Supervisors. The Board must conduct a public hearing prior to taking any action. This staff memo includes a summary of the process, project description, criteria for decision(s), decision options available to the Board, additional staff comments and recommended actions. The following table lists the documents that are attached to this memo. Attachment Descri tion 1 Selected exhibits from the ro ect a lication 2 Resolution to amend the General Plan 3 Ordinance to amend the zoning - includes the following exhibits: A: Development Plan for the project with exhibits A-1 through A-4: A-1: Property description A-2: Development plan (map) A-3: Architectural design guidelines A-4: Miti ation Measures/conditions of approval 4 Resolution to ado t detailed CEQA findin s 5 Su plemental materials from the a licant 6 Additional documentation re ardin environmental issues 7 Public comment letters submitted for the December 10 Board hearin 50 Diamond Valley Road, Markleeville, CA 96120 (530~ 694-2140 / Fax (530) 694-2149 www.al pi n ecou ntyca.gov ---PAGE BREAK--- Process The timeline outlined below shows the major steps in the process to date, and actions that are necessary in the future for the proposed development. The current step in the process is shown in bold type. Fall 2006: Application submitted to County March 2007: Application revised and finalized March 2007: Notice of Preparation for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) March 2007: Public scoping meeting for DEIR held in Bear Valley September 2008: DEIR released for public comment October 2008: Public meeting on DEIR held in Bear Valley November 2008: Close of public comment period for DEIR May 2009: Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) completed and released May 2009 Board of Supervisors public hearing in Bear Valley and action to certify the FEIR August 2009: Planning Commission public hearing in Bear Valley to consider the application September 2009: Planning Commission continued public hearing in Bear Valley and action to recommend approval of the application December 2009: Board of Supervisors public hearing in Bear Valley to consider the application -15~ reading of an ordinance regarding zoning for the proposed project and possible action to approve the amendment to the Alpine County General Plan specific to the project December 2009: Notice of Determination (NOD) is filed if Board approves any part of the application. Filing the NOD starts the 30-day statute of limitations for filing a legal challenge to the EIR January 2010: Possible Board action on the proposed 2nd reading of an ordinance regarding the zoning for the proposed project Spring 2010: Completion of the process to consider proposals and a land transaction regarding the County-owned parking lots B and C Future Steps - These are presented in the expected order of completion, actual dates TBD: Continuing dialogue with Calaveras agencies and Caltrans regarding details for traffic impact mitigation funding; possible interagency agreements USFS completes federal environmental review process (NEPA) for proposed improvements to the Bear Valley Mountain Resort (federal lands - ski area) Applications for tentative subdivision maps and conditional use permits for first phase of the proposed Bear Valley Village project (site specific project applications); public hearings by Planning Commission before action can be taken, Planning Commission decisions may be appealed to Board of Supervisors Other agency permits and approvals as applicable Mitigation measures and conditions of approval applied to site specific project applications Building permits for site specific project approvals ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Skier and snowmobile access trails through the project site connecting Bear Valley Road to the Village Lift for skiers and to the existing snowmobile trail through open space, respectively; Short term vehicle parking adjacent to Bear Valley Road and the proposed Building 6 to accommodate loading and unloading necessary to access residential areas in the winter; Infrastructure necessary to serve the development (domestic water, wastewater collection, emergency vehicle access, transit stop(s), utilities. Relocation of No Name Road Removal of Bear Valley Lodge and Commercial Center Criteria For Decision General Plan Amendment: The proposed general plan amendment must: 1. Be in conformance with the General Plan Requirements of State Code Section 65300 in that it contains all of the required elements and is internally consistent 2. Be consistent with all other elements of the Alpine County General Plan and any applicable specific plan adopted for the area 3. Be in harmony with the County Zoning Ordinance and all other applicable County ordinances 4. Promote the health, safety, peace, morals and general welfare of the County and its people Zoning Change: Section 18.84. 040 of the County Zoning Ordinance includes the following findings which must be considered prior to making a recommendation on a proposed zone change: 1. Whether or not the proposed zone change is in conformance with the Alpine County General Plan. 2. Whether or not the proposed zone change is in harmony with the zoning ordinance and other applicable County ordinances. 3. Whether or not the proposed change might be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, morals, and general welfare of the county or its people. Board Decision Options General Plan Amendment: Action on the General Plan must be completed before the Board can take any final action regarding the change in zoning. The options for the General Plan are: 1. Approve the resolution adopting changes to the Alpine County General Plan that will modify the 1978 Bear Valley Master Plan specific to the Bear Valley Village project Attachment The resolution to adopt CEQA findings must be approved concurrent with Board action to approve the General Plan amendment (Attachment ---PAGE BREAK--- 2. Deny the changes to the Alpine County General Plan with specific findings 3. Continue the public hearing and/or consideration of the proposed changes to the Alpine County General Plan to a future Board meeting. If the public hearing is continued, the Board must specify the time, date and Iocation for the continued hearing. Zoning Change: Following adoption of the changes to the General Plan, the Board may consider the following options for the zoning change: 1. Approve the ordinance to change the zoning for the Bear Valley Village project site and approve a development plan for that will modify the 1978 Bear Valley Master Plan specific to the project site (Attachment County practice is to adopt ordinances in a 2- step process - first and second reading. The first step is to waive the first reading and set the date for the second reading and possible adoption of the ordinance. The development plan is incorporated into the ordinance that will change the zoning. As such, no separate action is needed to approve the development plan. 2. Deny the zoning change with specific findings to support the decision. 3. Continue the public hearing and/or first reading to a future Board meeting. If the public hearing is continued, the Board must specify the time, date and location for the continued hearing. Additional Staff Comments CEQA Record The Final EIR was certified by the Board of Supervisors on May 29, 2009. The detailed CEQA findings (Attachment 4) must be made concurrent with the first project approval granted by the County. In this case, that is the General Plan amendment for the project. Additional documentation provided by the County's consultant for the EIR (SWCA Environmental Consultants) will be included in the "CEQA record" for this project (Attachment This documentation addresses CEQA issues that were raised during the Board's public hearing on May 29, 2009, and following the Board's action to certify the Final EIR. Greenhouse Gas Emissions The Final EIR includes mitigation measure CC-1/ condition of approval #65 requiring a greenhouse gas reduction plan for each phase of the project (See exhibit A-4 in Attachment Example measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions are listed in the mitigation measure. Independent of the County, the project applicant has met with representatives from the Central Sierra Environmental Resource Council (CSERC) to discuss more specific measures that might be included in the reduction plan. The project applicant has also hired their own environmentai consultant (AECOM) to evaluate possible actions that might be included in the plan. Attachment 5 includes the greenhouse gas reduction plan prepared by AECOM and submitted by the applicant. Condition No. 70 requires that the plan be implemented (See exhibit A-4 in Attachment ---PAGE BREAK--- Highway 4 Traffic Impacts The Final EIR includes mitigation measureTC-2/ condition of approval #28 to reduce impacts along the Highway 4 corridor west of Bear Valley (See exhibit A-4 in Attachment Calaveras County, the Calaveras Council of Governments and Caltrans have continued to raise concerns regarding impacts to this corridor. Following certification of the FEIR, these agencies, Alpine County staff and the project applicant met to discuss additional ways to address concerns with Highway 4 west of Bear Valley. The following concepts were discussed in these meetings: Funding of approximately $3 million. The full funding amount shall be provided in increments that are tied to actual development of the project. It is anticipated that development thresholds or milestones will trigger payments. Early funding is intended to enable Calaveras County to plan and complete at least one identified project along the Highway 4 corridor in the Arnold or Murphy's area. Funding increments must consider the economic viability of the project in light of other obligations of the project to provide up front funding for necessary infrastructure and early project components. Projects to be funded will focus on communities along the Highway 4 corridor. Cost indexing for future payments should be considered. Agreements between Alpine County, Calaveras County and the Calaveras Council of Governments will be necessary to implement this condition. The parties will strive to complete these agreements in a timely manner following approval of the zoning change by Alpine County. As a result of these discussions, the applicant has proposed two new conditions (#66 and #67). Condition #66 addresses improvements on Highway 4 between Bear Valley and Angels Camp. Condition No. 67 addresses a section of Highway 4 west of Angeis Camp (known as "Wagon Trail"). The applicant's proposal does not include provisions for cost indexing for future payments. The new conditions do not contain a set time line for completing the intergovernmental agreements that will be necessary for implementation. Parking Each phase or building included in the Bear Valley Village project will include its own parking on site e. within the development). Section 5 of the planned development designation Attachment 3, Exhibit A) contains the specific parking requirements spaces, dimensions, etc). The Final EIR includes mitigation measure TC-5/ condition of approval #29 which requires the applicant to prepare a" Parking Management Plan" (PMP) for each development phase (See exhibit A-4 in Attachment The purpose of the PMP is to ensure that the Village Lift does not result in reduced parking availability for existing uses (existing residences, businesses, etc). The Final EIR also references the County's commitment to preparing a separate plan to address parking for "reasonably foreseeable future developmenY' (Final EIR pp. 3.9- 51 - 3.9- 52). This plan will identify how parking demand in Bear Valley will be met as future development occurs beyond growth that is directly attributable to Bear Valley Village project. ---PAGE BREAK--- The applicant must submit its PMP concurrent with the application for a conditional use permit for each phase of the project. In this way, the applicanYs PMP will be subject to public review and acceptance by the County as part of the conditional use permit process. The County's plan to address demand from future growth does not have a specific trigger or timeline indentified in the Final EIR. One possible way to address this is to establish a small steering committee to work with County staff. This steering committee would compile and review all existing parking data and begin to identify options for addressing future parking demand. Biological Impacts The Final EIR includes eight mitigation measures/conditions of approval addressing impacts to biological resources (measures 62- 2alcondition of approval #12 through BR-9b/ condition of approval #19 - See exhibit A-4 in Attachment In addition, the Planning Commission has recommended an additional condition to address possible impacts to marten and fisher that might be present within private (non USFS) lands: 1. If trees or vegetation that provide potential denning habitat for the marten or fisher will be removed during the denning season, then project applicant shall retain a quatified biologist approved by the County to conduct focused preconstruction surveys for active dens of martens and fishers. These surveys shali be conducted within 30 days of the onset of each construction phase of the project, initiated during or extending into the denning season. Such preconstruction surveys for active dens of martens and fishers shail be conducted within 500 feet of active construction areas within the Bear Valley Village project area, including the ski lift line and return ski run areas as they cross non-USFS land. If an active den for either species is located during the preconstruction surveys, then the applicant shall notify the County. Construction shall be delayed within a Y< mile of the den to avoid disturbance until the den is no longer active. The'/< mile-buffer may be reduced through consultation with the County and the qualified biologist if the County determines that, based on site specific conditions, a lesser buffer will still protect the active den from disturbance from construction activities. The County may consult with DFG and/or USFWS in implementing these requirements. 2. The USFS and the Bear Valley Mountain Resort is seeking approval to construct ski runs on US Forest Service lands which will cross County land. In conjunction with that license, USFS is developing appropriate conditions to address active marten/fisher dens. In the event USFS adopts additional or more stringent measures in connection with its approval of ski runs on USFS land, those measures shall also apply to all project-related construction activities located on land within County jurisdiction. The applicant has also proposed a new condition (#69 - See exhibit A-4 in Attachment 3) that requires a$ 50, 000 donation be made by the applicant to the California Wildlife Conservation Board. This would be provided in two separate payments of $25,000 each. These funds are to be used to conserve lands with important wildlife habitat values located in either Alpine or Calaveras counties. ---PAGE BREAK--- Wastewater Treatment Capacity Throughout the public hearings on the Final EIR certification and Planning Commission's consideration of the application, the capacity of the Bear Valley Water DistricYs (BVWD) wastewater treatment plan has been discussed. The BVWD conducted its own environmental review of the plans to upgrade the treatment plan. The County's EIR consultant (SWCA) has provided follow up documentation regarding the how the EIR for the Bear Valley Village project addressed this topic (Attachment 6, letter dated November 12, 2009; pages 18 & 19 regarding item SMW-14). This letter specifically states: The EIR adequately evaluates BVWD's ability to accommodate the projecYs wastewater needs. As discussed on FEIR page 3.4- 3, BVWD's existing treatment facilities are currently planned to accommodate anticipated wastewater flow from current and future developments within BVWD's entire service area. The envrronmental impacts of BVWD's proposed tertiary treatment plant were analyzed in BVWD's Initia! Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration in May 2006. BVWD rssued a Notice of Determination dated July 18, 2006, finding that the mitigation measures rncluded in the Negative Declarafion will reduce the projecYs effects to a/ ess fhan significant level. Because the project has been determined under CEQA to have a less fhan significant rmpact, there is no need for a cumulative review under this ElR. BVWD has been making progress toward meeting theirobligation to provide tertiary treatment of wastewater discharged to Bloods Creek. BVWD rs currently evaluating two alternative financing to fund its terfiary treatment project, and is holding a public hearing on fhe financing mechanisms on January 18, 2010 Ritchie, October 5, 2009; personal communicafion with S. Goeb/ of SWCA)." Recommended Actions The following three actions are recommended: 1. Adopt the resolution amending the Alpine County General Plan; 2. Adopt the resolution establishing detailed CEQA findings; 3. Waive the first reading of the ordinance to amend the zoning for the Bear Valley Village project and set the second reading and possible adoption of the ordinance for the January 5, 2010 regular meeting of the Board of Supervisors. ---PAGE BREAK--- ATTACHMENT 1 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA PACKET DECEMBER 10, 2009 BEAR VALLEY VILLAGE APPLICANT MATERIALS ---PAGE BREAK--- EsZb'~t[~ t` i' A December 10, 2009 Board of Supervisors Alpine County Re: Bear Valley Deveiopment Project The communities of Calaveras County are ail very dependent on businesses like Bear Valley that generate tourist business. There are only a handfui of businesses that attract large amounts of tourists to this area year-round, and Bear Valley has the potential to have the biggest impact of all. As you can imagine, the guests that Bear Valley bring to the area ~reate revenue oppartunities in Calaveras County for lodging, dining, real estate, retail, and other tourist destinations. As the EIR states, Calaveras will realize nearly 80% of the financial benefit from this project. It is therefore very frustrating when our own govemment entities stand in the way of a key economic boostfor Calaveras County. On b2half of the Calaveras Chamber of Commerce, we encourage you Yo move this project forward and not delay it any further with upfront fees that wouid impede a good project from going through. We believe such action would be very shortsighted. And, such action would not recognize that developments like the Bear VaNey praject will invigorate Calaveras County at a time when the area and tF~e state are in need of good development projects with a strong investment team behind it. Retaii businesses and construction busirtesses in Calaveras County area are hurting. We have a number of struggling business and higher unemployment. We stronqly anticipate the improvement plans for 8ear Valiey will bring a needed boost tQ the county and request that all governmental agencies look to support rede~ elopment, rether then impede it with upfront fees and other obstacles. A strong Bear valley means a Stronger Calaveras County. We need this project to move forward right away. Sincerely, Board of Directors of Cala~eras County Roger R. Pitto, Mark Luster, Bruce TalEakson, Michael Walker, Jeff Qavidson, Jack Boeding, ---PAGE BREAK--- Ron DweHey, Dixon Collins, Mike De[I ' Orto, }acob Lewis, John Hamilton, Diane Gray Calaveras County Chamber of Commerce 52 South Main Street Angeis Camp, CA 95222 (209) 736•2580 ---PAGE BREAK--- Xk-tgtT ~ SiENI.FlN9NBEP0 Mu ; WEINBERG ROGER & ROSENFELD wwreeu wwaiwcran O.W IEL BWHE fi CORPORATION XEYiCKfl9Ca a~ r~ 10Q~ Marina Village Parkway Suite 200 s. rwuwcaeaw wE Fa Alameda CA 94 501-1 091 a x~ omnarav. aix TELEPHONE [PHONE REDACTED] M;nneh i oFn FAX 510.337. 1023 wsv2i~a.. ux weuarwm:es m vs N. IWSIIN/.L. N~ WN1... F EIAY P~ CX eau~.. n. n. ro BY EMAIL AND US MAIL December 9, 2009 Boazd of Supervisors ofAlpine County c/o County Clerk, ex officio Clerk of the Board of Supervisors 99 Water Street P.O. Box 158 Markleeville, CA, 96120 Phone:530- 644-2281 Fax:530- 694-2491 coclerk@alpinecountyca. gov Bnan Peters, D'uector of Plamiing Alpine County Planning Department 50 Diamond Valley Road Markleeville, CA 96120 S30)694- 1878 brian@pd. alpinecountyca. gov Re: Bear Valley Village Dreft Environmental Impact Report SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED] Honorable Members of the Alpine County Board of Supervisors and Mr. Peters: LMIN.4011' NO.. E CO4CEttibIELPWINPBI.l15i4 ENLEP G4nU WSTN/.N_ 3~ WEN KEaw~~a E~ M ~.uE~ os c. ma wo.~ ur~ w cnres«cry~. i rs~r~~ o. xwuxs. a i ni~ nno r cPa.~ av. a mwe 4wbnW wMUv MnXed~m IYw.f mamw. w I am writing on behalf ofCa~ penters Local I789 and two of its individual members, Greg Chapman and Robed Samorano (collectively, "Local 1789") to comment on the Draft and Final Environmental Impact Reports (`BIR") prepazed pursuant to the California Environmental Qusliry Ac[ CEQA") for the Beaz Valley Village Project (SCH No. 2007032D09) ProjecP') and the reYated CEQA fmdings and Project approvals scheduled to be considered on December 10, 2009. After reviewing the extensive comments already submitted by California Department of Transportarion (CalTrans), Calaveras County Public Works Deparlment, Calaveras Council of Govemments, Central Sierra Environmental Resource CenYer, and others, it is cleaz that the EIR prepared for the Bear Valley Project is woefully inadequate and that a new EIR is required to be prepared and recirculated. In addirion, new impacts and mitigation measures have been proposed after circulation of the Final EIR that must be analyzed in a supplemental EfR that must be circulated for full public review and comment. Therefore, Local 1789 urges the Board to continue the matter for future consideration, pending completion of a supplemental EIK LOSANGELESOFFICE SACPAMEMCOFFlLE NONOWWOFFlCE 3C35w'asni~ eeou~ avar0, 5wce6Y0 C28JSVeeC5uM530 IoaSAlakea5neet5ul~at602 LcsAngeles.CA90010- 09W Saasma~to. CA95814Q391 Hondulu.Hl968t3- 450a TEL2133801364FAX213.081. tOBB iEL916443.fi60' JFAX916.4d2. 0Y64 TELeC8S2&8080FA% d00.539. 9801 ---PAGE BREAK--- Beaz Valley CEQA Comment Carpenters Local 1789 December 9, 2009 Page 2 addressing the Project's significant vnpacts and mitigation measures, including new impacts and mitigation measures identified aRer the final EIR. In particular, the EIR suffers for the following significant omissions, among others: TRAFFIC IMPACTS: The.EIR fails to adequately analyze or mipgate the ProjecPs traffic impacts in Calaveras County, which will require 28 miles of new passing lanes. Nor does the EIR analyze the impacts that these passing lanes may themselves pose to the environment. SEW AGF, IMPACTS: The EIR fails to propose any adequate mi¢ igation for the inadequate sewage treatment capacity at the Bear Valley Water District. The Project will dramatically increase the amount of sewage flowing into a sewage plant that is already violating state and federal clean water act standazds, and that has discharged over one million gallons of raw sewage to Bloods Creek. Adding additionai sewage to an already inadequate sewage treatment plant will only exacerbate exisring problems. WATER SUPPLY: 'Lhe,Project has not secured an adequate supply of fresh water for snow making ando[ herneeds of the Project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The EIR fails to adequately describe key elements of the Project including ski iuns, amphitheater, and meeting facitiry, all of which will have significant environmental impacts. GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACT: The EIR admits that the Project will have signiticant cumulative greenhouse gas impacts. Yet, the document fails to require adequate and enforceable mitigation measures. It fails to consider measures, such as a loeal-hire preference for construction workers living less than 100 miles from the Project, which would dramatically reduce,commute- related greenhouse gas emissions. Commute emissions aze the single largest source of greenhouse gases from the Project. Local 1789's members live,in and around Alpine County and will be affected by the traffic, water quality, au quality, and other impacts of the Project. Local 1789 therefore adopfs by refercnce all of the comments that have been submitted on the Project and the EIR prepared for the Project, and urges the County to decline to certify the EIR and require the Project proponent to prepare and recirculate a new EIR fhat adequately describes, analyzes and mirigates the Project and its impacts.~ Finally, Local 1789 urges the County to ensure that the economic benefits of the Project outweigh its environmental impacts. The Fiscat Impact Analysis prepared for the Project makes We reserve the right to supplement lhese commenis at la[er hearings and pra,eedings for this Project. See, Galanle Vineyards v. Nfonterev Woter Dist. (1997) 60 Cal. App. 4th 1109. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Bear Valley CEQA Comment Carpenters Local 1789 December9,2009 Page 8 THE DEIR FAILS TO ANALYZE AND MITIGATE ALL POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS An EIR must disclose all potentially sigcrificant adverse environmental impacts of a project. (Pub. Res. Code § 21100(b)( 14 Ca1.Code Regs. § 15126(a); Berkeley Jets, 91 Cal. App. 4th 1344, 1354) CEQA requires that an EIR must not only identify the impacts, but must aiso provide "informaUon about how adverse the impacts will be." ( Santiago County Water Dist. v. Counry of Orange (]981) ll 8 Ca1.App3d 818, 831). The lead agency may deem a particular impacY [o be insignifican[ only ifit produces rigorous analysis and concre[e substantial evidence justifying the finding. (Kings County Farn: Bureau v. City afllanford (1990) 221 Ca1.App3d 692). As discussed in comment letters already submitted by the Califomia Department of Transportation, US Forest Service, Calaveras Council of Govemments, and others, (which are incorporated herein by reference) the EIR for this Projeci fails to adequateiy analyze and mitigate the ProjecYs impacts. A. SEWAGE TREATMENT IMPACTS HAVE NOT BEEN ABEQUATELY ANALYZED OR MITIGATED. Several commenters have already discussed that the Project will have significant impacts related to sewage treatment. These impacts still have not been adequately addressed or mitigated in the EIR. Local 1789 further supports this analysis in the attached comments of sewage treaUnent expert Dr. Bruce Bell, Ph.D. The EIR and Yroject approvals propose to dispose of sewage generated by the Project through the Beaz Valley Water Dishict (BVWD) wastewater treatment plant. However, Dr. Bell points out that that faciliry has a long lustory of failing to meet water quality goals established under the sYaYe and federal Clean Water Acts. The addition of almost 500 new housing units associated with the Project, plus additional skiers and guests attending events at the proposed ampiutheater, will dtanzatically e~ cacerbate exis6ng sewage problems. In par[iculaz: The BVR'D faciliry has inadequate capaciry to fiandle raw sewage, and as a result discharged over one million gallons of raw sewage into Bloods Creek in 2006. The new Project will exacerbate this problem and will risk addirional raw sewage overflows. The BVWD facility's pump station is inadequate to handle existing sewage flows. The proposed Project, and particularly the proposed amphitheater will ovenvhe3m ttce akeady inadequate pump station. Amphithealers present particulazly serious problems with sewage facility capacity since intermissions and ends of show, inevitably generate vast quantities of sewage in a shor[ period of time e. everyone uses the bathroom at the same time). These are precisely the types of events that Dr. Bell predicts will overwhelm the already inadequate pump sta[ion and sewage treatment facility. Dr. Bell explains that the failure of the EIR to specify the size of the amphitheater is a highly significant deficiency in the project description since the size of the amphitheater is directly related io the demands it will place on the sewage system. ---PAGE BREAK--- Bear ValIey CEQA Comment Carpenters Loca11789 December 4, 2009 Page 9 The FEIR admits that the BVWD faciliry already exceeds its NPDES standards for copper discharges into Bloods Creek, and the Project wil[ contribute to those ongoing exceedances. (FEIR 3.4- 8) However, the cause of existing copper exceedances is unknown. Thus the E1R admits that even with mitigation measures limiting the use of copper pipe, the Project is likely to contribute to these exceedances. (Id.) The BVWD currendy has employed a temporary soludon ofspraying its sewage effluent on US Forest Service (USFS) lands. However, USFS has submitted a comment letter stating that sewage capacity is currently inadeguate and spray dispersal onto US Forest Service land has been allowed only as a temporary "fix." USFS's letter states that it may not allow continued spraying of sewage onto its property. US Forest Service {FEIR vol. 2, p. 10) DEIR at p. ES-10. states that Bear Valley Water District may not have adequate wastewater disposal capacity to serve the project." Of course, the Project will greatly exacerbate this alreadp inadequate sewage capacity, particularly if the USFS does not exfend the permit allowing sewage spraying. The EIR fails to include any adequate mirigation measures to address this problem. The Regional Water Boazd ordered BVWD to implement tertiary water treatment by 2008. When BVWD failed to comply the ~Va[er Board extended the deadline to 2009 aud then again extended the deadline to March 2010. he EIR and attachments admit that there is no realistic funding mechanism w implement the ~ 14 million tertiary treatment requirement. The EIR contains no solution to this problem, other than to state that tertiary treatment should be required, but there is clearly no reasonable asswance that tertiary treatment will be impfemented in time to serve the Project. The result will likely be that the Project will further overburden the BVWD plant and will discharge even more inadequately ueated sewage to Bloods Creek. The EIR admiu that it is unclear whether existing sewage pipes are adequate to handle sewage from the proposed Projec[. Tfie document merely states that if additional pipes are required, they should be installed and additional CEQA review performed at that time. Phe Boazd packet prepared for the December 1Q 2009 Board of Supervisors meeting Attachment A-4, p. 3) proposes several mitigarion measures to address the Project's sewage itnpacts, including: Cumulative Mitigation Measure U-2a: Provide proof of available sanitary sewer pipeline capaciry prior [o County approval of tentarive subdivision maps and/or conditional use permits for each consiruction phase. Cumulative Mitigation Measure U-2b: ConsUuct additional sanitary sewer system improvements if needed to serve the project. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Bear Valley CEQA Comment Carpenters Local 1789 Decem6er 9, 2009 Page 11 The new proposed mitigation measures themselves make clear that the County has no idea how severe the sewage impacts aze or how they may be mitigated. In particular, Cumulative Mitigation Measure U-2b: "Construct additional sanitary sewer system improvemen[s ifneeded to serve the project," is a completely meaningless measure. In effect, the County punts on the issue and states merely [hat if there is a sewage issue, then the County will imptement unspecified "improvements if needed." Such a vague mitigation falls far short of the specificity required by CEQA. Q Furthermore, the impacts of necessary mitigation measures and improvements, such as instailation of new sewage pipes, upgrades to the pump station and the tertiary treatment project itself have not been analyzed. These projects may have environmental impacts of [heir own that must be analyzed as part of the ~vhole project, not as separate "piecemealed" projects. Interested parties would be precluded from commenring on the adequacy of these mitigations, even tfiough CEQA requires that they be permitted to do so. The EIR is rife with these and other deferred mirigarion measures that fail to meet the threshold tests set forth in CEQA. Finaily, a Project that has significant environmental impacts may only be approved if it complies with all other laws. A lead agency may not approve a project with significant unavoidabie impacts unless it is "otherwise permissible under appIicable laws and regularions." Pub.Res. Code § 21002.1( The fiIR admits that the Project will have numerous signiFicant unavoidable adverse environmental impacts. Thus, the Project may only be approved if it complies with all other laws. The Project wili contribute to existing exceedances of the state and federal Clean Water Act standazds, as discussed above. Under the Clean Water Act, the BVWD should not allow additional sewage hook-ups unless and until it resolves its current ongoing exceedances. As such, the Counry cannot make a finding that the Project complies with all other applicable laws, and may not approve the Project under CEQA. A supplemental EIR is clearly required to propose feasible mitigation to address the ProjecYs significant impacts on sewage treatment. B. TRAFNIC IMPACTS HAVE NOT BEEN ADEQUATELY ANALYZED OR MITIGATED. The EIR admits that the Project will have significant impacts on traffic on State Route 4 SR4). Yet, the EIR fails to adequately analyze these unpacts, and fails to impose all feasible mitigation measures to reduce these impacts. CalTrans, CCOG, and others have submitted significant expert analysis of the Project's [ raffic impacts and have urged the County to impose additional mitigation. Unfortunately, the EIR continues to be inadequate. The ProjecYs traffic impacts will prunarily affect Calaveras rather than Alpine County. Yet the EIR contains almost no analysis of most of the ProjecYs ua~c impacts in Calaveras County, and includes wholly inadequate mitigation. The EIR adtnits that project will 'unpact 130 intersections along SR4 that are not analyzed in the EIR. The ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Bear Valley CEQA Comment Carpenters Local 1789 December 9, 2004 Page 13 91 Ca1.AppAth 342 (no evidence that impacts will be mitigated simply by paying a fee}; Arsderson First Coal. v. City ofAnderson (2005) 130 Ca.App. 4[h 1173 (traffic miEigation fee is inadequate because it does not ensure that mitigation measure will actually be implemented); but see, Save Our Peninsula Comm v. Mo~ uerey Ca. (2001) 87 Cal.App. 4th 99 (mitigation fee allowed when evidence in the record demonstrates that the fee will fund a specific mitigation plan that will actualky be implemented in its enrirety). The EIR contends that full traffic mitigation will cost $5.6 million, or $ ll, D00 per unit, but rejects this level of mitigalion as too expensivc and "infeasible." ( FEIR v.2, p. 68) The Staff Report for the December 10, 2009 meering contains additional analysis rejecting many mitigation measures and proposing some additional mitigation measures, including: o Miligation Measure TC-2: Contribute tr~ c mitigation fees to reduce SR 4 traffic congesrion in Amold and generated by the projec[. The EIR fads to describe or analyze this mitigation measure or analyze adverse impacts and envuonmental effects of the mitigation measure itself. The December 10, 2009 Staff Report concludes that 7.8 miles of passing lanes would be required to fully mitigate the ProjecYs unpacts. Ho~ vever, the Staff Report rejects such mitigation as economically infeasible due to a cost of $5 million dollars, which equates [o more than $10,000 per privately owned Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDin. 'fhe Staff Report admits that the passing lanes and 'unprovement in Amold and "could adversely affect sensitive habitats wetland and riparian) or other environmental resources along the roadside." Nevertheless, the EIR fails to analyze Wese impacts. o The Staff Report concludes that the "total cost [of traffic improvements] potenrially attributable to Bear Valley Village ofS3,002, 406." Nevertheless, the Staff Report proposes a traffic mitigation fee of only $750,600, which is clearly inadequate to mi6gate the PmjecYs impacts. (Staff Report, Attachment A-4, p. 20) The Staff Report admits that likelihood of raising $15 million of addirional funds needed to complete the trafFic mitigations from non-applicant sources "is extremely low." ( Staff Repod, Attachment A-4: Conditions of ApprovallMitigation Measures, p. 24) Therefore, this miiigation is clearly inadequate since there is no reasonable assurance that the mitigation will actually be built. {See discussion above) o Under "Additional Conditions of Approval," the December 10, 2009 Staff Report proposes SR 4 Project funding of 975, 000 in funding for future improvements to Highway 4 west ofBear Valley pursuant to a funding schedule. (Staff Report, Attachment A-4, p. 35} WhIle this level of funding is a significant iruprovement, it slill does not provide a reasonable assurance that the mitigation measwes will be implemented. Also, the EIR fails entirely to analyze the impacts that the SR4 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Beaz Valley CEQA Comment Carpenters Local 1789 December 9, 2009 Page 17 1. The EIR Improperly Defers Development of GHG Mitigation Measures. The EIR does not adopt enforceable mitigation measures. Instead, the EIR list many feasible measures as simply for "consideration," including the use of daylight as an integral part of any lighting system, the use food waste collection systems, solid waste compaction. Many of these measwes aze being incorporated into projects in Caiifornia, and are clearly "feasible" within the meaning of CEQA. CEQA does not permit deferring the development of mitigation measures until after project approval. The overall emission reduction efficiency of the proposed mitigation must be evaluated in the EIR and subjected to public comment. CEQA disallows defemng the formulation of miYigation measares to unril after project approval. (CEQA Guidelines § 1512b.4( v, County ofMendocino {1988) 202 Ca1.App3d 296, 308-309.) An agency may not rely on mi6gation measures of uncertain ef~' icacy or feasibility. (Kings Counry Farm Bureou v. City ofHanford (1990) 221 Cal.App3d 692, 727) This approach helps "insure the integrity of the process of decision-making by precluding stubbom problems or serious criticism from being swept under the rug." { Concerned Cifizens ofCasta Mesa, Inc. v. 32nd Dist. Agricultural Assn. (1986) 42 Ca1.3d 929, 935) Furthermore, the EIR contains no discussion whatsoever of the viability of these measures. The EIR does not assess whether any combinarion of the proposed potential mitigation measures would be capable of reducing GHG emissions to the maximum feasible level. Therefore, EIR must be revised to quantify potential emissions reductions for a combination of mitigation measures that would be incotporated into the GHG Reduction Plan and detemune whether the Project would be able to meet AB-32 requirements after implementation of all feasible measures. 2. Tfie EIR Improperly Fails to Impose Feasible Mitigation Measure to Reduce GHG Impacts A lazge portion of the GHG emissions generated by the Project will come from mobile sources - i. cazs commuting to and from the site. CEQA requires analysis of such "indirect emissions." ) Section 15065 of the CEQA Guidelines mandates an environmental iinpact report EIR) to anatyze any environmental effects of a project [that] will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either direcdy or indirectly." One ofthe mosf effecrive measures to minimize commute-related GHG emissions is to impose a Local hiring preference fox workers living less than 100 miles from the Project. We urge the County to impose such a local biring preference as a feasible measure to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Obviously, ifworkers travel extremely long distances to the Project site, this will directly increase t6e ProjecYs greenhouse gas impacts. In some cases, developers have even flown workers in from other countries. It is well- documented that airplane travel has extremely high greenhouse gas impacts, much higher than automobile travel over comparable distances. A local-hiring preference will minimize the use oflong-commute workers and air ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- P~ A ENVIR~ NMIXTAL Phone:845- 781-0844 ASSOCIATE'S~ inc. FaX: 845-782- 5591 CEA ENOINEEIiS. P.C. WWW. C882f4VffO. GOT MeilMg Addrese PO 60X 656 MONROE, NEW YORK 10949 Addrau Far AIl Delirsr7os OfherThen US Pnstal Sorvicv 307 MUSEOM VILLAGE BOAD MONROE, NEW YORK 1U959 Sender's Email: b. bell( a~ cea- enviro.com December 8, 2009 Mr. Richard Drury Wein6erg, Roger & Rosenfeld 1001 Marina Village Pazkway, Suite 200 Alameda, CA 94501 Sender's Phone: 845-781- 4844 EXT 306 Deaz Mr. Drury, Carpenter Emuonmental Associates (CEA) was retained by Lozeau Drury, LLP ro review the Bear Valley Village (BVV) Finai Environmental Impact Report (FEFR) for wastewater issues. Our comments aze presented below. In preparing these comments, CEA reviewed the following information: Final Envimnmemal Impact Report, SCH No. 2fl07032009, Volume l, May 29, 2009; Final Environmentai Impact Report, SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED], Volume II, May 29, 2009; Beaz Valley Water District Phase I Terciary Facilities Pre-Design Report, ECO:L, OGIC Engineering, June 2007; Attachment 1 to Beaz Va13ey SYaff Repod, Board of Supervisois Bear Valley Village, Bear Valley Village F, LLC and Bear Valley Village II, LLC; July 2009; Bear Valley Village Draft Environmental Impact Report, Volume 2 Appendix A-D, Mazch 2007; `Bear Valley Water District Sewer Rate Analysis;' ECO:LOGIC Engineering, FeUruary 2007; Minutes ofBear Valley Water District Regular bieeting Board of Directors, Febmary 23,2009; Bear Valley Water Department SSO Report, November 15, 2009; Gloria G. Dralla comments on "Planning Commission Information & Staff Report re Beaz Valley Water Dishict," Gloria G. Dralla, Esq., Alpine Counry Planuiug Department, September 12, 2009; Bear Valley Water District Phase I Facilities Plan, ECO:I. OGIC Engineering, November 2006; "Water Discharge Requirements Report for Bear Valley Water District, OrderNo. RS-2005- 0139, NPDES No. CA0085146," California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region, October 20, 2005; `Beaz Valley Water District Sewer Rate Analysis," ECO:LOGIC Engineering, Febrnary 2007; Letter re: Bear Valley Village Environmental Impact Report, Alpine County Planning Commission, Shute, Mihafy & Weinberger, LLP, Augus[ 11, 2009; Memo re Beaz Valley Village Development Pmject, A3pine County Planning Commission, County of Alpine Community Development, December 3, 2009; Bear Valley Water District Preliminary Financial Assessment Tertiary Facilities Project, ECO:LOGIC Engineering, December 2007; aod, Letter re Beaz Valley Village Draft Environmental Impact Report, United States Forest Service, Alpine County Plam~ing Departrnent, November 7, 2008. ---PAGE BREAK--- Comment 1: The FEIR failed to quantify peak wastewater flows that will be generated by the proposed BVV. Absent peak wastewater flow rates, the required wastewater conveyance capacity is not known and the environmental impacts resultiug from construcrion and operation of the wastewater conveyance facilities cannot be campletely determined. Discussion: The FEIR at page 2-15 discusses a proposed amphitheater and at page 2-16 discusses a proposed meeting facility bu[ does not define the capacity of either facility. Absent the capacity, peak wastewater flows cannot be accurately determined and the effect of those peak flows on required wastewater conveyance capacity was not and could not have been determined. Because the FEIR failed to include the information required to determine peak wastewa[er flows, the size and location of required new and expanded collection system sewers were no# detemuned. Thus, the environmental 'unpacts of construction and operarion of the wastewater collecdon system and required mitigarion measures were not deternuned. Comment 2: The FEIR at page 3.4- 7 states that the App[icant can and should be required to construct additional sanitary sewer system improvements needed to serve the projecL The FEIR, however, fails to identify specific projects and thus fails to identify environmental impacts and required mitigation associated with such improvements. Discussion: It is clear that sanitary sewer improvements will be required in order to connect the new facilities to the existing Bear Valley Water District (BVWD) collection system. Construction of sewers to connect to the B VWD system will result in environmental impacts and require mirigarion. BVWD's main pump station has been utundated due to flooding either from Bloods Creek (1996/1997 storm) or from water entering the pump station due to rain causing localized snow melt around the pump station (2005 storm). Both events resulted in the discharge of untreated sewage. BV~ VD' s consultants have recommended improvements to the main pump station to prevent flooding of the starion. ~ Adding a significant amount of sewage from the proposed project without imgrovement to the pump station would increase the amount of untreated sewage discharged in a flooding event. The FEIR should include miugation of potenrial sewage spills by requiring improvements to the main pump station prior to allowing the discharge of additional sewage from the proposed project. Comment 3: The BVWD WWTP does uot currently have sufficient capacity to treat and discharge the amount of wastewater estimated to be generated by BW without discharge to Btoods Creek and does not take into account the additional wastewater volumes generated by the proposed amphitheater and meeting facilities. BVWD currently has an NPDES permit that allows discharge to Bloods Creek after maximizing land application but required tertiary treatment prior to discharge after pctober 1, Z008. Tertiary treatment must be required by the FEIR prior to approval of the project. The environmental impacts oE the construction and Bear Valley Water Oistrict, Phase 1 Facilities Plan, ECO:LOGIC Engineering, November 2006. ---PAGE BREAK--- operation ot a tertiary treatment facility and required mitigation should be included in the FEIR. Discussion: BVWD's Waste Discharge Requirements required that wastewater discharged to Bloods Creek receive tertiary treatment prior to discharge by October 1, 2008. Z BVWD did not meet that requirement and the deadline has been extended to October 1, 2010. WiLhout tertiazy treatment operafional, BVWD cannot provide disposat capacity for the project.3 Funding for tertiary treatrnent has not been obtained by BVWD. A public hearing regarding financing of tertiary treatment is being held 7anuary 18, 2010, No firm date for funding has been established. ° Comment 4: BVWD cannot assure that 20% of its canently available land disposal facitities can be used after 2011 and that an addiGona120% can be used after 2015. The FEIR should evaluate the impact should Eand currently being used for disposal not be available. Discussion: BVWD has a Special Use Pemilt for 40 acres of land from the United States Forest Service (USFS), which expires in 20ll and a Special Use Permit for an additional 40 acres that expires in 2075. Qne of these permits was issued as a temporary "fix" for BVWD's problem with sufficient disposal capaciry.5 There is no guarantee that the Special Use Pemuts will be renewed or that other land would be available for effluent disposal. Loss of 40% of BVWD's land disposal capacity in the near term would most likely require a modified NPDES permit and uught result in limited capacity for wastewater disposal. The enduonmental impacts resulting from the potential lack of adequate land for wastewater disposal should be discussed in the FEIR. Comment 5: BVWD has uot documented sufticient wastewater trcatment and disposal capacity for the proposed project. The FEIR claims that sufficient wastewater treatment and disposal capacity exists for the proposed project and relies on a letter from BVWD that is contradicted by BVWD's own consultants. The FL1R should accurately reflect availa6le treatment and disposal capacity in determining t6e availability of wastewater service for the groposed project. Discussion: The FEIR at 3.4- 7 states that if tertiary treatmenT is pmvided sufficien[ wastewater treatment and disposal capacity exists to accommodate the proposed project. This conclusion is supported in The FEIR by a letter from BVWD, which states that 1,127 equivalent dwelling units (EDUs) are available, which would be sufficient to serve the proposed project.b The conclusions in the BVWD letter are inconsistent with BVWD's WDR Order No. RS-2005- 0139. 3 FEIR 3.4- 7 Memo to Board of Supervisors from Brian Peters, December 3, 2009. (StaEf Report). s Letter to Brian Peters, Afpine County Planning Department from Crispin Noiland, USFS, November7,Z008. Letterto Scott Goebl, SWCA Environmental Consultants from David Ritchi, BVWD, June 2, 2008. ---PAGE BREAK--- own consultanYs conclusions ~ In the BVWD Ietter, the assumed occupancy rate of proposed uoits is inconectly applied to both the fulltime occupied units and the vacation units. This results in overstating the available capacity. BVWD's consultants estimated that current development would require tertiary treatment design flow of 0.25 miltion gailons per day (mgd). e BVWD's rate siudy shows the tertiary facilities proposed to be funded ia Phases, with Phase I iertiary facilities being sized for 025 mgd, would only provide capacity for current development.9 Phase I was not funded as of the date of the FEIR. Comment 6: The project will adversely impact fhe BVWD's ability to meet effluent limitations for copper when they become effective in 2010. If BVWD is required fo treat copper at its wastewater treatment plant, it wifl result in significaot cost to existing and tuture The FEIR at 3.4- 8 and 3.4- 9 notes that copper is currenfly a contaminant of concern in BVWD's discharge. Stringent limi[s on copper in the discharge go into effect in 2010. BVWD has not identified the cause of elevaYed copper in its effluent The FEIR concludes that the unmiugated impact of the project on copper would be significant. The FEIR proposes mitigation by Hmiting the amount o f copper in water and wastewater piping but concludes that the impact of the project on BVWD's copper in its wastewater effluent remains significant and unavoidable after mitigation.Once BVWD determines the cause of high copper concentrations in its effluent, if remedy required is to treat copper at the wastewater treatment plant, increased cost will be unposed on carrent as well as future ratepayers. 9 ncerd y, C2rpenter Environment~ Assod~es, Inc. BruceA. Bell, Ph.D., P.E., BCEE Pr~ idait Letter to Ms. Leah Toeniskotter, Bear Valley Village I and II, LLC, from Neal 71 Colwell, P.E., ECO:LOGIC Engineering, March il, 2008. Bear Valley Water Districi, Phase 1 Facilities Plan, ECO:LOGIC Engineering, November 2006. Bear Valley Water Districi Sewer Rate Analysis, ECO:LOGIC Engineering, Pebruary 2007. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Exwig~T D Bear Valiey Village DevelopmentI'roject Condition No, 71: The applicane shall, upon written rec~uesi of the Covnty of Alpine (Counry), defend, indemnify, and hofd harmless the Counly, the County Planning Conunission and its officers, agenfis and employees, ~rom any and a11 actions, ]awsuits, claims, damages, or costs, including attorneys £ees awazded by a couzt, azising out of or re]~ ting tu the processing and/ or apprwal by the Counfy of Alpine of that certain development project known as the 3ear Valley Village Developmeni Project. The applicant st~Il, upan written request of the Couniy, pay or, at tl~e Count}~s option, reimlruse the County Lor a11 costs for preparaHor, of an adininistrarive recard required for any such action, includiag hhe costs of transcsipfion, County staff time and daplicztion. The County sha1F zctazn tk;e zight to elect to appear an and defend any suck~ ac6on on its own behalf, regard).ess ef any tender under this pxovision. his indenuuficatioa obligation is intended to indude, but not be Iimited to, actions brnught by third pariies to invalidate any determinarion made by ftie County under the Calitomia Environmental Quality Act {Pubiic Resources Code Section 1. 1000 et seq.) for Ehe Project or any decisions made by the County reiaiing to the a~ proval of the Bear Va[ley Vili~ee Development Pzojecf. Upon request of the County, the aQplicant shall execute any agreezztent is~ a forzn approved by Cous,ty Connsel. incozporating the provisions of this conditior.. ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1 of 1 Sarah Simis From: Kimberly LeMieux [[EMAIL REDACTED]] R E C E I V E D Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2009 8:59 PM Q 9 9 To: SarahSimis q~ p~ NECOUNTY Subject: Dec 10th Bear Valley Hearing 2BOARDOFSUPERVISORS Please submit our comments to the Supervisors. 7 C ~ • My husband a~ d I own a home in Bear Valley at 110 Road and we are unable to attend the public hearing on December 10th but we want you to know that we are strongly in favor of the proposed Bear Valley Village project. My family has been coming to Bear Valley since 1968 and we have witnessed the decline of the village over the years. The proposed improvements, will in our opinion, greatly enhance the enjoyment and vitality of Bear Valley. We are especially excited about the addition of the Village Lift and look forward to having direct access to the ski area without getting in our car or taking a bus. The village plan has been well conceived and we are pleased with the architectural style, size and scale of the project. We urge you to consider approval of the project. Thank-you, Kimberly & Tom LeMieux 110 Road Bear Valle~~, Ca ~ uxel,hom es i ncc om 12/9/ 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- RECEIVE~1 h, NADy~,~. M G m SFM~ N P~'y Dear Alpine County Board of Supervisors (BOS), DEC 0 9 2009 ALPINE COUNTY BOARD OF St1PERVISORS i ~ P,4cf~~ I December 9, 2009 My name is Aaron Johnson and I am a local business owner and full time resident of Bear Valley for 16 years. I am writing in support of the BOS approving the changes to the eear Valley Master Plan at the December 10`" meeting in Bear Valley. During the early stages of the proposed Bear Valley development plan it is important to "keep the ball rolling" as long as the legal requirements are fulfilled. If this project is allowed to move forward there will 6e ample opportunities to address in detail the environmental, economic and social impacts to the community and region as a whole. I believe the developers vision and certified EIR provide a good framework to orchestrate a development plan which will benefit not only Bear Valley but Alpine and Calaveras County. For this reason I urge you to vote in support of the zoning changes to the Bear Valley Master Plan at the BOS meeting in Bear Valley on December 10`h, 2009. Thank you, AaronJohnson Mountain Adventure 5eminars (MAS) Phone: (209) T53-6556 • Fax: (209) 753-2345 148 Beaz Valley Road, Bear Valley, CA 95223 maill~amtadventure.com • htto:// www. mtadventure.com ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 12/04/ 2009 10 30 FAX [PHONE REDACTED] CALAVERAS COG ~ 002/004 CALAVERAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNM~NTS RESOLUTION NO. F'Y 10-02 RESOL~TTON X2EQCJESTING FINAL CONDTTIONS OF APP120VAL FOR THE BEAR VALLEY VII.Y~ AGI: PI20JECT BE REVISED BY 'FHE ALPTNE COUNTY BOARll QF SUPERVISORS WHEREAS, Alpine County has received an application to expand Bear Valley Village, and; WI-ILR~ AS, in March o£ 2007, the Alpine County Planning Department (ACPD) issued a Noticeo£ Prepazation (NOPI for an Environmental Impact Report ((E1R) for Bear Valley Village (hereinafter referred to ss the "project'~, and; NHEREAS, the Calaveras Council of Govemments (CCOG) xesponded to the NOP requesting that the EIR address issues such as tra£fic generation, haffic volumes and the associated impacis on State Route 4( SR4) through Calaveras County, and; WHEREAS, the response to the NOP also requested analysis of tha impacts in retation to the National Scenic Byway designation on SR 4, and; CNTiEREAS, on or about March 24, 2Q07, ACPD held a public scoping meeting on the proposed EIR,and; Wfi~ REAS, in May of 2008, ACPD forwarded a copy of the Bear Valley Village Traffic/Parkin¢ Impact Anal'vsis (Traffic Studvl to the CCOG, and; WHEREAS, in response to the Traffic Study, staff from CCOG met with ACPD and the project proponents to discuss said analysis, and; WHEI2EAS, at that meeting certain mitigations were reviewed and a value of approximately $1.5 million was placed on the ihose mitigation measwes which included certain improvements along SR 4 in Arnold aad in accordance the Arnold Rural Livable Commw~itv Based Mobilitv Plan (Arnold Plan~ and t6e Circulation Pedestrian. Bicvciine and Pazkine Studv Plan), and; IEREAS, the project proponents tentatively agreed to that amount at the meeting, and; WI- IEREAS, the DRAFT BEAR VALLEY VLLLAGE SR 4 MITIGATION PLAN dated July 2008 from the proponents placed a value of about $462,000 on said impzovements, and; WHEREAS, a subsequent meeting was held in August 2008 to again discuss impacts of the project on 5R 4 together with potential mitigation measures, and; ---PAGE BREAK--- 12/04/ 2009 10:30 FAX [PHONE REDACTED] CA, LAUERAS C0~ ~ 003l004 WHEREAS, it was agreed to review the projects list in both the Amold Plan and the Plan. CC0C3 staffresponded to that review indicating a developer responsibility of approximately $3 million to adequately mitigate impacts in Arnold and However, no resoluriott to a mitigation plan was reached nor were any subsequent meetings scheduled, and; WHEREAS, the CCOG received the Draft Env'uonmentel Impact Report (DEIIt) in September o£ 2008, and; WHEREAS, by letter dated November 6, 2008, the CCOG responded to the DEIIZ expressing concerns about the adequacy of the traffic analysis and therefoze the sufficiency of the mitigations in the SR 4 corridor, and; WHEREAS, by letter dated May 8, 2009 the CCOG ceceived a response to its November 6, 2008 Letter together with the Final EIR (FEIR) and a nofice of a public hearing for certification of the PEIIZ scheduLed for May 29, 2009, and; WI~ BREAS, by letter dated May 27, 2009 signed by the CCOG, County Public Works and Planning Departments, the thzee agencies again expressed their concems over the adequacy of the FEIR both in terms of analysis, study azea and nutigation plsn, and; WHEREAS, staff fxom the County Planning Department and CCOG attended the May 29, 20091'EITi certification heazing to verbally express their concenvs identified in a11 the previous correspondence and communicadons, and; WHEREAS, the CCOG reco~ni~ es the conespondence sent to ACPD from our par[ners at Caltrans and Calaveras County Planning and Public Works Departments, and; WHEREAS, the Alpine County Board of Supervisors certified the EIR on May 29, 2009 which inciuded mitigation measures in Arnold, and within the SRh Wagoa Trail Project totaling approximately $850,000. I~ OW, TH'GRFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the Calaveras Council of Govemments does not concur with the Environmental Impact Repott prepared for the Bear valiey Villsge as certified by tlie Aipune County Board of Supervisors. BE IT FURTf~R RESOLVED, the Calaveras Council of Governments respectfully requests the Alpine County Boazd of Supervisors apply conditions of approval for the Bear Valley Village Expansion project that require the project proponent be held responsible for funding improvements in Amold and in che approximaxe amount of $3 million plus the inclusion of an escalation factor. It is anticipated that the improvements in will be those generally described as providing a continuous Ewo-way leR-turn lane from Penn Crulch Road through Apple Blossom Itoad, It is anticipated that the improvements in Amold will be those generally described as reconfiguring the intersecrion of Blagen Road, Dunbaz Road and SR 4 and redirecting ---PAGE BREAK--- 12/04/ 2009 10:30 FAH 2O97542096 CALAUERAS COG traffic onto Henry Street from and to SR 4. However, the Calaveras County Board of Snpervisors reserves the right to exchange the above described projects with others of a similar nature provided that all of the selecfed projects are along the Highway 4 corridor and contained in either the Amold Plan or the Plan. Details of the final amount and timing of the payments will be subject to an agreement between Alpine County and fhe Calaveras County Boazd of Supervisocs. BE IT RESOLVED, the Calaveras Council of Goveraments respecifully requests the Alpine Boazd of Supervisors apply a condition of appmvai for the Bear Valley Village Expansion project to contribute approximately $107,000 to the CCOG cwrent Wagon Trail project The actual amount shall be that identified at the May 29, 2009 FEIR hearing before the Alpine County Boazd of Supervisors. Details of the fmal amount and timing of the payments will be subject to an agreement beiween Alpinc County and the CCOG. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 2nd day of December 2004 by the following vote: AYES: Wopd, E11is, Downey, Maurer NOES: Callaway, Trpon, Morri:s ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None mooa/ooa ---PAGE BREAK--- December 8, 2009 Lance Machovsky 55 Bloods Ridge Rd. Bear Valley, CA 95223 209-753- 6371 RECEIVED DEC 0 9 2009 au~ iNe couNTv BOARD OP SUPERVISOFiS Si C~ Alpine County Board of Supervisors ~ Ll~ Dear Board Members, I am writing to voice my continuing support for the Bear Valley Village development plan and encourage you to vote in support of the proposed zoning change and general plan amendment following the recent approval by the Alpine County Planning department. I furthermore urge you in the strongest possible terms to deny the Calaveras Council of Governments and Caltrans attempts to extort money from the developers to address traffic problems in the Arnold area. I write as a long time business owner in Bear Valley and one who has had a foot in both Caiaveras and Alpine Counties for many years. In addition to my Bear Valley Sport Shop business, I have sold real estate from to Bear Valley for the past four years as a full time agent at Barry Ward Realty in Arnold. Prior to that I have owned commercial property in Angels Camp, run a successful retail shop there and owned residential property there. I commute between Arnold and Bear Valley almost daily. Anecdotally, I drove to Arnold today. The traffic on Hwy 4 from Bear Valley to Arnold was almost nonexistent. However, while visiting the post office and adjacent hardware store, I found it challenging to park and difficult to turn back onto the highway due to poorly plowed roads and traffic. The ski area is not open and today is a non- holiday Tuesday. This scene repeats often at that intersection and is one that Calaveras County created all by itself, with no interference from Alpine County or any Bear Valley Businesses. In my opinion, Calaveras County and its residents should be genuflecting and asking what they can possibly do to help the proposed development succeed. The vast majority of vacation homes and rentals and local businesses in our area are located between Angels Camp and Big Trees Village. Any increase in tourism visits to Bear Valley results in a disproportionate benefit to Calaveras from the resultant increase in transit occupancy taxes, sales taxes, higher property resale values and property taxes and dollars spent in myriad other local businesses. ---PAGE BREAK--- Any tra~c issues that exist in Arnold or elsewhere in Calaveras County, are the result of poor planning and missed opportunities while various large housing subdivisions were built in Arnold throughout the past 30 years. During that time the Arnold and Calaveras County population has greatly increased in size while the number of skier visits to Bear Valley has shrunk to half what it was. Asking the developers to mitigate for traffic problems that currently exist does not make sense. They are attempting to rejuvenate an ailing ski area and village and then trying to recapture a customer base that has severely dwindled. When the ski area was doing twice the skiers as now, there was no discussion about traffic problems in Arnold. The several million dollars being asked for by CCOG and Caltrans would be much better spent on improving employee housing in Bear Valley Village, addressing parking issues in the village, being put toward new lifts at the resort or a host of other expenditures aimed at enhancing the visitors experience when they visit the proposed new village. Thank you in advance for lending support to a development plan that will hopefully allow Bear Valley to become the unique alpine village and resort envisioned by its founders more than 40 years ago. Respectfully, Lance Machovsky ---PAGE BREAK--- DEC-8- 2069 45R FROM:THE LODGE AT BEaR VA C205)753- 6218 Monday December 7, 2009 Mr. Phillip Bennett Alpine Counry Boazd of Supervisors P.O. Box 158 Mazkleeville, CA 96120 Deaz Mr. Bennett: T0~ 15~ 06942491 P.2~ 2 RECEIVED DEC 0 8 2009 ALPINE CUUiVTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS g~ S~ C ~ C~ P~c As owner of Bear Valley General Store I wish to extend my support to the changes in the Master Plan. This would benefit the Bear Valley Village Development Project and allow them to furfher improve our village and I see it as a positive step forwazd. Sincerely, David Johnston ---PAGE BREAK--- C-B- 2099 68:45R Ff? OM: THE LOUGE RT EERR VR C2L9)753- 6' c18 DEC 0 8 2009 ALPINE COUNTY BOAAD OF SUPERVISORS Monday December 7, 2009 Mr. Phillip Bennett Alpine Co Boazd of Supervisors P.O. Box 158 Mackleevilte, CA 96120 Dear Mr. Bennett: T0:15~~ 6942491 P.1 2 RECEIVE~ pn~ On bel~alf of the Beaz Valley Business Association, we would like to lend our support for the Bear Valley Village Development Project. We think that it will be a positive step toward a more solid financial future for our village, We would appreciate a positive vote by your boazd in this matter. Thank you for this opportunity to address the Board. Sincerely, vvt¢~~ David 7ohnston, President Bear Vailey Business Association ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1 of 1 Sarah Simis From: John Mallard [[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 12:02 PM RECEtVED To: Sarah Simis DEC 0 3 Z009 Subject: Bear Valley Attachments: Bear Valley.doc; ATroooo~.ntm ALPINE COUPITY CLERK Alpine County, Please find integrated into this email and also attached as a word document giving our support of the improvement project proposed for Bear Valley. Alpine County: I am resident of Bear Valley. I work for the Ski Area as a Professional Patroller and am part of the volunteer Fire Department in Bear Valley. I am very excited about the proposed project and look forward to a strong vibrant village that can sustain local permanent jobs and yet maintain our family oriented community. This project is vital to Yhe community. The cunent plan represents a viable opportunity to generate a sustainable economic community in Bear Valley and neighboring Calaveras County. The proposed project is absolutely required for the future growth and sustainability of the Bear Valley Village and the Bear Valley Mountain Resort Ski Area. The current facilities at the village and the resort are out of date and are not competitive within their class. The lack of upgraded infrastructure and service improvements if not adequately revitalized will not meet the needs for guests, homeowners and will negatively impact Bear Valley and neighboring communities. The town will suffer under limited and/or no improvement plans. The EIR and the steps being taken azound the EIR assures possible impacts to the environment and the quality of life we enjoy in Bear Valley are and have been taken into account. I am strongly recommending that the Board of Supervisors move forward and approve the Master Plan and Zoning changes under review. John and Julie Mallard Home Owners, Bear Valley 12/3/ 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- ti 14= COlh December 10, 2009 Mr. Brian Peters Community Development Director Alpine County Planning Department 17300 State Route 89 Markleeville, CA 96120 AECOM 978.474. 5800 tal 2022 J SUaet 918.414. SB50 fex Sacramenb. CA 95871 www.eecom. com Re: Responses to comments regarding the Bear Valley Village Greenhouse Gas Reduction Pian • Dear Mr. Peters: This letter provides responses to comments regarding the greenhouse gas (GHG) analysis in the Bear Valley Vrdage Environmental lmpact Report and the Bear Valley Village Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan (GHG Reduction Plan) included in the following letters: A letter from Ms. Terrell Watt, AICP, dated December 7, 2009, as provided by Mr. Ellison Folk of Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP in a letter dated December 7, 2009; and A letter from Mr. John Buckley, Executive Director of the Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center (CSERC), also dated December 7, 2009. As described in the introduction to the Bear Valley Village Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Reduction Plan, Bear Valley Village I and II, LLC (the development team, applicant) and its consultant prepared the aforementioned plan in order to fulfill the requirements set forth by Mitigation Measure CC-1 in the Bear Valfey Village Environmental lmpact Report (State Clearinghouse no. [PHONE REDACTED]) (EIR). The GHG Reduction Plan applies to all development phases of the proposed Bear Valley Village (project) and provides specific details regarding the fulfillment of Mitigation Measure CG1. Responses to comments submitted by both Ms. Watt and Mr. Buckley are organized under the separate headings below. Concerns regarding whether the GHG analysis and mitigation fulfill the requirements of CEQA Ms. Watt states that all mitigation measures must be "fully enforceable" accordi~g to guidance provided by the Califomia Attorney General's Office concerning mitigation measures that address climate change. We agree; this is a fundamental component of CEQA ("Mitigation measures must be fully enforceable..." see CCR 15125.4) Ms. Watt purports that some of the measures in the GHG Reduction Plan merely encourage or support actions that wouid result in associated reductlons. Here, there needs to be a distinction between what is feasible a~ d enforceabie, bui~ ding something, and that which may not be, encouraging behavior. These types of ineasures are included in the GHG Reduction Plan because both the County and the development team have limited authority to require particular behavior choices among the users of the proposed project. For instance, residents and users of the project cannot be required to use the Village Lift, free shuttle, or bicycle. However, amenities can be provided, such as bicycle racks that allow and encourage residents to make GHG- efficient choices regarding thefr mode of transportation. For instance, Transportation-7 is enforceable in that it requires the project to "provide a sufficient amount of secure, covered, and convenient bicycle parking for each residential unit to accommodate peak demand ' The provision of spec~c fh't, a. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- a~ COM . Mr. Br1en pelero Community Devabpment Dieclor Alpine County Plannin9 ~ePerimanl DecamEer 1 D, 2(q8 Pege 7 arrive to the project site in groups, additional incentives for carpooling to Bear Valley would likely not be effective. Measure Transportation-71 in the GHG Reduction Plan, however, does acknowledge the potential to assist in the formation of car pools among employees who Iive on site.' Nonetheless, the GHG reduction plan does include multiple measures that would result in a decrease in VMT associated with project operations. Transportation-1 would reduce external trips associated with travelling from the residences to off-site retail and restaurant uses. Providing on-site housing for employees (Transportation-2) and assisting in supplying a fixed number of residential units for people who live and work in Bear Valley Village on a year-round basis (Transportation-5), would achieve similar results to Ms. Watt's suggestion to implement "a local preference housing program to link local jobs with these homes" because these measures would reduce emissions associated with employee commute travel in the community. The operation of both a ski lift and being proximate to the shuttle service proyided by Bear Valley Mountain Ski Resort (Transportation-2) would result in the need for employees and patrons to drive between the Village and the ski area. Transportation-12 requires that conduit be installed for the future instailation of charging stations for electric cars and hybrid plug-in electric vehicles at an adequate number of residential parking spaces in the event that electric vehicles become readily available and widely used. Contrary to Mr. Buckley's assertion, the installation of charging stations for electric and hybrid plug-in vehicles would not be effective unless a measurable portion of the area vehicle fleet consists of these types of vehicles. In short, the inclusion of these transportation-related measures in the GHG Reduction Plan reputes both Ms. Watt's assertion and Mr. Buckley's statement that "there are basically no reduction measures of substance for VMTs " In addition, Ms. Watt criticizes the GHG reductions quantified for the transportation-related measures in the appendix of the GHG Reduction Plan for not being "based on actual trip surveys that could be conducted with existing visitors, residents, and employees to determine what specific types of uses are needed to redirect their automobile trips to walking or shuttle trips." The calculations presented in the appendix to the GHG Reduction Plan are based on conservative assumptions and data about existing travel use patterns, including the shuttle ridership during past ski seasons, and the traffic analysis prepared forthe EIR. Comment: Offsets should be Included in the GHG Reduction Plan. Ms. Watt states that the GHG Reduction Plan does not included any offsets and she specifically mentions that "the retrofitting of existing development with energy efficient appliances, heaters, and insulation can reduce GHG emissions and could be used as a credit to offset emissions from the projec~t." Indeed, this type of offset measure is included in the GHG Reduction Plan as Additional-2, which includes the establishment of a matching grant program to assist existing homeowners in renovating their homes with energy efficiency upgrades. It requires Bear Valley Village I and II, LLC to contribute initial funding of 000 to the pool for matching funds, plus $250 per unit at the time each new residential unit is sold. Mr. Buckley comments that the effectiveness of this measure would be increased if the initial funding required were $50,000 or $100,000, plus an additional 000 at the time each new residential unit is sold. These funding amounts were proposed by the applicant in order to assist existing homeowners with the cost of upgrading their homes. The extent to which additional funding would result in additional emission reductions is unknown due to multiple factors, inGuding the efficiency at which the existing homes operate, the number of days each year these homes are used, and the season during which they are used. For instance, it would not be cost- effective to instal~ energy-efficient windows on a home that is oniy used during temperate summer months and does not have air conditioning. It shall be noted that offsets are also required by Electricity-7 if necessary to achieve the performance standard estabiished for outdoor public ---PAGE BREAK--- OM Communlfy Devebpment Dkaqor Alpine Counry Pknninp Deparhnen( DecemDer f 0, 20p8 Pape 8 It shall be noted that offsets are also required by Electricity-7 if necessary to achieve the perfortnance standard established for outdoor public lighting. Comment: All measures identified for further consideratfon shouid be required. The commenters also suggested that all the measures Ilsted in Table 3 of the GHG Reduction Plan should be required. As stated in the GHG Reduction Plan, the development team continues to consider the implementation of these additional measures and those measures determined to be both feasible and effective will be implemented. For instance, the development team continues to work with the local solid waste hauler, SEI Solid Waste, Inc., to explore ways to reduce the frequency of service by their haul trucks, which involves critical factors such as the need for trash compactors to be stored in a temperature area in order for the compactors to work properly and the area must be accessible by large waste collection trucks. Similarly, the implementation of a food waste collection program'would be effective only if a recipient is found and bear-proof food waste collection bins are available. The feasibiliry of these and other measures listed in Table 3 is largely dependent on cooperation with outside parties. SUMMARY All applicable and feasible mitigation measures are included in the GHG Reduction Plan. Thus, the development of this plan fulfills the CEQA requirement to adopt all reasonable conditions that would reduce GHG emissions associated with the proposed project to the extent feasible. Sincerely, V ~ y~l J. Austin Kerr Air Quality Climate Change Specialist cc: 70110008.01 / Chron P: VO1pH0110006. 011Bear Valby GHG PYn1RTCSIRTG_i2_ 70_ W. tloc REFERENCES AG. See California Office of the Attorney General. California Office of the Attomey General. 2008 (December The Califomia Environmental Quality Act: Addressing Globa! Warming /mpacts at the Local Agency Level. Sacramento, CA. Available: . Accessed October2009. EPA and DOE. See U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Energy. PG&E. See Pacific Gas and Electric Company. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- y Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center Box 396 • Twain Aarte, CA 95383 ~(209) 586-7440 • FAX (209) 586-498b v~ mon... nai< u: a. me, eR.wto ~ ooun~:.~: iro~~.. c. o. q December 7, 2009 Brian Peters Community Development Director Alpine Counry Planning Department 50 Diamond Valley Road Markleeville, CA 96120 DearBrian: We acknowledge that the Bear Val]ey Village developers have made an attempt to identify a number of mitigation measures to reduce the significance of impacts of GHG emission created by the project, but it is clear that the GEiG Emission Reduction Measures for Bear Valley Village thathave been formulated for the December 10, 2009 Alpine County supervisors meeting do not include numerous feasible, reasonable mitlgation measures that would reduce project emissions. Accardingly, the proposed GHG Reduction Plan for the Bear Valley Village project put forward by the developers fails to comply with the CEQA requirement to adopt all feasible, reasonable conditlons that will reduce the significance of a project's impacts. The following CSERC comments reflect our comments as to the inadequacy of the GHG emission plan put forward by the developers. Introduction: Some of Lhe "reduction measures" are actually simply descriptions of the proposed project written to sound like mitigation. Many other measures are so small in scope that they are mostly meaningless (rather than the "tiny steps" in the right direction described by the developers). Overall, the total amount of emission reduction appears to be much less than 10% of the project's actual emissions that would be generated, since Vehicle Miles Traveled create ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- TERRELL WATT,AICP PLANNING CONSULTANT 1937 FII.BERT STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CA 44123 4I5)563- 0543 FAX (4I5) 563-8701 December 7, 2009 Ellison Folk Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger 396 Hayes Street, SF CA 94102 RE: Comments on Bear Valley Village Final Environmental Impact Report Climate Change Mitigation This letter focuses on the Bear Valley Village EIR's failure to identify and anatyze feasible and enforceable mitigation measures to address the significant impacts of climate change. In preparing these comments, I have reviewed the following documents: FEIR Climate Change Section Preliminary Greenhouse Gas Reduction Measures for Bear Valley Village Project Description for Bear Valley Village Letter from Greg to the Alpine Board of Supervisors, dated November 30, 2009 Introductory Comments The FEIR identffies the project's incremental contributions to GHG emissions as cumulatively significant because the project would generate a substantial increase in GHG emissions relative to existing conditlons. Therefore, all feasible mitigation measures must be identified. However, the FEIR fails to recommend and analyze the effediveness of all feasible measures to mitigate these signiFicant impacts. Mitigation measures proposed tend to be primarily voluntary and unenfwceable, merely requiring that mitigation be "encouraged," but not required. Other mitigation measures are simply descriptions of features of the basic proJect design that already were quantified as part of the analysis that led to the EIR assessment of the signifiont level of GHG emissio~s. Although the FEIR identified as a further mitlgation measure the preparation of a GHG Reduction Plan, that Plan was only required to be prepared in the future for each phase of the development, rather than clarified prior to project approval. Guidance is provided by the California Attorney General's Office concerning mitigaNon measures to address climate change: Mitigation rt~ easures mus[ be "fully enforceable." Adequate mitigation does not, for example, merely "enwurage" or "support" carpools and transit options, green building pradices, and development in urban centers. While a menu of hortatory GHG policies is positive, it dces not count as adequate mitigatlon because there is no certainty that the policies will ~ implemented. There are many concrete mitigation measures appropriate for inclusion in a general plan [or major project] and EIR that pn be enforced as conditions of approval or through ordinances." Further guidance is provided where a Gimate action plan or other "mitigation plan" is intended as mitigation; it should be prepared at the same tirr~ as the project EIR. Aaording to the AG's guidance, ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Third, a number of ineasures originalty proposed by the project applicant in its PreliminaryGreenhouse • Gas Reducri'on Measures fo~ the Bear ~alley ~illage (Attachment 5) been omitted from the final plan. These fnclude measures fhe followfng measures: Water 5: Use of a rainwater collection system. Construction 8: Use of recycled and low emitting insulation. Transportation 13: Assist in supplying faed number of units for Bear Valley residents. Solid Waste 4: Require waste compaction on site. This measure was identified as feasible in the Preliminary Plan, but is only included for consideradon in the Final Plan. 1: In construdion contracts, require that 50% of wood flooring and 20% of construction debris from the Bear Valley Lodge be recycled. The Preliminary Plan indiptes that these percentages are feasible, but the Final Plan reduces the mandatory recyding amount to 10~a. All of these measures were identified as feasible in the Draft Plan, but are omitted or substantially weakened in the Final Plan. Finally, the County has never apparently considered numerous measures that should be feasible. Such measures include, but are not limit~ to the following: LEED Cerdficatlon: The letter from Greg Finch to the Board of Superviwrs regarding the Bear Valiey Village project, dated November 30, 2009, Includes the following: In addidon to the GHG Reduction Plan, we are pleased to commit to building the Bear Valley Village to the level of LEED Certified standards...". [ Letter at page The LEED Certification promised is a step in the right direction. However, LEED version 3 does not include LEED ND, which includes key chedclist items such as automobile use reduction, among other VMT and GHG emissions reduction measures not tncluded in the LEED Version 3 system. Project certification under the LEED ND system would proNde additional certainty that the promised VMT reductions and GHG emissions reductions from the village elemenis of the project would actually be achieved. In additfon, the letter should be revised to clarffy what additional reduction measures, beyond the measures identified as intrinsic features of the project in the New Appendbc, would be needed to meet the minimum LEED Version 3 certification requirements. The Proposed Homewood Mountain Resort Master Plan Project proposes to meet LEED ND for the mixed use portion of the site. The Angwin Ecovillage will also be LEED certified. Sonoma Mountain Village, Rohnert Park Is a LEED ND Platinum candidate. LEED ceitificadon results in real reductlons in GHG em(ssions, and it is feasible. The developer should consider LEED ND certification for the applicable elements of the proposed project. Moreover, tn with CEQA, the County must adopt this requirement as a conditlon of project approval and ensure fhat lt is enforceable through the mitigation monitoring plan. Carpooling, Employee Parking Cash-ouy and otl~er Transpor~tion Demand Management to Reduce VMT: Again, the Proposed Homewood and projechs are incorporadng aggressive trip reduction measures including on-site local goods and services tailored to the projects and surrounding neighborfioods; year-round shuttles; employee parking cash-out programs; eledric hybrid car re~tal; dial-a- ride services; park once districts; and in the case of Angwin, parking is an additional ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- at the urban fringe whero most new development is rn~i" 9 place, but also through some svategic infill. The results depend importantly on assumptions about what percentage of new housing will be built com~y and how much Iess residents ofthese oew, more compect will drive. 77~ base case aasinnes continued low-dereity development, and all scenarios project thaz household VMT remains constant, ~ assumption tested in se.nsitivity enelyses. In an upperbound scenario that represmts a significant departure from ciarent conditions, t6e commit[ee estimates that, if 75 perowt of new aud replaceme~nt housing units are steered irrta more compact development and residents ofcompec[ comm~mities drive 25 percem less, VMT and acsociated fuel use ac~d CO~ emissions ofnew end existing would be reduced by 7 to 8 perant reletive to base case conditions by 2D30, with the reduction widening W bUween 8 and 11 percent by 2050. A more moderate scenariq which essumes thet 25 perant of new and `eplecement tausing imits will be built in more compact developmmt and that residents of tliose developmenis will drive 12 pe~ vent less, wouid resuh in reductions in fLel use end COi emissions of about t percent reletive to fiese case condifions in 2030, growing to benveen 13 and 1.7 perce~~t balow the base pse in 2050. If the rcsidmts ofcompeU developm«Rg drive only 5 pe~ cen[ Icvs-the lower bound of available estimate~the savings in fuel use and CO, emissions would Ix lesa than 1 pe~cm[ compared with the baae case, eveo in 2050. The committee disagrxd about We feesi6ility of achieving the terget densiry in the uppa~bwmd scenario-~ loubling ihe density of 75 percern ofnew develo{ment-- even by 2050. Those mw~bvs who believe it poesible question whqher densities will continue W decline. In theirjudgnent, macroecotwmic trends--likely higher ene~ prices and carbon taxes-in combinetion with gowing public support for strategici' dll, imesenartis in trensit, and higher deathies along rail corridors could msult in considerab}y higher densities by 2050. Other members believe that the ciabing ot' lazgo- lot development at the urban &inge and the subataotiel infill eniailed in the uppcr•6ound acenazio require such a significent departw~e f~ om cimcnt housing Vends, land use policies of jurisdictions on the urban fringe, and pubiicp' efaences that those measures are umealistic ebsent a strong state or regional role in growth management Promotivg more compec; mixed-use development en a large srale wi0 reqoire mercooieg nomerooa obst~cla. Local wning regulations-particularty suburben zoning that restricts density levels and ihe mixing of lend uses- represurt one of the most significent barriers W more compact developmw~t Highly regu(eted land use mazkets also limit the supply ofcompect develo~eMS, despite evidwoe of interest in such communides. Land use control is, and has remained, largely a local government fu~ tion and ihus sensitive tok~ timatc locsl concems about congestion, local taxes, or home velues), which are somatimes at odda whh otha regionel or national concerns, such as housing affordabiliTy or climate change. Thus, land use policies aimed st echieving swaping chenges in avtisnt developme,nt patte~ ere likely to be impeded bY Political resistance firom existing homeownere and local govemments that reflect their interests, which may Lelp acplain why metropolitanwide or stete policies aimed az controlling la~ use and steering devdopmdu a~d infractructure investme~fs ere not widesprcad. In the near [am, the biggest opporiunities for morc compect. mixed-use devebpme~rt are 1~ 7cely ro lie in new housing and replacanem unita in arees elready wcperiencing drnsity inereaves. such as the inner subiubs end developmeM.s near Vansit s[ ops and along major highway corridors or intachanges. Coordimted public in& ashucMe and development incentlves can be used to enwurage more compact development in tluse locations, end mning regulations can be relaxed W steer this development W arees t} at can support trensit and nonmotorized travel modes. Marka-based saategies, such as oongestion pricing and msrkebbased fees, aiong wit6 zoning requittme¢ts for maximum rether thmi minimum parking, cen compleme.nt higher-density devdop[nart pettemv that encourage transit use and pede.strian travcl. n the longer tum, if housing prefuences and travel paUerns change end compect, mixed-use developments become mora commonplace, a gne~er political consensus may emerge ia support of stronger state end regional masures m condnl land use. Policy instrumenis might include setting urbm~ ~ owth or gewbelt boundaries m stea' growth to areas already developed. ChanLea in devdopmeot patterna entail otber 6e~ e6ts and iwaats that have not hseo qurotified in this s[ udy. On the benefit side, more cwnpact, mixed-use development should reduee some infragWcture costs. inerease the feasibility and coat- effectivakss of public transit, and expaod housing choices where compact deveb}m~~ ta me undersupplied. Other brnefits include iess conversion of agricukural end other environmentsily frapjle ercas and greater opporlunities for phYSical activity by faciliteting the use of nonmotorized modes such as walking and bicycling. On the cost side. the savings in highway infiasmicture will be ofl§et, at leest m parl, by incfeased expenditures for public transit, perticularly rail tranek, to support high-dertairy devebpment. Moreover, many Americans appear to preFer deteched singlo-femily homes in low-density suM¢bs that are dfta~ associated wit6 more privacy, gteffieraccess w open space and recreatioq azul less Iroise than chatacteriu many ur6an neighbortrooda Of rtse> housing preferouces may chenge in the future with chenges in the denwgraphic and aoeioecaromic chaz~ tcristics of the populetion. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Preliminary Grenhouse Gas Reduction Measures for Bear Valey Vilage GHG ReducNon Consideration Measure/ seROrp Reduc[ i o n M e a s u r e PotenNal LevN.__ Post signs at all loading docks, truck loading areas, and pasenger drop off lotatians that indicate that Reduced vehi[le idling on the Transportation-9 vehicles must be shut off when not in use for longer than 5 minutes on the premises in order to reduce prqec[ site, and asociated Ves idling emisions GH6 emisions. rovided covered parking areas for all residential units to reduce area that requires snowplow{ng. This Reduced GHG emisions generated by Counry's snow Yes T r a n s p o r t a t i o n - 70 will result in 167 fewer parking spaces that need plowing. removal equipment. Reduced GHG emisions Provide 6uletin board for employees who want to form arpools In common areas of employee assoclated with employee Yes 7 r a n s p o r t a t i o n - 11 housing 6ui~ding. ravel. Instal into each dweling unit Energy SWr-rated programmable thermostau that ran be controled remotely ( e.g., via intemet and/or phone) by property owners. A system shal also be in place by which SO%of energy consumed by the properly management s[afi can monitor the thermostau when the dweling units are unxapied. heating and cooling system Electricity-1 p~operty managemerc staff shal also develop a system of maintaining default i n t e r i o r t e m p e r a t u r e s propane and electridry~, and Yes and Propane) when dweling units are unocupied In order to both prevent freezing weter pipes and maximize asoclated GHG emisions heating and cooling efideMly throughout the occupied portions of the multl-story, multfunit buildings. residential units or Indiv4dual commerdal spaces shal All air conditioning unitr that service individual 15-40%of elec[ricity Electricity-2 have the Energy Star rating. Air of most interior spaces will be prwided by a cemrolized consumed for AC, and Ves _ _ _ asociated GHG emisions Instal the folowing measures for eficient heating of the swimming pools Instal all pools with integrated insulation that has a venfied insulation R-value or insulate walis and Reduced elearicity floor of pods with insulation that has a verified insulation R-value; consumptlon for pool heating, Electriciry-3 Use a solar pool heating system to heat the pools as the primary source of heat; and and asociated GHG Yes Cover pool with a cover designed to absorb heat from the sun when pool is not open ( i.e., a emisions. trensparent or bub6le cover). Use " Smart Lightin~' ( bi-level sensor LED or LED-wlar sYStems) for all outdoor lighting and streetlighu, all parking lots, parking garages, and interior common areas of condominium buidings. This " Smart 2096 of electriciry consumed Electricity4 Lightin~'techno~ogy has been developed 6y California Technology Center ( CLTC) and can for of mmmon areas, Yes reduce electricity consumption and costs, maintenance costs, and increase safety and security In and asociated GHG emisions parking lots. Also Ilmit outdoor lighting to nightime hours o~ly. 31%Iess electricity All dishwashers instaled in residential un"rts shal have the Energy Star rating. All home owners consumption and 33%less Yes Electricity-5 a5ociations shall prohibit residential units from having dishwashers that are not Energy Star-rated. water tonsumption than conventional machines ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Genere/ Plan Amendment 8 Zone Change Application . 5 Applican[: Bear Valley Village f, CLC and Bear Valley Village LLC Projed: Bear Valley Village Date of Submittal: August 2008 / Date of update: July 2009 Zone Chanee and General Plan Amendment Reauest The Applicant is treating the proposed project as a whole and is applying for a zone change and an amendment to the general plan to allow for parking, residential, retail and wmmercial uses on all pazcels included in the proposed project site description. Proposed Amendment The Applicant proposes to amend the 1978 Master Plan for Bear Valley, Califomia, which is included in the General Plan for Alpine County. Currently the 1978 Master Plan is approved for the development of 500 residential units on the parcel labeled VC-2 ( Assessor Parcel Number - APN: OS-470- 055 ( Lot OS-470- 056 Lot 3) and OS-470- 050 ( Lot In addition, 62 residential units are currently approved on VG1, the Lodge and Commercial Center parcels (APN: OS- 640- 001/- 002/- 003/- 006 ( Parcel OS-640- 004 ( Parcel and OS-640- 005). The Applicant proposes to expand the land azea available for the development of the approved units to include the Counry owned parking lots B and C( APN OS-480- 008). Purpose and Need of Proposed Amendment The Lodge and Commercial Center pazcels are proposed to be included in the development because this addition allows for an improved design of a village core. The existing Lodge is not adequate for the standards of today's hotel guest, nor is the Commercial Center appropriate for the growth potential of the small business owners or to attract outside visitors to Bear Valley. The proposed pedestrian village in the new design will include central locations for retail and commercial tenants while offering improved acwmmodations to the visitor and condominium owner. The ApplicanYs original design of the village only included the privately owned land parcels (VG1 and VC-2). However, when taking into consideration the parking needs of Beaz Valley residents and visitors in the winter, the design was expanded to include a covered pazking structure on the Alpine County owned pazking lots B and C. Because the roads in new subdivision aze not plowed during the winter season, new subdivision residents and home owners must park their cazs in one of the public pazking lots and access their homes overvsnow. All persons who park in these public lots aze required to move their cars twice a week to another parking azea so that the lot may be cleazed of snow build up. This snow build up is pushed to the perimeter of the parking lots, greaUy decreasing the parking capacity of each lot. These wide snow banks, in addition to the absence of delineation of pazking stalls further decreases the parking capaciry of these lots. It is because of these problems inherent to Bear Valley's snowbound home sites that a multi-story parking structure is proposed. This pazking structure will provide new subdivision residents and home owners with the opportuniry for covered pazking and access in the winter to the Transportation Center (snowmobile storage facility), a location for village visitor pazking and parking for the condo units to be located above the structure. The condo units located above this parking structure will provide additional residential ownership and visitor opportunities to Bear Valley. In addition, the Applicant has incorporated employee housing units for this development in this area of the design. It is because of these needs that the Applicant is requesting an amendment to the General Plan and a Zone Change approval to allow for planned development (residential, commercial/retail use and parking) in this area e. Alpine County pazking lots B and C) of the village design. Proiect Introduction Beaz Valley began as a village in its current form in 1968 upon the opening oFMt. Reba, now known as Beaz Valley Mountain Resort, and construction of the Bear Valley Lodge and 125 homes in the subdivision. In 1978, Alpine County ceRified an EIR and approved a Master Plan for the future development of Beaz Valley. This Master Plan has been the basis for all curcent developments in Bear Valley since that time. rrl- ---PAGE BREAK--- Generel Plan Amendmenf 8 Zone Change Application 3 Bear Va/ley Village LLC and Bear Valley Vi!lage LLC Project: Bear Valley Village Date of August 2008 / Date of update: July 2009 The Applicant owns approximately 14 acres in the Village. The acreage owned by the Applicant is commonly known as Village Center-1 VGl") and Village Center-2 VC-2"). The Beaz Valley Lodge, Lodge pool and Commercial Center are currently located on VC-1. VC-2 contains the Lodge parking lot, the North parking lot and vacant land. As stated in the 1978 Master Plan, the ApplicanYs parcel VG1 is currently zoned for 62 residential units and additional commeccial and retail uses. The Applicant's pazcel VG2 is zoned for the planned development of 500 residential units, commercial and retail uses. The Master Plan also provides for a 50-foot wide easement through private property and County open space parcels for a ski lift. This lift (Village Lift) will connect VC-2 with National Forest Service land and the Bear Valley Mountain Resort. As further described below, the Applicant proposes to purchase an additional 4.4 acres of land adjacent to VC-1 and VG2. This 4.4- acre parcel is currently owned by Alpine County and used as public parking bts (Lots B and The 1978 Master Plan designated this parcel of land for parking use only. The Applicant proposes to amend the 1978 Master Plan to permit for residential, commercial and retail uses in addition to parking on the 4.4- acre pazcel. Specific considerations of desiQO (to be supplemented with Exhibit 3A for reference) Bear Vallev Villaee" The design ofthe proposed Bear Valley Village (Village) is based on the Alpine County approved 1978 Master Plan for Bear Valley. The project includes the construction of a new pedestrian village, condominiums and related infrastructure on approximately 18 acres of land. The majority of building sites throughout the proposed village aze located on ground that has been disturbed by existing development, including parking lots, roadways and existing buildings, making the proposal an infill project. In accordance with allowable density under the 1978 Master Plan and the ApplicanYs objective of creating a sustainable community, the Applicant is proposing a village containing approximately 64,000 square feet of retail and amenity space and up to 491 Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs, see Note or 538 keys. This is less than the 562 units and undefined amount of commercial and retail uses for the VGl and VG2 land parcels provided for in the 1978 Master Plan. The proposal includes the remova] of the existing Lodge and Commercial Center located at the intersection of Bear Valley Road and No Name Road. Important chazacter features from the Lodge such as the fireplace stones will be reused in the proposed village. No Name Road will be moved south of its current location to allow for an adequate pedestrian walkway in the Village Center. These elements serve to maintain and improve traffic circulation through the Village (see section "Proposed parking and traffic flow considerations" below). A high speed chair lifr (Village Lifl) will be constructed through the existing ski liR easeme~t from the Village to Koala Rocks at the Bear Valley Mountain ResoR. The Village Lifr is intended to allow ski-in and ski-out access to the Bear Valley Mountain Resort from the homes and village core in the winter and mountain bike, hiking and site-seeing access in the summer. Skier access from Bear Valley Road to the Village Lift will be via a groomed trail located noRh of Building 6 and across a bridge spanning the existing drainage way to the base terminal location. Skier access from Creekside Drive to the Village Lift will be either from Creekside Drive through the ski lifr easement to the Village Lifr or through County-owned Open Space Parcel E, connecting with VC-2 at the most well-served location. An outdoor amphitheater is under consideration next to the base terminal of the Village Lifr. This venue is intended as a naturaVsemi-natural outdoor gathering place for concerts and/or other artistic performances in the summer months. The noise level and hours of performance will be determined by the Applicant in conjunction with County code and witl be regulated by use permits granted by Alpine County. During the winter months, this ---PAGE BREAK--- Genere/ Plan Amendment 8 Zone Change Application 3 Applicant: Bear Valley Village l, LLC and Bear Valley Village LLC Projed: Bear VaNey Village Date oi Submittal: August 2008/Date of update: July 2009 outdoor amphitheater will not be cleared of snow, but lefr as an open area for skiers to access the Village Lift base terminal. A swimming pool and meeting faciliry are planned east of Building 5( indicated by `PH 1" on Exhibit 3A). These additions will replace the existing Bear Valley Lodge pool. This facility is intended to serve as an indoor public gathering place, accommodating demands for meeting venues, weddings, and other local community functions. Due to Califomia's TiUe 24 energy efficiency standards, the use of electriciry for heating will be limited. Natura] gas is not available and the Applicant is proposing propane gas as the heating fuel for fireplaces, unit heating and localized snow melting. It is the Applicant's understanding that two, 3Q000-gallon propane tanks will be needed to service the propane needs of the Village. The Applicant proposes to place the tanks unde~ground, north of proposed Building 13. The access to fill these tanks will be from a separate driveway off of Creekside Drive. The Applicant will coordinate with the Alpine County Sheriffs Sub-Station and Ebbetts Pass Gas to determine if any training requirements are needed in relation to underground propane tanks. The Applicant proposes no more than five wood burning fireplaces throughout the Village for aesthetic enhancement. Because of the heavy and unpredictable amounts of snowfall in the winter months, pedestrian access to retail and amenity spaces will be provided for primazily under covered azcades, in addition to localized areas of snow melt and snow plowing to ensure pedestrian safety. See section "Considerations for Emergency Vehicles" below regarding accommodations for emergency access throughout the Village. Each building will contain the required number of pedestrian exits per existing code All existing driveways, access routes and easements have been considered in the project design. No existing driveway will be blocked. All buildings have been located and designed to maintain as many existing trees as possible for conservation of natural resources and for further reduction of the visual impact of the proposed buildings from the road ways. All proposed residential units are located above structured parking, and in many cases, above an additional floor of commercial and amenity space. The Applicant has outlined, under sepazate exhibit, proposed Best Management Practices ("BMPs") for construction. The BMPs are effective, practical, or nonshuctural methods which prevent or reduce the movement of sediment, nutrients, and other pollutants from the project site to surface or grou~d water. South VillaEe° ( Buildin2s 1 2 3 and 4 parkinQ structure and emplovee housin ) In order to take into considerntion the parking needs of Beaz Valley residents and visitors, the design was expanded from the Applicant-owned VC-1 and VC-2 parcels to include a covered parking structure on the 4.4- acre parce] (Alpine County owned parking lots B and This covered pazking will serve this new development as well as existing parking needs and can be financed by the construction and sale of the condominium units above the parking structure. It is intended that the southem portion of the first floor of the parking structure will have access to the snowmobile loading and unloading zone, allowing for cars to pazk undercover in a loading zone while transferring belongings from car to snowmobile and vice-versa. A pedestrian bridge will connect the South Village to the pedestrian area of the Village Center. This bridge will span Bear Valley Road, allowing foot traffic access away from vehicles and a snow-free passage during winter conditions. r/ ---PAGE BREAK--- Caenerel Pfan Amendment & Zone Change Applica6on ~ Applicant: Bear Valley Vil/age l, LLC and Bear Valfey Village LLC Projed: Bear Valley VilJage ryr Date of Submit[al: August 2008 / Date of update: July 2009 The employee housing building is situated so that it does not block the driveway leading from Quaking Aspen Road into the snowmobile loading and unloading zone of the TranspoRation Center, but it is anticipated that this driveway will be widened and improved to better accommodate snowmobile traffic. Pedestrian access will be provided in winter and summer between the employee housing building and the South Village structure. North Villase" ( Buildines 11, 12, 131 aod "Villaee Center" Buildinas 5. 6, 7. 8. 9. 10) A number of amenity/service spaces are proposed in the Village pedestrian area (Village Center) to enhance the visitor experience and provide additional services to the residents and visitors. These spaces include uses such as a nursery/day- caze facility, a Beaz Valley home-owner ski locker room and a member's dub and spa. The North Village and the Village Center aze oriented around the existing drainage way adjacent to the current Lodge and Commercial Center. New drainage and erosion control methods will enhance the existing environment. Four bridges are proposed in the Village Center area, all of which will span the Ordinary High Water Mark of the drainage. Three bridges are intended for pedestrian crossing and one bridge will accommodate vehicle crossing along the new No Name Road. All four drainage crossings are intended to have natural stream bottoms, an improvement from the existing culverts bcated under No Name Road. Because of the winter access needs of Beaz Valley residents located within walking distance of the Bear Valley Road closure, up to four temporary automobile loading spaces have been provided within the driveway to Building 6( see Exhibit These spaces will be for winter ]oading and unloading only, to allow for home owners to transport goods over snow by foot from their caz to their home and vice-versa. Proposed parkine and traffic flow considerations The Applicant is proposing the faix-share funding of a number of road improvements to the Beat Valley Road/SR y" 4 intersection in order to maintain an acceptable Level of Service. These improvements include: the construction of an exclusive westbound right-turn lane on SR 4 onto Bear Valley Road; the extension of the existing eastbound lefr-turn lane on SR 4 onto Bear Valley Road; and the construction of separate right- and left-tum lanes on the south bound approach of Bear Valley Road onto SR 4. All pazking for the specific uses of each building will be adequately supplied by under-building and off- street parking per the recommended pazking ratios determined by LSC Transportation Consultants. Initially, membership to the proposed members club facility located in the Village Center will only be available to new Bear Valley Village condominium owners and existing Bear Valley homeowners and residents. No other memberships will be sold unless the pazking supply is greater than the required demand of the proposed Village uses. Each under-building parking area will have proper ventilation and air circulation per building code. The South Village structure will replace ffie existing open surface parking on the County Parking Lots B and C with covered, structured parking. Condominium units will be built above this parking structure by shifting approximately 148 residential units from the VG 1 and VG2 1978 Master Plan allocation to the County owned lots. This additional structure is intended to provide parking for the residents of the subdivision, additional day visitors, non-Village resident club members, emptoyees and owners of the residential units located above the structure. This arrangement will be particularly beneficial during the winter months when home owners are unable to reach their homes by automobile and when heavy snowfall adversely affects the parking efficiency of these lots. The parking gazage will not exceed three stories and will contain separate entrances to each floor. In order to maintain snowmobile access through the 6ase of the Village, the Applicant will consult with local public safery agencies and is prepazed to accommodate a snowmobile-only lane that will connect Bear Valley Road with the Open Space azea located west of VG2. This lane will be at the northem property boundary of VC- 1( north of Building but separate from the skier access trail leading to the Village Lift. r~ ---PAGE BREAK--- General Plan Amendmen! 8 Zone Change Application 3 Applicant: 8ear Valley Village l, LLC and Bear Valley Village LLC Projed~ 8ear Valley Village Date olSubmittal: August 2008/Date of update: July 2009 Phasin¢ of Parkine Structure of South Villaae The phasing of the pazking structure and associated condominiums to be built on Counry pazking bts B and C will be market-dependant The Applicant intends to construct and complete the parking structure in one summer building season so that winter pazking will be uninterrupted for existing Bear Valley home owners. The demand for public parking decreases in the summer season when residents can access their homes by automobile. Considerations for Emereencv Vehicles Design for emergency access vehicles will be accommodated throughout the pedestrian-only areas, as well as around the individual buildings. The pedestrian plaza areas are designed to accommodate either an approved standpipe or a drive through system for fire and life safety vehicles, including the vehicle's weight and maneuverability requirements. The majoriry of buildings include street frontage in order to accommodate emergency vehicle access from the roadways. Buildings with frontages that do not face the street will have standpipes installed to provide water for fire fighting needs. Archways and street access are provided through Building 6(at the driveway location off Bear Valley Road), through Building 8( connecting the pedestrian bridge from Plaza 2 to Plaza 1) and between Buildings 9 and 10 (onto Creekside Drive). Goveroance and Maiotenance Each building in the Village will be governed by a Homeowner s association, which in turn will contract with a property manager to perform maintenance and enforce the rules and regulations of the associations. Each building association will then be part of a Master Association that will oversee the management and maintenance of the Village as a whole. The Applicant intends to establish a traosfer tax that would be paid upon the sale of each property (in perpetuity) to create a permanent funding source for the maintenance of village improvements. See Exhibit 12E for additional detail. Solid Waste Each building will contain solid waste and recyding containers adeqaate for each building's use. These containers will be located in several designated locations in the under-building parking areas and sized appropriately. Each condominium building will be responsible for the collection and disposal of solid waste and recycled material through a condominium association. Retail and commercia] tenants will be provided with containers in designated locations for their specific use. Emplovee Housin¢ To accommodate the need for seasonal employee housing for the Village development, construction of an employee housing facility is planned next to the South Village pazking structure proposed on the existing Alpine County owned parking lots B and C. This facility will hold approximately 50 employees (50 beds/21 EDUs) and will contain pedestrian access to the So~th Village. It is i~ tended that an agreement will be reached between Alpine County and the Applicant to determine the phase in which the employee housing facility will be built. The Applicant also anticipates working with Alpine County to address the shortage of affordab(e housing for full time permanent employees. Concrete BatcN Plant The applicant may propose a temporary concrete batch plant in the town of Bear Valley. The proposed batch plant would be located within the ApplicanYs development boundary and on ground that has been or will be disturbed by development. Other Public Services and Utilities The source of water to serve the proposed project is from the Lake Alpine Water Company (LAWC). LAWC has recently completed an upgrade of its water filtration facility, has replaced and enlarged one of its water storage ---PAGE BREAK--- r~ Yr+ Genera! Plan Amendment 8 2one Change Application Applicant: Bear Valley Vrllage l, LLC and Bear Valley Vrl/age ll, LLC 3 Projed: BearValleyVr!lage Date of Submittal: August 2008/Dafe of update. July 2009 tanks and has metered all of its water connections. The project will install the approp~iate infrastructure to provide for domestic and fire flow and will pay for associated connection costs per the LAWC fee structure. The source of wastewater treatment to serve the proposed project is from the Bear Valley Water District (BVWD). B VWD is in the design phase to upgrade its wastewater treatment plant from a secondary to a tertiary treatment system. The Applicant will pay for associated connection costs per the BVWD fee structure. The source of emergency services for the proposed project will be the Sheriff s Sub-station, a public safety office, located in the town of Beaz Valley. Note 1: Because the Master Plan does not provide a definition ofa` uniY, [he Applicant has defined an Equivalent Dwelling Uni[ as a 1350 sq. ft. residential space (see BSA memo dated June 3, 2008). rr' ---PAGE BREAK--- Bear Valley Village Proposed Master Plan BearValleyVllagell,LC ~ 3a Development Key 13cButlamgs EmployeeHausing P7-~ 3~ Plazu ~ ii: PoOlHause VL NDageLiR ~ I: PmpaneTanks t"t s i. ~ ~ r s ~ a ^ t Y w 8 . ~ r. , ' r ~ k - a~ P y. , 5 G . pti, xi.T.-: i~ b, . : ti . ' S. ~ • 1'i. ~ ~ s: t ~ g9.. ~ qit . i " P. y~ Yl~. v- L. ii. dix: ' . . : ~ . , r . t : g o c t ~ ~ Kt v~ FS a b. 5: e A .g ; y ~ Pr., tr. yy~i 4 . 5 _ ty ~ F xig w~ f z~ ~ i : Y : r~ ~ ~ / i. ^ Y~B . ° p . r r. ' ' ; s~ ; i , ~ - _ ~ n~ Ya°.t.. F rc " ~ 5 ~ s z • _ ~ = E, 7 ~ : r' 1 t. , ud ~ ~ " ~ pr ~ S < a li \ s~ _ ~ 1 445~ / M~ z: - _ Eberh ~ ' ' ~ i ~ a , v ` ~ ~ rp } ; i y s ' s r~ , . ; pEy.. t E ~ ' xvy,v. X ' o ~ s : 7e. r i ye ~ w' ~ ¢ v- . . ~ v' Ad:i~ ' 3_ i 4Y a ' , g.i~% ~ ' i a . f/ ` 1 . m ^ - Fg iSl . . u° A ~ , ~ ~ OL T y ' : ~ l~ r.I. : J r > , . . rc ` , f ~ u ~ . pa~` . _ r / y ' 9 r ~ . y hp~y, 4ra~"_ . ` C , . L+ . . . P IUaB~XsM' . ' _ ` ~ 1 ' ~ . ~ . . , , ' , a ~ . Y t~ a- ' 3• ' ~ . . . F A 43`'' Legend ~ YCinilyBOwtlary CurmmEntrance a2'i ~ BUtl4mgs851mcmres~~NUmbasl- 131 K' 0 EmployeeFbusing~EH) o Poo~ o Foa0. s80mewayslRaposetll r CalifornuHigAwayJ l r~ C NewLOCaAOnofNOl~hmeFtl~ Ropose~ iC~ erMark s ~ Sunc~ ePartang r+ ~ ~ fl SIULAt~ AppraumazeLaatlonBNignmeral C~ OpenNrAmPhithea~er( ProPoseU~ 3 ` s ~ hopnneTankLOCapon(Prpposa] I SkierTatl¢ 1 RIIbdlbiqocmtlinunE~eESIl11p0aMip , ` P. ~ t o s p , r r 4 tt P 1> A l7•~~ g~ b ; 1 \ ~ ' ~ 54' CJ. y, p ol' x~ 7:f?' ' - ~ - ; ~ . r..i; , t. p , I : i ~ i ~ ' y N~ t- Ay ~ ya ~ ir~.' r 4P~~5~~ r. ' * ~ , ku' ~ 3 F i , ~ C~D C dt Qrcle v}k~ c2 } . la~ ' e, j c =fl ` 1~ gr. ' v ~ C:F r i& r~ s ~ j ~ General Plan Amendment & Zone Change Application - 250' \ NI K„ Bear Va11ey Califomia ~ ~ w Prehmmary Master Plan, July D[h 2009 ' _ ---PAGE BREAK--- 6 General Plan Amendment & Zone Change Application I, Bear Valley Calffornia N L ~ Preliminary Master Plan, July Dth 2009 Not To Scale Bear Valley Village: Area Vicinity Map1 BearValleyVillagell,LLC ~ ---PAGE BREAK--- nieywi. a. n, uc 7A Bear Valley Village: Topography Alpine Caunry Zone Change and Generel Plan Amendmen[Application A March2007 ua r~ i ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Bear Valley Village: Existing Trees To Be Removed' Legentl d eo~ mary swim=~~~ OBelO~M~ FWIqIR~ MOFU6EE ~RB FBIIpVdI MBBS~ EtisimqTreesloPSmalnoroeminneE' RoposetlOpenAupmpM1itAea4r NewLacaoonoiNONameFa(HopouGl i. woamm.~~wa~.~ s.a~ m q~ irz~ me. m~ a~ i~ aa:~ ur ~ M ~e nie lo Ys9 wSMq Les~n plae xrya~~ nNnI va~ pop! 11e. z. ui ~wv a: ~ n. m w.m. m.we e: ~ mio.a n~ u: e~ inia~ oia.mn~. mma embr4y i. ane vn ~ emma nay Ee xr~ me~ m~ mi~ o~ omim~o-~ m~ e. r~ oaimi ss.a: i rnr:., l nom~ mqe:~. mo.~ enn.m~ vwonmi: waN W pmmneNhremovea naludng Y9lFN1, prJ Amss ryNl)~ v11hAe GII.. sMla mm., pop'me IsXS, o. nog, m m~ e gan . NRVWUe~ wslm m~i~~ wns~ esomenmia~ sa~ N~ ew mEp~ qosEipmspacxS, mCWingP.eopm mvn~:~ ms s. r. uamamo u~ a. azwnamv~ ~ a'Qa w~ a o:sa m oaxa~a mr~ wm~~: wmeo.e nmeau n.a, onve wwa BwIfN% lm+ Gw~ til1lNe~+~~ fA9+~ hTe r Wlky Yllaga I. LLC a. xvai~ rna.~~, uc 7B2 tlpil0n ~II; amx~: Y~l'. We9~lJl: PmWOeAiR Generel Plan Amendment & Zone Change Applica0on - Bear Yalley Cal'ifomia A Pielimiwry Master flan, Juty 27th 2009 250' m ~ - m v ---PAGE BREAK--- Bear Valley Village: Existing Buildings & Structures c Alpine Counry Zone Change and General Plan Amendmertt Applicatlon y A March2007 25a ~ m~ - m ~i ---PAGE BREAK--- Bear Valley Village: Adjacent Buildings & Structures ~ V..i~ Alpine Counry Zone Change and General Plan Amendment AOP~icatlon A March 20W 25a ~ m ---PAGE BREAK--- Paci6c Gas and Efectric Company' v February 28, 2008 Ms. Leah Toeniskoetter Project Development Manager Bear Valley Village 1960 The Alameda San Jose, CA 95126 Dear Ms. Toeniskaetter: Re: Proaosed Bear Vallev Villape Proiect - Bear Vallev. Alaine Countv 209.533. fi034 Fax:209. 533.6035 Electric service is available to serve your proposed mixed use project residential, commercial, retail, guest services, etc.) in Bear Valley as listed below: 05-470- 055 ( Lot 2) 05-470- 056 ( Lot 3) 05-470- 050 ( Lot 6) 05-640- 009 ( Parcel B) 05-640- D02 ( Parcel B) 05-640- 003 ( Parcel B) 05-640- 004 ( Parcel A) 05-640- 005 ( Commercial Center) 05-640- 006 ( Parcel B) 05-480- 008 ( Public parking Lots, B& C, which are currently owned by Alpine County) Extensions of these iacilities wifi be made in accordance with our electric rules and regulations on file with the State of California Public Utilities Commission at the time the applicant applies for electric service. Any relocation of existing facilities vi+ ould be done at the developer's expense. If you have any questions, please call me at (209) 533-6036. Sincerely, Annie Loggins Sr. New Business Representative Service Planning 14550 Tuolumne Noad Sonora, CA 95370 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- PR~c~ P1ANE Pnorwteroeacr tPANE SALES & SERVICE GASAPPLIANCES hevron yY7HpNO' ~ Com[ott, Q~ alitY February 26, 2008 MOSBAUGH PROPERTIES, INC. EBBETTS PASS GAS SERVICE Telephone 209-795- 1397 - Fax 209-795- 4957 992 Nighway 4- P.O. Box 6 APNOLD, CAUFORNIA 95223 Cont2ctors License 8800133 Leah C. Toeniskoetter Project Development Manager Toeniskoetter & Breeding, Inc. Development 1960 The Alameda San Jose, CA 95126 Re: Bear Valley Village I, LLC & Bear Valley Village II, LLC Dear Leah: Thank you for the opporiunity to provide propane gas service to the above referenced projects. Please be assured that Mosbaugh Properties, Inc., dba Ebbetts Pass Gas Service, has sufficient resources and supply contracts to provide continuous propane service to your projects. Should you have any questions or comments, please feel free to call me at 209)795- 1391. Best Regards, I ~ G. Dean Korb ik 7r, CPA Secretary aud Chief Financial Officer rr ---PAGE BREAK--- ECO:LOGIC Consulting Engi~leers March 21, 2008 Principals David R. Bennet4 ~ Charles G. Bunker Jack A. Ha~' 6our ' Jeffrey R. Hauser ~ Nis. L.eah Toeniskoetter D. Todd Kotey Bear Valley ~Jillage I, LLC and Bear Valley Village II, LLG Richard E. Stowell~ I 196D The Alameda Suite 20 Robert w. Emerick Gerry 0. La~ udde San Jose~ CA 95126 steden Becl< Bear Valley Village request for Utility Certification Ms. Toeniskoetter, The Bear VaIley Water District (District) has received and reviewed yoyr March 7, 2008 requesting a Utility Certi£ication for the above refecenced Beaz Valley Village project for connection to the Bear Valley VJater District waseewater system. On behalf of the District, we are responding to your inquiries. The project is. within the. serGice area oPthe Distriet and therefore ttte District wpuld provide wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal service (sewer seivice) to the.project.. In order for the project to receive sewer service, a sewer permit must be obtained from tfie District according to Ordinance 16 as.a~ nended. The Distr.ict_ two samtarXsewer ~mes that.onuld sexue the pr,o; posed pro~ect s~ fe., Oneis an 8 ip diameter sewer ip ~ear Valley Road termtnating nearthe. intersecfion wrth1~ T6, Name ~ ftoad. _ The second sewer:line_ is 8-in diameter and runs north alorig Creekside Drive, ; Sewer secvice ~nay be provided through one or more of these sewer lines; however Che Bearl~ alley Village project wil[ be reqnired to extend sewee to serve the various buildings within the proj8ct. T4e Bear Valley Village project may also be required to relocate the existiug 6-in sewet line desig~ated on.the attached map. Af the time of application for a sewer permit and as a condition to an Agreement for the Construction and Acquisition ofImprovements, The BearValley Village project will berequiied fo evaluafe the capac±h~ of # he District's existing sewe also be in full compliance with Chapter 17.28 of the AIo~ setfifV-Gode. Supply DomestiC"~ater supply for~'-~ he project shall be provided through the Lake Alpine Water Company syst8m. The owrcer/developer shall be responsible for installation of infrastructure necessary to ~vide wate~ fo the project in accordance with the requirements of the Lake Alpine Water Coetpan~~~t~ i in a manner consistent with all approved tentative and final subdivision maps, irrt~ ement plans, conditional use permits and mitigation measures for the project. 2. Wastewater Treatment System Wastewater treatment collection and treatment for the project shall be provided through the Bear Valley Water District system. The owner/developer shall be responsible for installation of infrastructure necessary to provide wastewater treatment for the project in accordance with the requirements of the Bear Valley Water District and in a manner consistent with all approved Bear Valley Village Planned Development Designa[ion Page 7 of 13 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I1 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 tentative and final subdivision maps, improvement plans, conditional use permits and mitigation measures for the project. 3. South Village Parking Structure The South Village parking structure will replace the existing open surface parking on the County Parking Lots B and C with covered, structured parking. Condominium units will be built above this parking structure by shifting 148 residential units from the VC-t and VC-2 areas of the 1978 Bear Valley Master Plan to the parcel that contains Parking Lots B& G. This parking structure is intended to provide parking for the residents of the subdivision adC~tt( onal day visitors, non- Village resident club members, employees and owners of the res~fial units located above the structure. In addition to parking spaces required for the South ~lage development, the structure shall contain a minimum of 167 parking spaces d~ d~ s# ed fQ ihe County for use by Bear Valley residents and/or the general public as deterrnin~f" by the Gcrunty. The design of the South Village parking structure shall incorporate a stayi~igarea for loadir[~ ~ nd unloading of vehicles necessary for residents to transfer to othert#~~ ans of transportatiorl owmobile, snow coach, walking, skiing) necessary to reach reside~i~ f' areas in wintec 4. Storm Water and Drainage Control A storm water and drainage control sy~ am consistent ie proposed tentative map, improvement plan, description as subtr~r~ tetl`zarith the projecta}~ plication, all applicable conditions or approval and all applicable mitigation ~easi![e& Shall be ins~ BUed by the Owner/Developer. Except as may be specifically allowed by fFfe Coar~}y i~ e xhe of a tentative subdivision map for all or any portion of the project, th~; tt~ sign a~ Ff uctibn' of the storm water and drainage coMrol system shal€. itleetall applic~le~ irnty sfa~ds. Storm water and drainage control associated with CtFimectiarlsto the sta~ ~ jhway system shall meet all the requirements of Caltrans. ' 5. Propane Gas Plistribution i . A propang s~ 4i€$ ge and c~ ist+' ibution system"ftiFthe project as shown on the improvement plan and~ asrlesc~~ tr~ the ~roject application shall be installed by the Owner/Developer. The desi i~ t arit~~ peraCiontaf the system shall meet all the applicable requirements of the ~tipnal Fire ProtecfiF5~1 Associat[c3p standards and the Uniform Building Code, and all regulations,administered by the CalifoCnia Public Utilities Commission pursuant to propane 6. UtihUes"' ' In addition to the im~ ictvements and infrastructure listed in this Section C, the Owner/Developer shall install telephone and electrical service capable of serving the e~ tire project area. Other utilities such as cable or satellite N distribution, fber optic or other telecommunication lines may also be installed. All of these utilities shall be installed underground in accordance with Chapter 13.20 of the Alpine County Code. Employee Housing To accommodate the need for seasonal employee housing for the Village development, construction of an employee housing facility is planned next to the South Village parking Bear Valley Village Planned Developmen[ Designation Page 8 of 13 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 structure. This facility will hold approximately 50 employees (50 beds/21 EDUs) and will contain pedestrian access to the South Village. The timing requirement for construction of the employee housing will be specified in the Employee Housing Implementation Plan that is described in Mitigation Measure #PHE-3/ Condition of Approval #1 (see Exhibit A-4). D. MITIGATION MEASURES AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Development of the project shall fully comply with all mitigation measures included in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) as certified by the Board of Supervisors on May 29, 2009. These mitigation measures are included as conditions of approval and are specifcally listed in Exhibit Conditions of approval that are separate and in additiot~°.#a`# he mitigation measures included in the FEIR are also listed in Exhibit A-4. project shall fully comply with these conditions of approvaL E. VARIANCES The County's process for considering variances to zoni~tg standards wr~E ~ppty to any proposal to vary from the development standards as statecf F- erein except where 8; specific ability to modify a development standard without a variancB is stated herein. Chaptel~ 80 of County Code shall apply to all variance actions. F. APPEALS AND CLARIFICATIONS/INTERP~ ATft) NS Appeals of any decision of a county.. o~ cial or o#f` ar,~: county body with respect to this designation shall be made in accortf~tir: e with ChapteY:~$. 88 of the Alpine County Code, including any amendments thereof. Ret(uests:~ 6r; special Pkfications or interpretations of any provisions of this designation shall be rt~ de in aGeprdance wit~'t Chapter 18.88 of the Alpine County Code, induding any amendments ~reof. m' - G. AMENDME Amendments to tF Section 18.28. 090 H. This ined Devetaspment D~ ignation shall be processed in accordance with Alpine Cnt~Ftty Code, irictuding any amendments to this section. may reafter acquire ai~ ite operate a_ business within th be in accoTdance with Cha~ thereof. Thet; QUnty may w permits, tentat'nr~~ ubdiwsiss maps, orthe issua#~~ pf~fi~ on the Property, untiCsue~i b not take affirmative ~ction Owner/Developer in writing remedy the same. ES~ gnation shall run with the Property and be binding upon the ec~i1~ successors, representatives and assigns, all persons who erest #tT~ttg Property or any part thereof, and all persons who may 3 proper4y. Enforcement of the provisions of this Designation shall r 18.92 of the Alpine County Code, including any amendments th3~old approval of any or all conditional use permits, special event ttnaps, tentative parcel maps, final subdivision maps, final parcel or all grading or building permits or occupancy permits applied for each has been remedied; provided, however, that the County shall on account of such breach until it shall have first notified the and afforded the Owner/Developer a reasonable opportunity to Bear Valley Village Planned Development Desig~ation Page 9 of 13 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 BEAR VALLEY VILLAGE vr+ 2 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DESIGNATION 3 EXHIBIT A-1: PROPERTY DESCRIPTION 4 5 6 APN(s): 005-470- 055, 005-470- 056, 005-640- 001 thraugh 006, 005-480- 008 4 Beaz Valley Village Planned Development Designation Page 10 of 13 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 BEAR VALLEY VILLAGE 2 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DESIGNATION EXHIBIT A-2: DEVELOPMENT PLAN s Bear Valley Village Planned Development Designation Page i l of 13 ---PAGE BREAK--- Bear Valey Vilage Proposed Master Plan e:~`LL~ I 3A tl(~ General Plan Amendment & Zone Change Aplication - 2ea \ n- B e a r V a l l e y C a l i / omla ~ Prehminary~ Plan, Juty 27N 2009 ° ~ ° ---PAGE BREAK--- r• Bear Valley Village Development Planl Bev Nlhp I, LLC 9' eII. LLC IZB I m na.~ u w nnb nn wm~wi.. i i n. . c. im. u^ tuTNIY 9W~tl T4S° SouN Nllpe Enplpae Moutl A2~ Mt~ AaPn ~ I~ I Generel Plan Amendmem & Zane Change Applicadon - Bear Valley Califwnia Preliminary Master Plan, April 2008 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 BEAR VALLEY VILLAGE 2 PLANNED DEVELOPMENTZONING DESIGNATION 3 EXHIBIT A-3: ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN GUIDELINES r~ Bear Valley Village Planned Development Designation Page 12 of l3 ---PAGE BREAK--- Bear Valley Village Draft Architectural Design Guidelines Page 1 of 42 ---PAGE BREAK--- Bear Valley Village Draft Architectural Design Guidelines Page 2 of 42 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 1.0 PURPOSE OF THE GUIDELINES 1.1 Setbacks 1.2 Building Appurtenances 1.3 Flexibility within the Guidelines 2.0 SITE DESIGN, LANDSCAPING, STREETSCAPE & SIGNAGE 2.1 Image of a Community 2.2 Building Siting 2.3 Pedestrian Access, Circulation and Stairs 2.4 Pedestrian Streets 2.5 Public Plazas 2.6 Public and Private Spaces 2.7 Patios, Decks and Terraces 2.8 Site Walls, Fences and Gates 2.9 General Signage 2.10 Landscaping and Planting 2.11 Grading and Drainage 2.12 Waste Storage and Removal 3.0 PARKING, ENTRY AND DROP-OFF REQUIREMENTS 3.1 Space Requirements 3.2 Parking Structure Guidelines 3.3 Drop-Off Areas and Emergency Service Zones 4.0 ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES 4.1 GeneralObjectives 4.2 Building Envelope and Massing 4.3 Building Composition 4.4 Decks, Balconies and Guardrails 4.5 Structural Expression 4.6 Building Height 4.7 Roofscapes 4.8 Chimneys, Flues, and Roof Vents 4.9 Building Openings 4.10 Exterior Materials and Colors 4.11 Miscellaneous Structures 4.12 Utilities and Exterior Equipment 4.13 Exterior Lighting 4.14 Energy and Climate Considerations ---PAGE BREAK--- Bear Valley Village Draft Architectural Design Guidelines Page 3 of 42 5.0 SNOW COUNTRY CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 Sliding Snow 5.2 Ice Dams 5.3 Snow Loading 5.4 Snow Clips and Fences 5.5 Snow Melt Systems 6.0 APPLICATION aF THE GUIDELINES 6.1 Construction Management ---PAGE BREAK--- Bear Valley Village Draft Architectural Design Guidelines Page 4 of 42 INTRODUCTION The Bear Valley Village will be developed as a master planned, multi-season resort community located within Northern California's Sierra Nevada mountain range. The site itself is located within Alpine County and surrounded by National Forest Service land. As such, the village's site surroundings, climate, and sensitive mountain environment are all paramount considerations to appropriate building design. The Design Guidelines for Bear Valley Village articulate the vision of the master developer and outline the design requirements for the community's residential and commercial structures in order to preserve the area's unique attributes and characteristics. In order to assure that the development of Bear Valley Village is in keeping with these Guidelines, a Design Review Committee ( DRC) will be established to administer these Guidelines. The structure and operation of the DRC is to be defined by the Master Association Documents. These Guidelines serve to encourage architecture that is reflective of the natural setting within the larger Bear Valley community. Building design shall be used to enhance the visitors' experience through consideration of: spatial sequence, scale, and the use of materials which compliment the outdoor environment, reflect a special sense of place and give a cohesive identity to the resort components. T{ie images useJ in 1he guidelines are to help illustrate the concepts described and do not necessari(v represettt conditions present in Beqr V'alley Cillage. ---PAGE BREAK--- Bear Valley Village Draft Architectural Design Guidelines Page 5 of 42 In using these Guidelines and in the development of the design of individual structures, respective developers, architects and builders shall strive for: Compatibility with the site layout and building massing set forth in the approved Bear Valley Village Master Plan and EIR. Indoor and outdoor spaces that reflect and enhance the mountain setting. Architecture for the individual buildings that adheres to the design objectives and development themes established for each development parcel. In general, this shall include a compatible palette of building materials and contextual relationships between building forms and design elements. The buildings should reflect differences in individual use, functional needs and location within the village, but share a unified image so that each building is recognized as part of the master planned whole. Functional design which address issues of public circulation, back-of- house service functions and snow safety. Importantly, new development should environment. This objective goes beyond materials; it requires special attention to reflect the natural setting. Key design themes for the village include: strive to create a cohesive resort basic forms and a prescribed palette of design motifs and detailing in order to A Relationship with the Natural Envrronment The Bear Valley Village site is an extraordinary location surrounded by forested slopes, natural granite rock outcroppings and highland meadows. These existing natural and topographic features of the site should provide inspiration for the forms and features of the new Bear Valley Village. The trees, rock outcroppings, creek, and other natural attributes of the site are important to the communiry and should be retained when possible. The architectural forms should be simple and authentic, recalling the natural forms and color palette of the area. These guidelines encourage landscaping with indigenous planting materials that emphasize the local character of the site. Appropriate Scale and Detail The footprint and physical massing of the new village buildings should relate to a human scale. The village's public spaces, likewise, should be actively programmed and geared toward the pedestrian. The village should be designed around communal interaction and activities. Ground floor areas and commercial storefronts require special attention and architectural detail in order to animate the r ---PAGE BREAK--- Bear Valley Village Draft Architectural Design Guidelines Page 6 of 42 streetscape. Lighting, signage, planting, and plaza furniture contribute to a delightful pedestrian experience, providing surprise and discovery. Honest Structu~a! E~ cpression and Building Materials The exterior of the buildings at Bear Valley Village should reflect the surrounding natural landscape. A building's structural system should be visible when appropriate. Materials should draw from nature, such as stone and wood; and should be used in a manner that will blend with the natural surroundings. Indigenous materials should be used when possible. Timber and stone, in particular should be used to express a structural purpose in lieu of a purely decorative or applied approach. Likewise, building materials should be consistent between the interior and exterior. Sustainable Design The unspoiled environment surrounding Bear Valley calis for a design approach that embraces sustainable design and environmental responsibility. New construction should incorporate the latest green products and technologies to the degree they are economically feasible. Examples include green strategies that reduce energy use, including building wall, window and roofing systems. ~ Renewable and recycled materials should be utilized where appropriate. Water conservation, retention and erosion control measures should be implemented as part of an overall plan to minimize immediate site and long-term impacts to the environment. Snow Country Design Consrderatrons California's Sierra-Nevada mountain range is well known for the quantity and high moisture content of its snow. Snow country design considerations therefore are particularly important at Bear Valley, where ice and snow can be formidable forces of nature. These forces are critical in shaping the buildings and developing their exterior components and architectural details. In general, the buildings should be designed to keep the snow on the roof in order to add insulation value to the structures and protect against damage inflicted by sliding snow. People should be protected from snow and falling ice. Roof elements should be used to protect entries. Building forms should additionally incorporate protective arcades, porches, and covered decks as needed. Snow and ice melted walkways and snow storage areas should be carefully considered in order to maintain safe passage and emergency access while balancing operation and energy requirements. ---PAGE BREAK--- Bear Valley Village Draft Architectural Design Guidelines Page 7 of 42 1.0 PURPOSE OF THE GUIDELINES The Bear Valley Village Master Plan consists of residential, retail, recreational and parking facilities to be constructed over a period of time. The plan has been carefully conceived as a mixed-use village tailored specifically to accentuate the mountain topography and the many natural qualities the site offers. Roads, driveways, buildings, plazas, bridges, pathways, parking and other improvements have been designed and located to optimize views, provide convenient skier access to the new Village Lift, and minimize snow impacts. In particular the majority of structures planned for the Village will be constructed over under-building parking garages to minimize the view of cars and to provide for snow-free parking areas centrally located beneath the residential and retail areas of the Village. The Master Plan has been designed in accordance with regulations and planning requirements for Alpine County, the State of California and the U.S. Forest Service and has undergone an extensive review process as part of the site's development requirements. All designs must adhere to the approved Bear Valley Village Master Plan, which establishes a foundation for the program, building type and uses, lot boundaries, development layout, individual building footprints within the Bear Valley Village, conceptual exterior elevations and massing studies for individual buildings, primary access points, and general relationships to the ski mountain. In addition, all development is subject to applicable local, state and national codes and regulations. The Master Plan is not meant to limit creative solutions for site planning, landscape, and architecture within Bear Valley Village, but rather to provide the aesthetic and regulatory tramework within which all development shall take place. The following Design Guidelines, in association with the Master Plan documentation, set a framework to encourage a project whose high quality is consistent with each phase related to an overall design theme. The Guidelines are to be used by the developers of Bear Valley Village and its representatives, developers or their successors, architects, Alpine County staff members and other design or construction facilitators. In themselves, the Guidelines will assist only in setting general themes and unifying the various types of structures within the area. In order to be truly effective, the Guidelines must be enforced and interpreted by the DRC, as well as incorporated and possibly expanded by designers who understand and are sensitive to the overall spirit of the Master Plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- Bear Valley Village Draft Architectural Design Guidelines Page 8 of 42 1.1 SETBACKS Building Setbacks have been established for each of the lots in order to ensure a balance between buildings and the natural setting while still providing flexibility in building configuration and location relative to trees, waterways, and site topography. These Building Setbacks are designed to maximize the attributes of the Master Plan and reinforce the design vision for Bear Valley Village by prescribing the configuration, massing, and form of individual buildings within the overall composition of the Village. As defined in the Master Plan, the building setbacks have allowed for a 20 feet snow removal and storage setback along the majority of County roads. All buildings, structures, and parking must be located within the Building Setback. Additional features such as driveways, decks, architectural appurtenances, and other site improvements may be located outside the Building Setback, but only with the prior approval of the Design Review Committee (DRC). As part of the review process, the DRC will take into consideration the views and privacy of neighboring lots, topography, drainage, wetlands, vegetation, sun exposure, and any other physical features of the site. 1.2 BUILDING APPURTENANCES In addition to the footprints outlined in the Master Plan documents, a variety of building appurtenances are anticipated to be included in the final building designs. Within reason and subject to other applicable codes, these may extend beyond the footprint areas outlined in the Master Plan. Acceptable appurtenances include but are not necessarily limited to Architectural Elements; Roof Overhangs, Brackets and Bracing; Commercial or Residential Awnings; Covered Balconies; Non-enclosed Grade Level Arcades not exceeding 15'0" in height; Information and Retail kiosks not exceeding an eave height of 15'0"; Flagpoles, Banners, Lighting and Signage; Open Porte Cochere Structures; ---PAGE BREAK--- Bear Valley Village Draft Architectural Design Guidelines Page 9 of 42 Pool and Spa Pavilions, including screened mechanical equipment; Bow or bay windows not exceeding 5'0" in depth measured perpendicular to the primary facade plane; Outdoor play areas, stages, amphitheaters, fire pits and barbecue facilities. 3 FLEXIBILITY WITHIN THE GUIDELINES As with any project built over time, minor changes in the massing and footprints of a particular building may be required due to changes in circumstance and the need to retain some development flexibility. Such changes, however, must fall within the spirit of these Guidelines and be generally consistent with the building footprints established in the Bear Valley Village Master Plan. The design of some buildings and structures may require more design flexibility once issues such as topography, site drainage, preferred view orientations, and relationships to neighboring buildings, the Village Lift, pedestrian routes, and roads are studied in greater detail. Any proposed deviations in building footprints or massing must be at the discretion of the DRC. Some of the criteria that the DRC may use in determining whether a deviation is warranted for a site include: If the proposed design and/or deviation contributes to the Village in a positive way. If the proposed deviation from the approved building footprint and/or massing is required to maximize the particular building site. If the proposed design and/or deviation is beneficial to the site in terms of retaining natural site characteristics and/or limiting disturbance to the site's existing topography and vegetation. If the proposed design retains and reinforces views from adjacent properties and public spaces. If the proposed design contributes to the skyline of the Village in a positive way. If the proposed design defines, contains, and provides continuity to exterior public spaces such as pedestrian streets, plazas, and arcades. yrr+ ---PAGE BREAK--- Bear Valley Village Draft Architectural Design Guidelines Page 10 of 42 Regardless of whether or not all the criteria for a deviation has been met by an Applicant, the final decision to authorize any such deviation is up to the discretion of the DRC. ---PAGE BREAK--- Bear Valley Village Draft Architectural Design Guidelines r~ Page 11 of 42 2.0 SITE DESIGN, LANDSCAPING, STREETSCAPE & SIGNAGE 2.1 IMAGE OF A COMMUNITY Residents and guests will experience Bear Valley Village within the context of its natural, mountain setting. Due to the existing stands of trees, the visual impact of the village will be limited to the overall building massing and roof forms. The objective is relatively simple and uncomplicated building forms, relating to site specific characteristics and subtle undulation of the topography. Important site design elements contemplated by the master plan include: PoRals: Portals provide the front door to the Village and its public spaces, and often form a visitor's first impression. As the portal serves a welcoming function, its size is particularly important. Openings that are too large can leave a pedestrian feeling " lost" within the passage, while portal openings that are too small may result in the feeling of being " squeezed" or "closed-in." Buildings that act as portals should consider the human scale through the use of appropriately-sized and detailed entry canopies, doors, windows, and/or other architectural features. Edges: While portals create doorways, edges define the village boundaries. This is also known as the village's communal " street-wall." Individual building wall planes are significant in this role. The form, massing and overall heights of the buildings forms the village's primary pedestrian corridor. Additionally, the building walls will impact the impression of the Village from the street. Vertical wall planes at these buildings should form a distinct street-wall while providing ties with natural features and outside vistas. Buildingscunform welcamingportals. Buildirtg walfs can act as edges or street-walfs, whrle 1he outdaors spaces they surround represent negalive spaces. ---PAGE BREAK--- Bear Valley Village Draft Architectural Design Guidelines Page 12 of 42 Negative Space: As buildings represent positive space "takers", the outdoor spaces that are created by the surrounding buildings, comprise the "negative spaces" that are as important, if not more so, to the success of the village and its pedestrian experience. Such spaces include the village's vehicular and pedestrian passageways, public plazas, as well as other gathering spaces. Edges are once again vital, as they define the outdoor spaces and provide their backdrop. Buildings that define negative space should incorporate major entries and additional design elements that help animate and reinforce the value of the outdoor space. In addition, the sense of containment should be reinforced through mass at the corners of public spaces, and visually continuous floor patterns around the enclosing walls that allow the eye to perceive the physical containment of the space. Village Landmarks: Village landmarks can help create an overall " sense of place" for Bear Valley Village and also help orient pedestrians within the Village. Memorable landmark structures are designed to highlight the specifics of a particular place. Landmarks are unique and cannot be easily duplicated. They are visible from numerous locations and also can help orient a visitor. Such icons are an important part of the village experience as they form memories of Bear Valley. Landmarks are the " Kodak moment" locations that signify the defining attributes of a particular location. The best landmarks, moreover, tend to incorporate a function or fulfill or commemorate a specific activity or period of time. A successful landmark must be clearly discernable against the backdrop of the Village and should not have to compete with secondary features. This sense of hierarchy should extend down through secondary elements within the Village. Clock tower, sculptures, and an outdoor fire pit are examples of elements that can be used to underscore hierarchy while creating layers of richness and multiple opportunities for discovery. 2.2 BUILDING SITING Building siting must result in an integration of open spaces and adjacent buildings. Relationships between building footprints and outdoor spaces have been established in the Master Plan in order to foster a pedestrian scale. Buildings should relate to each other with respect to eave heights, materials, public walkways, outdoor activity spaces and their association with the natural terrain. In general, building footprints, setbacks, and open spaces shall follow the approved Master Plan documents submitted for the General Plan and Zone Landmarks help orienlpedesbians. ---PAGE BREAK--- Bear Valley Village Draft Architectural Design Guidelines Page 13 of 42 Change Application. Minor changes that respond to phasing needs or internal marketing requirements may be allowed providing that the applicant can demonstrate that the total building volume, as outlined in the Master Plan documents, has not been altered significantly. 2.3 PEDESTRIAN ACCESS, CIRCULATION AND STAIRS Pedestrian access to and from the Village and circulation within the Village are primary design consideration within the Bear Valley Village Master Plan. The pedestrian walkways and outdoor spaces represent the primary circulation space within the village and are conceived to provide direct links between various lodging, commercial and recreational functions. The Village's walkways, bridges, stairways, and ramps are the connective elements that will enable pedestrian traffic to flow easily throughout the Village. Pedestrian walkways should include focal points along their route, where appropriate. These may include both natural elements, such as Bear Creek, natural rock formations, or single or groves of trees. Man-made elements may include railings, walkway surfaces, artwork, and plaza furniture. Commercial shop fronts and retail frontage are an important element in energizing the pedestrian experience through the Village. Shop fronts provide an opportunity to encourage artist expression, individual creativity, and to animate the adjacent public spaces. The purpose of these regulations is to create a cohesive village through the pedestrian streets, rather than encouraging an urban feel to the development. At Bear Valley Village, the Pedestrian walkways may be constructed of asphalt, concrete, brick or stone pavers, and/or colored or stained concrete (with or without texture). The accessibility of pedestrian walkways must be considered in determining the materials, widths, and maximum grades along the route. Secondary paths outside of required accessible routes may be constructed of stepping stones or cobbles set into the landscape, crushed rock, or wood chips. Pedestrian walkways must be designed to adequately accommodate the anticipated resort traffic during both the winter and summer seasons. Some pedestrian walkways and plaza surfaces may be required to serve as emergency access. These shall be designed in accordance with code and Alpine County requirements. ---PAGE BREAK--- Bear Valley Village Draft Architectural Design Guidelines Page 14 of 42 Stairways and ramps should be minimized where possible. When required they should be designed to accommodate the changes in topography on the site without creating a barrier from the low to the high end. In general, skiers with ski boots find stairways difficult to navigate. Exterior stairs shall be designed to accommodate ski boots, by minimizing riser height and maximizing the width of the tread. A six inch rise to a sixteen to eighteen inch tread is ideal. Acceptable materials for stairs and ramps include colored or stained concrete ( with or without texture), stone or concrete pavers set over a concrete sub-base, or brick as an accent material. Slip resistant treads and stairway nosings should also be incorporated. wwo rvsT~c aooT MW'~t~ t0 OUekSEP Lv~ ~ R a f : cutM~uNAYh G,TQ' ~Q y . . EASY RIS~t• STAlR Exterror stairs shw~ld eusilv handle ski boots. 2.4 PEDESTRIAN STREETS A key element to the success of Bear Valley Village will be the quality of the pedestrian experience created within the Village. Pedestrian streets allow for movement within the Village and provide exposure to the various activities, shops and restaurants. Animated pedestrian streets are therefore an important design element, as they add vitality to the overall resort experience. The scale of a pedestrian street is primarily determined by its ratio of height to width. Streets that are too wide (relative to height) do not inspire movement or side-to- side window shopping. Many of the wonderful pedestrian streets in Europe are no more than 15'-0" wide. Streets, on the other hand, that are too narrow constrict circulation flow, may not meet emergency standards and block sunlight from the walkways below. While the quality of a pedestrian street is difficult to quantify in terms of an absolute rule or scale, width to height ratios from 1/3: 1 to 1/2: 1 are recommended for Bear Valley Village. For instance, a building fa~ ade is about 60'-0" high, a desirable street width would typically be 20 to 30 feet. In addition, minor building elements are also important in creating a successful street filled with interest at a human scale. Lower height arcades, shop fronts, bay windows, signage etc, may extend into the street width in order to provide variety and visual interest. ---PAGE BREAK--- Bear Valley Village Draft Architectural Design Guidelines Page 15 of 42 2.5 PUBLIC PLAZAS The design details of the primary pedestrian plazas will set the standard for the secondary walkways and public open plazas. Therefore, it is important that the village's primary pedestrian plazas be appropriately scaled and inviting places, a center stage" for the village that encourages social interaction and people watching. Paving materials, patterns and colors define the overall limits and should be compatible with the adjacent building facades and architectural details. In order to be properly read as an "outdoor room," a plaza should be well defined by the building edges or street walls. The planned arcades and snow melted pathways will define primary circulation routes and encourage travel through the plazas and along the entire length of the village plan. Plaza materials may include stone, brick or concrete pavers, concrete (stained or colored, with or without texture) and stone cobbles at accent areas. Additionally, the plaza should be zoned for a variety of active and passive uses. Artwork, landscaping, boulders or rock formations, lighting, plaza furniture and seating areas should be considered and well incorporated into the final plaza design. y 2.6 PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SPACES The clear articulation of public vs. private spaces is also an important design consideration. Defining boundaries help inform and orient residents and visitors alike. They also help define scale and can link and separate the variety of village amenities. Public spaces include the village's primary roads, pedestrian plazas, and open air amphitheater. Here, solid walls, continuous planting or other such physical or visual barriers should be avoided. Large openings and windows and other means of "transparency" are also encouraged. Private spaces include areas where access is limited to individuals with ownership or membership interests. These include the residential entry ways as well as access or spaces adjacent to private residences or clubs. In these spaces, care should be taken to maximize separation and a sense of security and retreat while maintaining an appropriate response to the community as a whole. Between the public and private spaces, there are also village areas that may be semi public or private. These may include areas such as restaurant terraces, certain building lobbies, and various outdoor amenities. These spaces offer Terraces andpools provide semi private artd semr public spaces. ---PAGE BREAK--- Bear Valley Village Draft Architectural Design Guidelines Page 16 of 42 additional opportunities to provide clear articulation. Small grade changes, planters, seat-walls, changes in paving materials, for example, should be used to zone individual spaces while further augmenting the village's character. 2.7 PATIOS, DECKS AND TERRACES Patios, decks and terraces should be visually compatible with their adjacent buildings and outdoor public spaces. They should also be shaped appropriately for their location and function. Organic, free-flowing forms are appropriate where nature is encouraged into the village composition. More formal or defined forms are appropriate adjacent to the public streets and plaza spaces. Acceptable materials for patios and terraces include natural slate, granite, and sandstone pavers, colored concrete or brick pavers (at accent areas), stamped and stained concrete, and similar high-quality materials. Snow storage and proper drainage shall also be taken into account. Metal, redwood and/or cedar decks will be considered where appropriate. The DRC may also consider materials depending on their quality, track record and aesthetic appearance. 2.8 SITE WALLS, FENCES AND GATES The walls, fences, and gates within Bear Valley Village are to be designed as extensions of either the landscape or of adjacent buildings through form, material, texture, and color. Spaces can be defined using rock walls, engineered retaining walls, decorative fences, safety fences, privacy fences, and utility screening designed to complement and tie into the overall Bear Valley Village design theme. Large, indigenous boulders are encouraged within the landscape and paved public areas. In order to reinforce the naturalized appearance of the site, boulders should be embedded into its surrounding surface. To maintain an authentic appearance as hand-placed, load-bearing structures, the height of boulder walls should not exceed 4 feet. Engineered retaining walls should be designed to have some design quality beyond raw concrete. Such walls may be battered, faced with stone, or board formed. Stone faced walls should match the stone on the adjacent buildings or be othenvise indigenous to the site. The wall profiles should also follow the natural contours of the land with the ends tied back into the site, rather than ending abruptly. The use of boulder walls should be encouraged whenever the landscaping should appear natural. Stone retaining walls are required to be designed by a professional engineer and in many cases will be backed by structural concrete walls. Railroad ties and/or pressure treated timbers may be used for retaining in secondary locations. Prefabricated systems such as precast block wall systems are limited to non-critical locations such as access roads, ---PAGE BREAK--- Bear Valley Village Draft Architectural Design Guidelines Page 17 of 42 loading areas, or areas outside of public view. They should not be used for landscape walls, site walls attached to buildings, or pedestrian plaza areas. Fences are to be designed to act as extensions of adjacent buildings. Materials and construction should be of high qualiry and compatible with adjacent buildings. Appropriate materials include wood, painted metal, brick, and/or stone veneer. Fences and gates should be used to enclose service areas, outdoor pools and play areas as required for safety reasons. They are not to be used to define property boundaries within the village. 2.9 GENERAL SIGNAGE In order to unify new development within Bear Valley Village, as well as orient and define place, site signage guidelines shall be prepared for all identification, directional and advertising signs. Lighting for signs should be kept to a minimum and used only as required to present information in a clear, safe manner. In addition, some site signage may need to be designed and located to remain clearly visible above the snowline in landscape areas subject to the accumulation of snow. Retail Signage Retail signage solutions that are creative and unique are an important component to establishing a successful commercial village. Signage is to be scaled to the space where the sign is to be located and to promote creative and interesting solutions that are appropriate for each individual business in terms of form, detailing, graphics, and color. Their size should be neither overwhelming nor diminutive to the pedestrian. Signs shall be custom crafted of wood and/or metal in order to add interest and individuality to the operation. Especially at arcade locations, the Guidelines encourage signage mounted perpendicular to the plane of the primary retail facade. Vitrines, bow, bay or other window types used for advertising or show purposes are also encouraged. Signage lighting should be kept to the minimum necessary for unhampered visibility. Digital, ~ flashing, and 'producY signs are not to be used, as they are ~ not in keeping with the feel of the village that the guidelines are seeking to achieve. Neon signs in some limited creative / applications may be considered by the DRC. Retail signage adds interest and individualiry. ---PAGE BREAK--- Bear Valley Village Draft Architectural Design Guidelines Page 18 of 42 2.10 LANDSCAPING AND PLANTING A major distinguishing characteristic of Bear Valley is its spectacular mountain setting. The following landscape and planting guidelines have been established to reinforce the site's natural environment. The emphasis should be on native landscape and plant materials throughout the development. The design of buildings and their surrounding landscape shall be an integrated process so that indoor spaces relate to the outdoors spaces and the Bear Valley environment, topography and climate. As the link between the structured and the natural environment, landscaping offers the opportunity to add its dimension to the visitor's experience. Design recommendations for landscaping and plant materials include; The design for buildings, access roads, on-grade terraces or patios, utilities, and other such improvements should consider any trees of significance that may exist on the site, with consideration given to their preservation. Efforts to protect existing trees should be implemented, including the construction of tree wells, feeding, pruning and root aeration. Direction from an arborist should be obtained when appropriate. On site riparian or wetland areas should be protected from construction activity and should be kept outside the Area of Disturbance. Ground covers and wildflower mixes should be consistent with those found naturally within the Sierras and Bear Valley. Large specimen trees and shrubs that engage the architecture should be used in areas of the site that are highly visible, helping to soften the architectural massing and blend the building into the site Outside of the pedestrian streets, landscaping should blend with the surrounding environment by use of native plants and boulders. Landscaping should follow the natural groupings of native plants. Overly complex plantings are not reflective of the natural environment. Decorative, non-native planting may be appropriate in some areas as feature planting. Well maintained drought tolerant grasses may be used around buildings where appropriate. ir/` ---PAGE BREAK--- Bear Valley Village Draft Architectural Design Guidelines Page 19 of 42 In addition to planting material, all landscape proposals should incorporate the following considerations: Planting shall reinforce vistas and not block important views from the building itself or surrounding buildings. The Landscape plan should consider the need for providing color for the different seasons. Use planting material to enrich building facades and screen service zones and other areas or equipment. Planting areas should be designed to anticipate and handle snow storage requirements. Vines and shrubs with invasive roots or branch systems that might damage or destroy the structures or outdoor plazas should be avoided. Planting and landscaping recommendations are provided in the Bear Valley Village Master Plan. rrr 2.11 GRADING AND DRAINAGE Grading within the village boundaries should work to blend the buildings and their site improvements into the existing site topography, giving the site an appearance consistent with the natural landforms. The most aesthetically pleasing developments are those that minimize grading disturbances and carefully work around and incorporate the site's unique existing features, such as significant trees, rock outcroppings, and view corridors. Slopes that exceed 2:1 must incorporate retaining or boulder walls. The finished grading of buildings and other structures should be tied to the natural drainage patterns of the site, ensuring the proper direction of surface runoff around buildings and other structures. This approach will help prevent the use of riprap walls, box drains, and concrete culverts that can detract from the site's natural appearance. Runoff from impervious surfaces, such as roofs and paved areas, should be directed to either natural or improved drainage courses or dispersed into vegetated and shallow retention areas. New drainage courses, if needed, should be designed to appear as natural drainage ways and headwalls for bridges and culverts should be board formed or faced with stone. Erosion control measures and site stabilization are necessary, recommendations are provided in the Bear Valley Village Master Plan. ---PAGE BREAK--- Bear Valley Village Draft Architectural Design Guidelines Page 20 of 42 2.12 WASTE STORAGE AND REMOVAL The unique natural location, density of development, and the potential proximity of pedestrians to the service areas of buildings requires that all buildings within Bear Valley Village adhere to a waste management plan which addresses how best to store, remove and treat waste generated within the Village. Control of litter, odors, and screening of waste areas are to be addressed to minimize the impact on the environment. Waste management systems should be of the closed variety in order to minimize smells and leakage that could escape between collection points. The recycling of plastics, glass, tin, fiber, and cardboard, as well as the disposal of fry oil, must be addressed and managed as part of any such plan. At a minimum all solid waste must be collected and transported and the method or way selected must ensure public safety, protect against contamination, liter, odors, and blemishes. Each building should be designed to include adequate recycling facilities including collection; storage and removal areas. Refuse collection and circulation are not to impede pedestrian circulation zones. ri`' ---PAGE BREAK--- Bear Valley Vil~ age Draft Architectural Design Guidelines Page 21 of 42 3.0 PARKING, ENTRY AND DROP-OFF REQUIREMENTS 3.1 SPACE REQUIREMENTS The Bear Valley Village Master Plan has been carefully designed to provide for an adequate amount of drop-off and parking for residents, guests, visitors and employees. The parking requirements for Bear Valley Village will be satisfied by structured parking garages below the village buildings in addition to outdoor surface parking spaces. The overriding objective is to promote a pedestrian friendly environment, where vehicular requirements are subordinate to the setting and village experience. Indoor and surface parking spaces typically should be 9'-0" by 18'-0," with accessible parking spaces as required by code. A limited number of parking spaces may be provided which are smaller than the typical space for compact car parking. Columns may intrude into the parking space if they can accommodate vehicle door openings. Parking space requirements within the village are as follows: Hotel and/or Lodge units -1.0 parking space per guest room Studio and 1- Bedroom -1.0 parking space per residential unit 2- Bedroom - 1.25 parking spaces per residential unit 3- Bedroom - 1.50 parking spaces per residential unit 3- Bedroom with Lock-off -1.88 parking spaces per residential unit 4- Bedroom - 1.75 parking spaces per residential unit Restaurants -3.25 parking spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Commercial/Retail Space - 2.35 parking spaces per 1, 000 sq. ft. Site parking computations that result In fractions of spaces shall be rounded up. ---PAGE BREAK--- Bear Valley Village Draft Architectural Design Guidelines Page 22 of 42 3.2 PARKING STRUCTURE GUIDELINES The individual lodging buildings planned for the village are to be located over parking garages that in many cases lie within a potential flood plane. Additionally, the building and the garage facilities will be dependent on each other for structural support and the passage of utility ducts, piping and power lines, etc. The garage designer has allocated expected live and dead loads to designated columns and provided for the penetration and extension of all utility systems. In a similar fashion, building design must provide for vertical exhaust ducts and other required chases from the garage. This interdependence is a factor that must be respected by all involved in the building process. Specific attention should be paid to: Well-defined with adequate standing space for ingress/egress. Drive aisles shall be typically 24'-0" clear with a minimum of 20'-0" clear; structural columns must be inset beyond the drive aisle by a minimum of 3'-0" on either side; Clearly defined areas for residential and daytime guests, as well as vans, shuttles and oversize vehicles. Adequate lighting and ventilation. Well defined, obvious locations for stairs and elevators giving access to both public functions and private building interiors. Adequate drainage and water proofing inside the garage and at all perimeter locations. Within the Bear Valley Village parking garage floor to floor heights ideally should be more generous than in a standard parking garage. Sport utility vehicles and pedestria~s loaded with skis require additional headroom to maneuver, load and unload. As a result, parking structures within the village shall have a typical clear height of with a minimum clear height of in order to accommodate large vehicles with ski racks. Care should be taken to ensure that piping and other utilities do not drop below the minimum ceiling height. The intent of the Master Plan is to minimize the visual impact of the garages by concealing their bulk to the degree possible. In order to achieve this end, important design considerations shall include blending any exposed garage side walls with building walls and/or incorporating landscaped berms. As contemplated in the Master Plan, the garage roofs will be used as landscaped, open spaces and pedestrian plazas. ---PAGE BREAK--- Bear Valley Village DraftArchitectural Design Guidelines Page 23 of 42 3.3 DROP-OFF AREAS AND EMERGENCY SERVICE ZONES Drop-off areas, delivery and emergency service zones are anticipated in the master plan to serve the village as required. The following additional design criteria have been established for all driveways and vehicles access points for Bear Valley Village. Uncovered driveways and other vehicle access points shall not exceed 5% grade within the first 20 feet of an adjacent roadway, and shall not exceed 8% thereafter; Heated (snow-melted) driveways are required for uncovered access points with slopes greater than 10% and emergency circulation areas where plowing and snow removal will be difficult; Due to the high amount of snowfall at Bear Valley, driveways shall be designed to accommodate snow removal and snow storage. Parking garages and surface parking areas shall be designed to consider snow shed from adjacent structures in order to prevent injury to residents and damage to automobiles; Driveway materials may include asphalt, colored concrete, cobbles and/or stone or brick pavers Pavers and concrete shall be integrally-colored in muted earth tones. One-way access drives into the village parking garages shall be a minimum of 12 feet wide, and two-way drives shall be a minimum of 24 feet. rr ---PAGE BREAK--- Bear Valley Village Draft Architectural Design Guidelines Page 24 of 42 The architectural guidelines for the Bear Valley Village are designed to address each building's relationship to the overall scale and design character of the community. A diversity of expression is to be embraced for the various building uses, which may be expressed through variety of detail and color, the composition of windows and doors, and the placement of additive or subtractive elements such as decks or balconies, dormers, bay windows, and chimneys. The collective result of these guidelines will create visual harmony between neighboring properties and within the Bear Valley Village community. 4.1 GENERAL OBJECTIVES The village architecture should strive to draw its inspiration from the site. The buildings should reinforce the natural topography and respond to the site's unique features including the creek, existing vegetation, natural drainage, vistas and view corridors, as well as sun, snow and wind orientation. The Village architecture shall strive to be sensitive to the site and promote a sense of harmony within their natural setting. With respect to individual buildings, the Guidelines seek to create a community with materials and massing which will stand up to the mountain climate, survive the 4.0 ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES ---PAGE BREAK--- Bear Valley Village Draft Architectural Design Guidelines Page 25 of 42 seasonal changes in temperature and exposure to moisture, yet result in a unity and appropriateness in architectural form which will give owners and visitors a memorable experlence. 4.2 BUILDING ENVELOPE AND MASSING Building heights shall step up from roadways, the pedestrian walkways and public plazas. Generally the highest portions are in the middle of a building and the lower portions are at the ends. High roofs that abruptly stop, forming tall expanses of walls, are to be avoided. Roofs should provide varied profiles with additive roof forms and a varied roofscape, rather than ridges with continuous unbroken The overall building volumes shall be broken up and stepped both in plan and elevation. This requires significant shifts in building volumes as opposed to additive or subtractive building elements such as balconies or bay windows. Buildings shall be sited, massed and given heights that generally conform to the approved Bear Valley Village Master Plan documents and applicable governmental codes. Building footprints shall generally conform to the boundaries established in the Master Plan. Any proposal to change building envelopes, heights, or massing must demonstrate that the resultant patterns are comparable to those shown in the Master Plan. The roof steps, for example, are a significant design element that cannot be substantively changed without demonstrating that any alternate design has no additional adverse massing and/or shadow impacts. 4.3 BUILDING COMPOSITION All buildings shall have exterior elevations, roofs and details that are consistent in their architectural treatment. Special care should be given to proportion, human scale and contextual relationships. The Guidelines recognize the need for repetitive architectural elements (for example, bay windows, balconies, fenestration patterns) in order to establish an overall architectural consistency. However, excessive repetition without vertical and horizontal counterpoint will not be allowed. This is intended to further reduce building scale and enliven the building facades. Repetitive architectural features used to establish a coherent architectural theme shall be relieved of monotony by some combination of the following: changes in visible cladding materials; horizontal and vertical breaks in the architectural system the elimination of repetitive bay windows or covered balconies at lower levels); a fenestration system with varied patterns and window sizes; and anomalous breaks in the roof line. Wrr.~ ---PAGE BREAK--- Bear Valley Village Draft Architectural Design Guidelines Page 26 of 42 Entries shall be covered to provide snow and rain protection in the winter or spring, and sun protection in the summer. Entries also represent a key opportunity to add design distinction to buildings. The exposure of structural elements such as rafter ends or porch columns is encouraged. These elements shall appear substantial and their spacing shall be in proportion to the size of the elements. Decorative and structural truss work is also encouraged to add shadow and depth to building facades. 4.4 DECKS, BALCONIES AND GUARDRAILS Exterior decks, balconies and guardrails provide an opportunity to articulate the exterior wall planes, and to add unique and crafted designs to the main walls of the building as well as the primary and secondary elevation features. Exterior decks and balconies can be used to reduce a building's overall massing, to introduce screened rooms within a building and to provide unique spaces for experiencing and enjoying the natural setting of Bear Valley. They should be designed as integral extensions or recesses of the building and typically protected from the elements. When designing water management systems, such as weep holes and scuppers, they are to be located so as to not shed onto pedestrian traffic below. The supporting structure for balconies is to match or compliment the overall design. Guardrails should be designed to blend with the building as well as match the character of the building. Consider using railings that are semi-transparent rather than solid, in order to allow views and the sun into the building and to add interest to building elevations. The use of modern railing not in keeping with the design aesthetic is discouraged. 4.5 STRUCTURAL EXPRESSION The architecture of the Bear Valley region and the Sierra Nevada Mountains is based on authentic, straight forward structural expression. Indigenous and natural materials like local stone, timber and log, and metal with natural finishes and colors, and simple forms, structures, and detailing that reflect a simple structural approach should be used to help establish a structural expression for Bear Valley Village. Bafconies reduce 4 mass and shovld be protectedfrom Ihe elements. ---PAGE BREAK--- Bear Valley Village Draft Architectural Design Guidelines Page 27 of 42 Stone should be used to reflect their support capacity rather than just as surface decoration. They should be used at building bases, their size and placement indicative of their use as a massive bearing material. Stone should be indigenous to the area and be of sufficient scale to complement the mass of the building. Stonework should be laid with horizontal coursing, and should avoid the appearance of a veneer or faux stone. Timber structural elements should be used to create a simple and rational structural system. Elements such as columns, beams, trusses, brackets, purlins, and rafters may be used on the exterior and interior of buildings to lend an authenticity of expression to the building structure. Care should be taken to provide visual continuity of the structural expression that is recognizable from the roof down through the timber members, and into the base of the building, to convey logically and orderly how the load bearing demands are transferred from the roof to the foundation. Heavy beams landing above large window openings without an expressed header and other visual representations that may appear illogical should be avoided. Timbers should also be sized according to the loading bearing needs required, with deeper members at longer spans and a clear hierarchy of primary, secondary, and lesser structural elements. Cantilevered floor levels, balconies, and roof overhangs provide prime opportunities to design timber structural elements in rational and artistic ways. Mefal detailing used at column bases, column caps, and connecting plates should be sized to appear to meet the structural demand that is required. Creating undersized decorative connections with little substance should be avoided. S~ one b¢ se used 1o suggee~t itr load bea.;,,g ~ apa~rrv. Timbers used in a structural, authentic munner. ---PAGE BREAK--- Bear Valley Village Draft Architectural Design Guidelines Page 28 of 42 4 6 BUILDING HEIGHT Building heights are a key component in creating a successful pedestrian scale and a comfortable scale for Bear Valley Village at all levels of perception. In order to ensure an appropriate scale for the Village, Buildings must meet the requirements for Building Height defined below. The height and mass of buildings that directly interact with significant outdoor public spaces should be more restricted than the height and mass for areas or portions of buildings not related to either these outdoor areas or in less sensitive areas. The majority of the Village is to be composed of three and four story buildings with some five-story heights permitted in selected areas and the massing of the buildings should step down at the ends for scale and transition. Building Height for the Village is determined by measuring from the plaza grade (defined as the top of the parking deck) to the midpoint of the nearest major roof on any exterior elevation. The roof midpoint is measured as half of the distance from the bottom of the roof fascia at the eave or rake to the top of the ridge, including if applicable any ridge vents. Buildings should not exceed a building height of 72 feet, exclusive of architectural appurtenances. Architectural appurtenances are defined as chimneys, stainvay or elevator overruns, mechanical and plumbing vents, lightning rods, tie- backs or any other roof penetration required for code compliance, fire protection and/or the proper ventilation of a building. Plumbing and mechanical penetrations shall be grouped within a chimney forms or some other screened architectural enclosure. Allowable architectural appurtenances may exceed the height of the closest adjacent rooftop by a maximum of 10'- Within the Bear Valley Village, one signature architectural feature per building (such as a clock tower) may exceed its adjaceni rooftop ridge height by 20'-0". Each signature feature shall have a floor area of less than 150 square feet. v.r/ vunamg nergnt as measureajrom rne ptaza graae. ---PAGE BREAK--- Bear Valley Village Draft Architectural Design Guidelines Page 29 of 42 4.7 ROOFSCAPES Bear Valley is known for its prodigious snowfall. In some years total snowfall has been known to exceed 50' in depth. Design of Building roof forms is of paramount importance not only for aesthetic reasons but for safety and practical reasons. Roofs are conceived as dominant building elements, visible from all sides. They shall be designed to create a sense of shelter. Visible rooftop mechanical units and other HVAC related protrusions through the roof are not acceptable for both aesthetic and snow country considerations. All reasonable steps shall be taken to hide, screen and/or incorporate into the roofscape design all HVAC related encumbrances. Boxed-in chimney forms, appropriately designed cupolas and louvered gables are examples of acceptable solutions. Roofs shall incorporate the following features: Open-gabled roofs; some hip, shed and flat roof forms may be used if complimentary to the open-gables. Exposed rafter ends at typical overhangs. Fascias built up of more than one overlapping member. Projected roof beams and/or open truss gable ends to provide individual expression within the overall theme. Roof pitches that range to a maximum of 5 feet in 12 feet; flat roofs should slope a minimum of 1/4" per foot. Decorative elements may incorporate steeper pitches. Dormers or other rooftop elements that enhance the roof forms. Gabled, shed or "flat" style dormers may be used for windows or where ventilating openings for mechanical equipment is required. aried, anima(ed roofscape that steps wi[h the topngraphy. ---PAGE BREAK--- Bear Valley Village Draft Architectural Design Guidelines Page 30 of 42 Retail Roofs Roofs over commercial areas, individual shop fronts and other retail areas should be designed to control rain, snow and ice, and to direct runoff away from pedestrian ways. Roof elements relating directly to the shop fronts can play a major role in the retail image conveyed, and the form, scale and texture can all contribute to providing a protective welcoming impression on the Public. Roofs may be designed as shed, gable, hip, barrel, or other curved forms. Roof forms may also be supported by expressed structural components that add interest and creativity to the roofscape at the pedestrian level. Consideration must be given to the choice of roofing materials used on commercial shop fronts occurring below primary roofs. Damage to these roof finishes as a result of avalanching snow and/or ice from above must be avoided. Roofs covering the entrance of commercial shop fronts may be flat, but only if they are finished in high quality materials that are complementary to the entire roofscape. Other materials including natural slate, concrete or composite tiles which emulate slate, architectural-grade composite asphalt shingles, or metal with a natural patina, such as copper or terne metal may be used, similar to the primary and secondary roofs in the Village. Materials such as pre-finished metal roof panels or shingles, glass or Plexiglas may be used, but their use and approval are at the discretion of the DRC. Heated metal roof systems at roof eaves and valleys, as well as heated gutters are highly encouraged to help in managing rain and snow shed. 4.8 CHIMNEYS, FLUES, AND ROOFVENTS Chimneys will play a central role in the overall roofscape of Bear Valley Village and should reinforce the idea of "hearth and home" common to the area's mountain heritage. Additionally chimneys should add to the visual or texture of a building fa~ ade. They should be topped with simple crafted chimney caps in either stone, brick or metal and help add to the artist impression of Bear Valley Village. For snow country considerations, chimneys should be located at ridge or rake locations. All chimneys, flues, and roof vents must be designed and located to prevent damage due to snow sliding and snow creep. Height of chimney elements may be varied to create interesting snow covered roofscapes. When feasible all fireplace flues, including other large flues, and mechanical vents should be concealed and consolidated with chimney-rype enclosures. ilr Chimneys add interest to the ---PAGE BREAK--- Bear Valley Village Draft Architectural Design Guidelines Page 31 of 42 4.9 BUILDING OPENINGS Openings are an important expression of the building's relationship to human functions and uses. They are much more than just access points and view areas, they are the elements that tie together exterior walls, help animate adjacent public spaces, and provide the interface between the interior and exterior spaces of a building. As such special care should be taken to ensure that windows and doors are well-designed, scaled and proportioned in a manner that is appropriate to the building form. Windows and doors that are unusual in shape or located in arbitrary ways can distract or appear self- conscious. Conversely, openings that are only placed at very controlled locations can produce a formality that is not characteristic of Bear Valley. Entries should be designed to serve as welcoming portals and a respite from the elements, particularly falling snow and ice. Doors that serve as the primary entrance to buildings should relate to the building's interior and be appropriately scaled and detailed. Doors, in particular, can express the personality of the building. They shall be built up of stiles, rails and panels, and may be carved with designs appropriate to Bear Valley. Simple designs are preferred. Windows provide a vital connection between the interior and the outdoor mountain setting characteristic of Bear Valley. Windows should be sized and proportioned in relation to the exterior materials that surround them. Traditional window divisions can be used to reduce the impact of large planes of glass. Window lights should have simple square or vertical proportions. Repetitive grids or geometric patterns and horizontally-proportioned windows should be avoided. When divided lights are used, they should appear authentic, using true divided lights or spacers designed to mimic the look of a true divided light. Windows within stone walls should be designed to acknowledge the mass and weight of these walls and should be narrower in size than windows within other exterior wall materials. Deep headers or arches of stone or timber can also be used to express mass and detailed so as to provide visual interest. Larger windows may be designed within stone walis when the spans are subdivided by appropriately-sized vertical supports that carry deep stone or timber headers. Window and door frames shall be wood, metal or metal-clad in approved colors. We11proportioned wrndows help artimate adjacent publre spaces. ---PAGE BREAK--- Bear Valley Village Draft Architectural Design Guidelines Page 32 of 42 Glass shall be clear or tinted and must be set in manufactured glazing stops or otherwise concealed sealants. Low emission, high altitude insulated glazing is recommended. Reflective glass is not allowed. Retail Openings The doors and windows of commercial shop fronts should serve to encourage pedestrians to enter within, add visual interest, and clearly express the individual personality of each shop. This can be achieved through an increased transparency between the public way and the retail space, or by providing visual interest to the space that will serve to draw the customer into the shop. Transparent shop windows shall be placed at least 30 inches above walkways and shall be divided to reflect a pedestrian or human scale. Door openings shall be recessed so that no doors project beyond the face of the storefront when opened. Stock commercial storefront and doorway assemblies will not be allowed. Likewise, standard storefronts and related signage by retail chains are discouraged. Doors should be scaled according to the functional needs of the shop but may be oversized to relate to the public space they are fronting, and reinforce the perception of a portal from the public to the semi- public domain. The storefront fenestration provides a great opportunity to instill a creative, artistic sensibility to the shop with the use of varying materials, finishes and colors. Windows also provide an opportunity to animate and energize the adjacent public way by utilization of unique sizes, proportions, patterns and finishes, as well as incorporating various glazing types to add creative, eye catching detail. Etched glass, seeded Doorsaddvisualinterestwhile glass, colored glass, and other types of decorative expressingastore'spersona[ ity. glazing should be considered. Mirror glass, highly reflective glazing, over repetitive grids, and geometric window patterns are not to be used. Materials that may be used include wood, wood with metal cladding, or store front systems with finishes that are factory-applied. Divided lights are to be true divided lights or appear to be true divided lights by incorporating internal spacer bars between glass panes. 4.10 EXTERIOR MATERIALS AND COLORS Exterior wall materials shall draw upon a set of materials consistent with those traditionally used in the Sierra Nevada, i.e. wood, metal, stone and brick masonry. ---PAGE BREAK--- Bear Valley Village Draft Architectural Design Guidelines Page 33 of 42 In addition to design and contract documents, color samples must be submitted to the DRC for review and approval. The use of exterior colors provides an opportunity to establish the visual tone for the buildings of Bear Valley Village. Colors that feature the natural tones of the environment, including those found in the soils, rocks, and vegetation, should be utilized to help blend the development into the natural surroundings. The Guidelines encourage stone colors that are muted hues of natural gray and brownish-gray. Wood Siding and Trim should be finished with either a transparent or semi- transparent stain that is reflective of the site's natural landscape and geology. Opaque or solid-body stains on natural woods are discouraged, though may be required on cement-based products. Stains tones are to be reminiscent of weathered and natural colors, such as russet, muted or gray tan, and subtle browns. Accents painted in rich and deep tones, like dark green, maroon and gold, can be used in limited quantities to accent specific areas or trim. Door and Window colors should be used as a way to accent these unique parts of the building form. Colors should reflect the hues in both the wood stain and wood paint used on exterior walls, but may be darker tones to create visual interest. Colors for metal-clad doors and windows can match the colors of exterior walls or be of an accent color that complements the exterior wall, but still relate to the natural colors of the site. Roof colors will be perceived as a major unifying factor from many viewpoints and should consist of a combination of natural hues. Roofing materials should have an appearance of weathering, with texture and variation in tone. The colors for asphalt and composite shingles can also match the natural stone as well as the colors of the surrounding forest. Acceptable colors include muted greens, gray-greens, and browns infused with ochre and russet. Solid-bodies of colors of a uniform hue are to be avoided. Roofing materials with a proven record of service in high mountain locations, and have surface textures that help hold the snow cover. Feature roofs at architectural appurtenances may utilize metal roofing. If used, copper may not patina in a relatively pollution free mountain environment. Painted metal roofing materials should match the appearance of natural metal. Finishes that are shiny and industrial in appearance are not allowed. All exposed metals shall be painted to match adjacent wall or trim colors. Plumbing vents shall be grouped, carried to peaks and painted to match roofing. rrr ---PAGE BREAK--- Bear Valley Village DraftArchitectural Design Guidelines Page 34 of 42 Retail Areas Exterior walls that frame commercial shop fronts and retail spaces act as the primary interface between public and semi-public areas of the plaza and provide an opportunity to offer pedestrians a variety of personalized experiences throughout the Village. Exterior colors for walls, roofs, and fenestration at the storefronts should generally be complementary to the overall colors of the Village, though the palette may be more varied and intense than the colors employed elsewhere, to accent the special personality and artistry of the retail spaces. Interesting and unexpected colors can add life to the storefronts, though overly flashy and trendy colors will not age well and should be avoided. Retail Materials - Commercial shop fronts should use natural, authentic materials such as indigenous stone, timber and metal with natural finishes and colors that are sympathetic to the design of the Village. Structural elements such as timber or metal should reflect a rational structure, but may be expressed, organized and detailed in more imaginative and unexpected ways. Groupings of timbers or metal members, expressed as unique shapes and flnished with interesting colors may be used to create a more animated faCade and contribute to the atmosphere and interest at the retail level. Masonry should be used in ways that are complementary to the building exterior wall. Stone may be of the same type used elsewhere, such as weathered granite, quartzitic sandstone, or slate, and may be laid in patterns that reflect the shop's design aesthetic. Mosaic patterns are not allowed. Other maierials, such as cut stone, solid metals or metal panels and siding, and distinctive types of wood or timbers may be used if their use is appropriate to the shop's function and design, complementary to the architecture of the building, add interest to special retail areas, and help express the personality of individual shops. Wood shakes and shingles, wood sidrng, and chinked timbers may be used if they are clearly associated with a specific function of the commercial shop front. We(1 chosen materials and colorsfor retail areas add life and identiry to smrefronts. ---PAGE BREAK--- Bear Valley Village DraftArchitectural Design Guidelines Page 35 of 42 Timber-framed elements with large expanses of glazing may be appropriate functionally as well as aesthetically, if they help animate the retail level. The use of stucco or exposed concrete in limited areas may be appropriate, subject to the discretion and approval of the DRC. 4.11 MISCELLANEOUS STRUCTURES Open Structures or Outdoor Space Enclosures: Garden trellises, posts, pergolas and fencing shall be used to reduce apparent building bulk and extend the buildings into the outdoors. Arcades: In snow country, arcades provide shelter from bad weather and protect pedestrians from sliding snow. Additionally, they can provide pedestrian friendly elements that modulate scale and provide a" base" to the massing. Arcades may be designed of stone, masonry, painted wood or metal. Service Structures: Service structures shall be entrances and be screened from direct views. equipment shall be placed underground, withi vegetation and/or fencing. located away from primary visitor Transformers and other building n service structure or screened by 4.12 UTILITIES AND EXTERIOR EQUIPMENT Utilities and exterior equipment including metering devices, gas service lines, propane tanks, transformers and air conditioning units should be screened from public view within the Village. They should be painted to match the color of adjacent walls or roofs and screened to mitigate sound pollution whenever possible. The use of window-mounted air conditioning units and other types of units is not allowed. Utilities that are wall-mounted should be screened to the degree approved by utility companies, with either landscaping or materials that are similar to those used on exterior walls. All screening materials must comply with the guidelines for Walls, Fences and Gates. Site and building utilities should be placed underground within service structures, wherever possible. Propane needs for the Village will be met with underground propane tanks. Site utilities that serve Bear Valley Village should be located to minimize grading and the removal of trees, installed underground and aligned to follow driveways, pathways, and other areas of disturbance. In instances where it may be necessary to construct long runs through wooded areas, utilities should be aligned to include changes in direction to interrupt cuts that are visually imposing. ---PAGE BREAK--- Bear Valley Village Draft Architectural Design Guidelines Page 36 of 42 The use of satellite dishes or any other exterior equipment must be documented and submitted to the DRC for review and approval in addition to other required approvals. 4.13 EXTERIOR LIGHTING An important natural ameniry of Bear Valley is the clear night sky. One aspect of maintaining the pristine mountain environment is to consider the design and placement of light sources. Exterior lighting must at a minimum adhere to the quantity and brightness (lamp wattage) requirements for safety and egress, as identified by the local fire and life safety codes. High quality materials, in colors and finishes that are complementary to metal work in the Village, should be used in providing exterior lighting fixtures. Lighting should be scaled appropriately to the architecture that surrounds it and for the purpose its use is intended. Additionally light sources for all light fixtures should be completely contained within the fixture cutoff luminaries) and shielded or not visible from off-site, Site U~ ghting Exterior lighting shall not be installed where its direct source is visible from neighboring properties, or where it produces excessive glare to pedestrian or vehicular traffic. Where feasible and desired, pedestrian paths to be traveled at night should be illuminated with low sidewalk lights or bollard-rype path lights enclosed in stone, metal or wood structures. Pathway and other intermittent use lighting fixtures should be no more than 10 feet high, unless higher fixtures are needed due to snow depth considerations. Retail Lighting Successful lighting of the commercial shop fronts will welcome passerby and provide adequate illumination to promote the product within, while still providing a subdued level of light at the pedestrian street. Lighting should not overwhelm the pedestrian plaza or reduce the significance of the nighttime sky. Lighting for all commercial shop fronts should provide, at a minimum, an adequate amount to light both the contents of the retail frontage and safe passage along the shop front. Light fixtures may be designed to reflect the personality of individual shops and should complement the architectural character of Bear Valley Village. rr~ wrI'° 4.14 ENERGY AND CLIMATE CONSIDERATIONS should be expressive ofthe store's personaliN. ---PAGE BREAK--- Bear Valley Village Draft Architectural Design Guidelines Page 37 of 42 Green building principles including energy efficiency, sustainability and the use of recycled materials is encouraged for all buildings within Bear Valley Village. Accreditation requirements for certification such as LEED (U.S. Green Building Council Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design rating system), or programs like Energy Star (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the U.S. Department of Energy management program and rating system) should be considered in addition to any local and state guidelines or regulations that may apply including CA Title 24. At a minimum all mechanical and energy systems are required to meet the requirements of CA Title 24, Part 6 of the California Code of Regulations ( California's Energy Efficiency Standards for Residential and Nonresidential Buildings). The following considerations represent standard practice in Snow Country locations. Passive solar design is encouraged but should not dictate design. When possible, take advantage of a footprinYs east-west orientation where solar radiation can be controlled. Employ overhangs and covered porches ( particularly at south facing facades) to protect from summer sun/heat yet allow the winter sun to penetrate. Protect north facing facades and wind exposed walis with berms, air locks and/or evergreen trees. Use air lock vestibules to reduce heating costs. Locate major entries and/or public activity zones in southeast to southwest locations where winter sun will help animate the spaces and melt ice/snow. Establish and preserve sunny paved areas for sitting and outside dining, particularly between noon and 3 PM on winter days. Building Designers shall incorporate methods to reduce fuel use for heating, cooling and lighting through the use of fuel-efficient heating systems, adequate insulation, thermal pane windows, etc. For roofing assemblies, the Guidelines encourage a minimum insulation value equal to R-50. ---PAGE BREAK--- Bear Valley Village Draft Architectural Design Guidelines Page 38 of 42 5.0 SNOW COUNTRY CONSIDERATIONS 5.1 SLIDING SNOW Given the significant average annual snowfall in Bear Valley, the building forms for the new buildings should derive from a common-sense attitude toward the forces of nature, including snow and ice. Particularly important are covered arcades and covered entries that protect pedestrian travel paths from sliding snow or falling ice. In new pedestrian areas, building bases must be resistant to damage caused by sliding snow or falling ice. Roof pitches greater than 5 feet in 12 feet require careful consideration in order to prevent snow accumulation and sliding that can injure individuals, destroy private property and create unnecessary maintenance headaches. Unprotected roof pitches should slope away from parking, roadways, service zones and accessible public areas. Snow fences and snow guards, flat roof sections'and/ or arcades shall additionally be utilized as necessary to provide adequate snow protection. Gabled roof forms are encouraged at entries as they protect from both sliding snow and annoying drips. Gabled dormers, however, create unnecessary valley conditions which can create significant snow build-up, flashing and related leakage problems. In order to minimize these problems, the Guidelines encourage simple roof forms, the elimination of unnecessary valleys and the use of flat vs. gabled dormers when possible. In order to minimize sliding snow, use of high friction roofing materials such as asphalt shingles is recommended. Metal roofs are not recommended due to their relative lack of friction which can encourage snow sliding. Standing seam metal roof systems can additionally be damaged by creep or sliding snow. 52 ICE DAMS In addition to sliding, ice dams can create serious problems including roof leaks and the formation of potentially hazardous icicles. Ice dams form when snowmelt runs down a roof surface over a heated space, then hits the roof overhang, which is below freezing. The ice blocks the runoff, forcing it to . wrreuaw. A t k~ tlunivnsF m+y dg,, d tr~ I A "flaY' roof section should have a minimum positive slope of 1/4 inch per foot and drain toward a warm wall and away from pedestrians where possible. Ice dam formation. ---PAGE BREAK--- Bear Valley Village Draft Architectural Design Guidelines Page 39 of 42 back up under shingles and roofing felt, and eventually into the building. To prevent leaks, in general, the Guidelines recommend the use of self-sealing rubberized membranes under the selected roofina material. To prevent falling ice and damage at the eaves/gutters, the Guidelines recommend heavy insulation to minimize melting and/or heated roof edges. The use of a super insulated roof assembly is effective in minimizing the formation of ice dams, keeping the roof cold with thick layers of rigid insulation atop the rafters that prevents the interior heating from melting snow on the roof. w R~n~ arrace bebwke~~:~»:~. Stlf- ypalingmembren¢ uM¢t a h~ i~ sn~ ng~ amcunq , sr y;C~` super~ns~ nearwor~ rlearea HgA fl~ vaiuc imulatnn SPdce no velthrig feq~ 9ted ii sbsetl celi inwtaNon {s ased) 5.3 SNOW LOADING Super insulated roofconfiguration. Roofs shall be engineered to handle the maximum possible snow load in accordance with standard engineering practice and all applicable codes. 5.4 SNOW CLIPS AND FENCES Although the roof forms of the buildings within Bear Valley Village represent the primary method for managing snow, additional systems, including snow guards, snow fences and snow clips, can help prevent snow slides by giving the snow a toehold near the edge of the roof. Heated eave systems, gutters, downspouts, and flashing should be used to further ensure safety to people and property. Snow fences may be made of timber or log members and should match the wood used on the building. Heated gutters and downspouts may also be used as part of a well-functioning roof system. Gutter systems must be designed to prevent them from being destroyed by sliding snow. fime fi R~ ' MAy m Snow fences and snow gu4rds can he(p preven! snow slydes. 5.5 SNOW MELT SYSTEMS Heated outdoor terracing and walkways can: Help eliminate slippery conditions for pedestrians ( thereby reducing potential I iabiIity) . ---PAGE BREAK--- Bear Valley Village Draft Architectural Design Guidelines Page 40 of 42 Create outdoor activity zones. Reduce snow removal and maintenance. Prevent surface deterioration due to extreme freeze thaw cycles. The downside is that heated walks can consume a considerable amount of energy; thereby undermining conservation efforts and increasing operation costs. Where heated walkways are desirable (for example, the plaza areas where snow build-up is a problem), the Guidelines recommend using a sand or concrete system utilizing glycol/water filled polybutylene piping. A slip resistant surface is also important. For instance, a heated exposed aggregate surface, when wet, is less slippery than a broom finished concrete surtace and does not sufter from the spalling characteristic of unheated areas. Pavers over glycol/water filled polyburylene piping have also been used successfully in resort areas, although the thickness of the paver can adversely affect heat transmission and, thus, the melting capacity of the surface. ---PAGE BREAK--- Bear Valley Village Draft Architectural Design Guidelines Page 41 of 42 6.0 APPLICATION OF THE GUIDELINES 6.1 CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT All construction programs shall be compatible with Alpine County regulations and shall be administered by the DRC in accordance with the rules and regulations as set out in the Bear Valley Village Master Association Documents. No significant changes in plans or materials previously approved may be undertaken without approval by the DRC. In addition to the DRC, contract documents shall be submitted for approval to the Alpine County Planning, Building and other departments, as required, for all necessary permits or authorizations. Once begun, construction must be completed with expedition, strictly in accordance with the approved plan. The area of disturbance for construction should be kept to a minimum and limited whenever possible to the immediate areas around the building excavation, in order to maintain existing natural landforms, drainages, vegetation, and other site characteristics, such as large trees. Some allowances will be required due to the practicality of the construction process, including accessibility. Fencing should be used to delineate and enclose all areas of disturbance. A Construction Management Plan that clearly identifies the Area of Disturbance, construction parking, temporary buildings, fencing, signage, tree protection, erosion control measures, and other construction related items must be submitted and approved by the DRC prior to the start of construction. Recommendations and criteria for construction activities are necessary and are addressed in the Bear Valley Village Master Plan. To verify the progress of all building projects and compliance with the required approvals, the DRC or its representative(s) may visit and monitor construction activity over its duration. Please note the following: Every developer or his/her general contractor shall give written communication to the DRC and adjacent neighbors regarding the proposed and ongoing construction schedule and possible construction related inconveniences. Every general contractor shall provide a detailed plan of the construction site, including all proposed staging areas. The plan area shall be protected with unobtrusive snow fencing or other barricades prior to the commencement of construction. Construction trailers, fences and temporary structures shall be approved by the DRC before their erection. ---PAGE BREAK--- Bear Valley Village Draft Architectural Design Guidelines Page 42 of 42 Best Management Practices ( BMPs) measures are to be followed as outlined in the Bear Valley Village Master Plan. Excavation materials shall be removed to approved and regulated sites. Proper soil stabilization, re- vegetation and water control must be utilized during and subsequent to construction to minimize soil erosion and provide dust abatement. Daily cleanup of the construction site is mandatory. Trash and debris removal are the contractor's responsibility. Contractors shall comply with Alpine County's guidelines regarding noise and hours of construction and equipment operation. Materials, tools, equipment and construction trailers shall only be located in the approved staging area(s). Temporary self- contained chemical toilet facilities must be provided during construction. Toilets should be screened from public view. Upon completion of the building, the structure shall receive final review and approval by the DRC before a certificate of occupancy may be issued. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 BEAR VALLEY VILLAGE 2 PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING DESIGNATION EXHIBIT A-4: MITIGATION MEASURES/CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Bear Valley Village Planned Development Designation Page 13 of 13 ---PAGE BREAK--- Bear Vallev Village Conditions of Apqroval/Mitigation Measures rrr Development of the project shall fully comply with all mitigation measures included in the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) as certified by the Board of Supervisors on May 29, 2009. These mitigation measures are included as conditions of approval and are specifically listed in this exhibit. For convenience, they have been renumbered as conditions of approval ( Condition # 1 is Mitigation Measure PHE-3/ PHE-4 Conditions of approval that are separate and in addition to the mitigation measures included in the FEIR are also listed in this exhibit. Development of the project shall fully comply with these conditions of approval. 1. Mitigation Measure PHE-3 8 PHE-4: Develop an Employee Housing Implementation Plan. The County will require the applicant to develop an Employee Housing Implementation Plan (EHIP) that ensures adequate employee housing is available to serve each phase of the project, including construction phases. The plan shall document the existing seasonal and permanent employee housing supply, estimate the number of new seasonal and permanent jobs that would be generated by each phase of development including sheriff deputies), estimate the demand for employee housing needed for each phase of development, and describe whether the demand would exceed employee housing supplies. The plan shall describe feasible measures to be implemented by the applicant to ensure adequate employee housing is available for each phase of the project, including construction. Such measures may include but shall not be limited to: Construction of the proposed employee housing facility before occupancy of any phase that would cause employee housing demand to exceed available supply v.r~ Constructian of employee housing in excess of the 50 units proposed by the applicant Establishment of an employee rental housing placement program that matches employees with rooms or houses available for rent in or near Bear Valley Rental or purchase of existing housing in or near Bear Valley to be leased or provided to project employees The EHIP shall be submitted to the Alpine County Planning Department for review and approval as part of the application for the first conditional use permit (CUP) for the project. An updated EHIP shall be submitted with each CUP application to the County Planning Department for review and acceptance prior to approval of the requested CUP. 2. Mifigation Measure PS-1a: Provide funding for new firefighting equipment required to serve the project. Prior to County approval of any CUP for the project, the County will require the applicant to provide documentation to the Planning Department that it has coordinated with the Bear Valley Public Safety Supervisor to determine the equipment levels required to serve each new phase ot development. New equipment required to serve the project may include, but is not limited to, a ladder truck or hydraulic platform (snorkel) truck to serve buildings taller than 30 feet. The demand for new fire equipment may be reduced by incorporating fire- suppressing design and building materials into the project, or by reducing building height. To accommodate the demand for additional work space Attachment A-4: Conditions ofApprovaUMitigation Measures Page 1 of 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- generated by the project, the sheriff and fire station building could be modified to allow for use of the second floor by installing an elevator to provide access to persons of all physical challenges in compliance with ADA. Other needed modifications include interior improvements for offces and retroftting to accommodate the new fire equipment required for the project, Other equipment needed to serve the project may include emergency service communication equipment or facilities. The applicant shall provide to the County the required funding needed for each development phase prior to approval of Improvement Plans/Grading Permit or other authorization to begin on site construction for that phase. When determining the amount of funding required for each project phase, the County will consider the conclusions of its FIA for the Bear Valley Village project and will ensure that all mitigation imposed on the project is roughly proportional to the projecYs impact. The County will ensure adequate equipment is in place to serve each phase of development prior to occupancy. This mitigation measure is partly needed to mitigate the impacts of cumulative growth. As a result, the applicant would be eligible for reimbursement of equipment costs to implement this mitigation measure in excess of its fair share. A method of reimbursement shall be established by the County, which may include an executed agreement between the County and the applicant that is consistent with state law. 3. Mitigation Measure PS-1b: Provide funding for new emergency medical equipment required to serve the project. Prior to County approval of any CUP for the project, the County will require the applicant to provide documentation to the Planning Department that it has coordinated with the r Bear Valley Public Safety Supervisor to determine the equipment levels required to serve the portion of the project subject to the requested approval. Equipment required to serve the project may include emergency medical vehicles including oversnow vehicles) and emergency medical supplies. If the County determines that tax revenues from the project over time are not sufficient to pay for additional equipment to serve the project, the County will require the applicant to provide the equipment (or funding for the equipment) to serve the portion of the project subject to the requested approval as a condition of the approval. This mitigation measure is partly needed to mitigate the impacts of cumulative growth. As a result, the appiicant would be eligible for reimbursement of equipment costs to implement this mitigation measure in excess of its fair share. A method of reimbursement shall be established by the County, which may include an executed agreement between the County and the applicant that is consistent with State law. 4. Mifigafion Measure PS-3: Assess developer fees io help pay for additional facilities, or provide other mefhods for mitigafing the impact in a manner accepfable to ACUSD. ACUSD can assess developer fees for the project to help pay for additional facilities needed to serve new students generated by the project. ACUSD can assess these fees at a maximum rate of $2.97 per square foot of assessable space for residential development and $0.47 per square foot for commercial or industrial development as specified in Government Code Section 65995. These fees constitute the exclusive Attachment A-4: Conditions of ApprovaUMitigation Measures Page 2 of 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- vy~,. The County will require the applicant to implement a wetland mitigation plan to achieve no net loss of wetland functions and values. The applicant shall conduct a waters of the U.S. delineation for the SR 4 improvement portion of the project area and submit it to the USACE for formal verification. Further, the applicant shall submit the waters of the U.S. Primary Delineation prepared by Jones and Stokes for the Village and Village Lift project areas to USACE for verification. Estimated impacts to waters of the U.S. shall be refined based on the verified delineation and specific grading plans. Proof of verification of the waters of the U.S. delineation by the USACE for each phase of development shall be submitted to the County as part of the discretionary permit application (tentative map TM] and/or conditional use permit [CUP]) for each phase of development that would involve construction activity. The applicant will be responsible for obtaining a Clean Water Act Section 404 permit if required and implementing a wetland mitigation plan to offset the loss of impacts to jurisdictional waters. A wetland mitigation plan that mitigates impacts caused by a particular phase of development shall be provided to the County prior to approval of a CUP for that phase. The wetland mitigation plan shall include measures to avoid direct impacts to jurisdictional resources wherever possible, discuss compensatory mitigation measures for permanent impacts, and describe mitigation measures for temporary impacts. Within the Village Lift alignment, chair lift towers and supporting structures shall be designed to avoid wetlands and ephemeral drainages if feasible. Permanent impacts to waters of the U.S. will require compensatory mitigation to ensure no net loss of aquatic functions or values. For direct impacts that cannot be avoided, mitigation measures may include on- site restoration of wetlands or off-site mitigation through creating or restoring off-site wetlands. rr The wetland mitigation plan shall also include measures to avoid or minimize temporary impacts to jurisdictional waters. These measures may include best management practices (BMPs) for erosion control (see Section 3.5 [Hydrology and Water Quality] and Mitigation Measures HWQ-1 and HWQ-2) as well as measures to maintain normal flows and minimize flooding to the maximum extent practicable. Temporary fills shall be placed in a manner that will not be eroded by expected high flows, and they shall be removed in their entirety following construction. All temporarily affected areas shall be returned to pre- construction elevations and conditions, including revegetating, as appropriate. 13. Mitigation Measure BR-2b: Implement a wetland mitigation plan foi permanent impacts to wetlands and water features relafed fo fhe proposed ski runs to achieve no net loss. The USFS can and should require the applicant for the installation of the proposed ski runs to conduct a waters of the U.S. delineation for USFS land within the ski run alignments and implement measures during ski run design and construction to achieve no net loss of wetland functions and values. The results of the delineation shall be submitted to the USACE for formal verification. Ski runs should be designed to avoid direct impacts to jurisdictional resources wherever possible. To achieve no net loss, the USFS can and should require mitigation measures to minimize temporary impacts, as well as compensatory mitigation for permanent impacts, if any will occur as a result of ski run improvements. [Note to County: applicant for ski traiis may not be the "applicanY' for BW.] Attachment A-4: Conditions of ApprovaVMitigation Measures Page 8 of 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- Prior to granting approval for use of County owned open space/common area for the ski r runs on non USFS lands, the County will require the implementation of a wetland mitigation plan to achieve no net loss of wetland functions and values for portions of the ski runs outside of USFS land. There shall be a formal delineation of portions of the ski runs outside of USFS land for waters of the U.S. and submittal a Preliminary Delineation to the USACE for verification. Specific direct impacts to jurisdictional waters shall be calculated based on the proposed ski run alignments and the verified delineation. Proof of verification of the waters of the U.S. delineation by the USACE shall be required prior to the County granting approval for the ski runs. A Clean Water Act Section 404 authorization shall be obtained and if required and the requestor shall implement a wetland mitigation plan to offset the loss of impacts to jurisdictional waters. A wetland mitigation plan that mitigates impacts caused by ski run improvements outside USFS land shall be provided to the County prior to the County granting approval for the ski runs. The wetland mitigation plan shall include measures to avoid direct impacts to jurisdictional resources wherever possible, discuss compensatory mitigation measures for permanent impacts, and describe mitigation measures for temporary impacts. New ski runs shall be aligned to avoid wetlands and other jurisdictional waters wherever possible. Permanent impacts to waters of the U.S. will require compensatory mitigation to ensure no net loss of aquatic functions or values. For direct impacts that cannot be avoided, mitigation measures may include on-site restoration of wetlands or off-site mitigation through creating or restoring off-site wetlands. The wetland mitigation plan shall also include measures to avoid or minimize temporary impacts to jurisdictional waters. 14. Mitigation Measure BR-2c: Comply with terms of a Sfreambed Alferation Agreemenf and implement best management practices during construcfion. The County will require the applicant to notify the CDFG of any activities outside of USFS land that could adversely affect fish and wildlife resources associated with construction activities in drainages on-site or in drainages North Fork Stanislaus River). A notification package for a Streambed Alteration Agreement shall be submitted to CDFG prior to project construction activities that may affect these resources. The CDFG will determine it the project requires a Streambed Alteration Agreement and will issue a draft agreement to the applicant, if necessary. The applicant will be required to comply with terms of the agreement and implement measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for impacts to drainages and wetlands that could adversely affect fish and wildlife. These measures may include best management practices (BMPs) for erosion control (see Section 3.5 [Hydrology and Water Quality], Mitigation Measures HWQ-1 and HWQ-2), compensatory mitigation for impacts to wetlands and drainages (Mitigation Measure BR-2a), and minimization of activities during the wet season. Proof of compliance with the terms of the Streambed Alteration Agreement shall be provided to the County prior to approval of Improvement Plans/Grading Permit or other authorization to begin on site construction. The USFS can and should require the applicant to submit a notification package for a Streambed Alteration Agreement to the CDFG for activities on USFS land that could adversely affect fish and wildlife resources associated with construction in drainages on- site or in drainages. The applicant should comply with terms of the agreement and implement measures to avoid, minimize, or compensate for impacts to drainages and wetlands that could adversely affect fish and wildlife. Attachment A-4: Conditions of ApprovaVMitigation Measures Page 9 of 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- 15. Mitigation Measure BR-2d: Implemenf a wefland mifigation plan for permanent impacts to weflands and water features related to !he County snowmobile parking and lrailer loading areas. The County shall conduct a formal waters of the U.S. delineation for the proposed snowmobile parking area and trailer loading area and shall submit the results to the USACE for verification. If waters of the U.S. are present that would be affected by development of the parking and loading areas, the County shall implement a wetland mitigation plan to achieve no net loss of wetland functions and values. The County shall first consider using snow as fill material in the snowmobile parking area rather than earth. The mitigation plan shall include measures to minimize temporary impacts and return affected areas to pre- construction conditions, where possible. Permanent impacts would require compensatory mitigation to ensure no net loss of aquatic functions or values (see Mitigation Measure BR-2a above). The County shall also comply with the terms of a Streambed Alteration Agreement, if required by the CDFG. A notification package for a Streambed Alteration Agreement shall be submitted to CDFG if impacts to fish and wildlife resources in or project area drainages are anticipated. The CDFG will determine if the project requires a Streambed Alteration Agreement and will issue a draft agreement to the County if necessary. Specific requirements may include BMPs for erosion control, implementation of compensatory mitigation, and minimization of activities during the wet season. 16. Mifigation Measure SR-3a: Avoid direct fake of special status plant species during construction acfivifies for the ski runs and snowmobile trailer loading area. The USFS can and should require the applicant for the installation of the proposed ski runs to conduct focused surveys for special status plants within the ski run alignments on USFS land and implement measures during ski run design and construction to avoid and minimize impacts to individuals and local populations. Surveys should focus on species listed in the Plant Survey Report (Basey 2007) as having the potential to occur within the greater project area and should occur during the appropriate blooming period for the species. Prior to granting approval for use of County owned open space/common area for the ski runs on non USFS lands, the County will require focused surveys for special status plants within the portions of the ski run alignments outside USFS land and implement measures during ski run design and construction to avoid and minimize impacts to individuals and local populations. The surveys shall be conducted within the ski run alignments to assess potential direct impacts and determine if a local population exists on-site that would be affected by ski run construction. Surveys shall focus on species listed in the Plant Survey Report (Basey 2007) as having the potential to occur within the greater project area and should occur during the appropriate blooming period for the species. The focused surveys will be required prior to County approval of the ski runs. The surveys shall be conducted by a qualified botanist during the appropriate blooming period for each species (July to August) in accordance with CDFG's Guidelines for Assessing the Effects of Proposed Projects on Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants and Plant Communities (CDFG 2000). irr~ Attachment A-4: Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures Page 10 of 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- Prior to constructing the snowmobile trailer loading area, the County will conduct focused surveys for special status plants within the portions of the loading area outside the Village Lift alignment to assess potential direct impacts and determine if a local population exists on-site that would be affected by loading area construction. The County will implement measures during the loading area design and construction to avoid and minimize impacts to individuals and local populations. Surveys shall focus on species listed in the Plant Survey Report (Basey 2007) as having the potential to occur within the greater project area and should occur during the appropriate blooming period for the species. The surveys shall be conducted by a qualified botanist during the appropriate blooming period for each species (July to August) in accordance with CDFG's Guidelines for Assessing the Effects of Proposed Projects on Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants and Plant Communrties (CDFG 2000). If the results of the surveys determine that no special status plant species exist within the ski run alignments or snowmobile trailer loading area, then no further measures are necessary. If the survey determines that special status plant species exist within the project area, the survey shall evaluate the potential for modifying the ski run alignments (or trailer loading area) to avoid populations or individuals of special status plants. The survey shall also include individual or population counts and an assessment of the potential to relocate individuals. A CDFG-approved restoration plan shall also be provided to the County prior to County approval for the ski runs, and the County will prepare such a plan prior to construction of the trailer loading area. Relevant provisions of the restoration plan ( e.g., a clearly marked 50-foot "no- disturbance" buffer around individuals or populations) shall be included in the grading and construction plans. 17. Mifigation Measure BR-3b: Implement a resforation plan for the loss of special status plants. If any special status plant species would be directly affected by construction activities outside USFS land, the County will require the applicant to prepare and implement a restoration plan, in coordination with CDFG, to compensate for take of the plants. The plan shall discuss the ability to relocate individuals (transplant) to suitable habitat in the project area or a designated off-site area that would be preserved. If individuals cannot be transplanted, they shall be replaced through artificial propagation or seed transfer of plant materials from the project area to a designated restoration site. The ratio of replacement to loss shall exceed a 1:1 ratio (based on number of individuals and in coordination with CDFG) for all species and shall replace the quality of the habitat affected by the project. The restoration plan shall also describe site selection criteria, propagation methods, irrigation, installation designs, maintenance procedures, monitoring guidelines, success criteria, and a project timeline. If transplanting or replacing plants is not determined to be feasible, the County will require the applicant to provide off-site mitigation by protecting suitable habitats that support populations of special status plants. The size and location of the acquisition will vary depending upon the results of the focused survey and the type, condition, extent and rarity of the habitat and species, and must be approved by CDFG. Attachment A-4: Conditions of ApprovaVMitigation Measures Page ll of 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- The CDFG-approved restoration plan shall be provided to the County prior to approval of Improvement Plans/Grading Permit or other authorization to begin on site construction for any phase affecting special status plants. If any special status plant species would be directly affected by snowmobile trailer loading area construction activities, the County will prepare and implement a restoration plan, in coordination with CDFG, to compensate for take of special status plants within the trailer loading area. The USFS can and should require the applicant to prepare and implement a restoration plan, in coordination with CDFG, to compensate for take of special status plants within the ski run alignments on USFS land. 18. Mifigation Measure BR-6: Avoid impacts to rapfor and ofher protected bird nesf sites during construction activities. The County will require the applicant to conduct pre- construction nest surveys in the portions of the applicanYs proposed project area (and surrounding 100-500 feet) located outside USFS land within 30 days prior to grading, vegetation removal, or other ground- disturbing construction activities when those activities would occur during the breeding season for birds (March 1 to August 31). The County shall conduct pre- construction nest surveys in the snowmobile loading area and surrounding 100-500 feet) located outside USFS land within 30 days prior to grading, vegetation removal, or other ground-disturbing construction activities when those activities would occur during the breeding season for birds (March 1 to August 31). The surveys will be conducted by a qualified biologist to identify and locate active nests of raptors and migratory and resident songbirds. Surveys shall be limited to suitable habitat within the project area and surrounding 100-foot buffer for songbirds; raptor surveys will be limited to suita6le habitat within the project area and surrounding 500 feet. Trees containing active nests shall be removed during the non-nesting season September through February). If no active nests are found during the pre- construction surveys, no further measures relating to nest disturbances would be necessary. All active nest sites identified during field surveys shall be flagged, and a" no- disturbance" buffer shall be established around the nest site using bright-colored flagging, stakes, and other means necessary to inform construction crews to avoid the area. The surveying biologist shall determine the appropriate size for the buffer in consultation with CDFG, and shall be based on the nesting species, its sensitivity to disturbance, and the expected types of disturbance. Construction activities shall be directed away from the nest site until the young have fledged or as determined appropriate by a qualified biologist or the CDFG. The USFS can and should require the applicant to conduct pre- construction nest surveys within the ski run alignments and along the Village lift alignment on USFS land and implement measures during ski run and chair lift construction to avoid and minimize impacts to nesting birds, including construction outside of the breeding period or use of no- construction buffers. Attachment A-4: Conditions of ApprovaUMitigation Measures Page 12 of 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 22. Mitigation Measure CR-1: Implement construction monitoring by a qualified archaeologist for the protection of known cultura! resources. The County will require a qualified archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for archaeologists (National Park Service 1983) to monitor ground- disturbing activities in native sediments/soils within 100 feet of sites CA-ALP- 100 and CA-ALP- 138. Construction work within stockpile and/or fill material does not require monitoring. The monitor shall be empowered to temporarily halt construction in the immediate vicinity of a discovery while it is evaluated for significance. Construction activities could continue in other areas. If the discovery proves to be significant, the following measures shall be implemented. Preservation is the preferred treatment, but if preservation is not feasible by such measures as avoidance, incorporation within open space or conservation easement, or capping beneath a layer of sterile soil, data recovery through excavation may be required (PRC Section 21083.2, Section 21084.1; CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.4[ The qualified archaeologist shal~ prepare a data recovery plan, to be approved by the Alpine County Planning Department (and any other relevant regulatory agencies USACE if the resource is located within its area of potential effect]) prior to the start of any archaeological excavation. The technical report detailing the results of the data recovery shall be submitted to the Alpine County Planning Department; Bear Valley Village I and II, LLC; the CCIC; and any relevant regulatory agency. At the conclusion of archaeological monitoring, a monitoring report shall be prepared and submitted to the Alpine County Planning Department; Bear Valley Village I and II, LLC; the CCIC; and any relevant regulatory agency. 23. Mitigation Measure CR-2a: Conduct a pre- consfruction survey for cultural resources and ensure adequate recordafion, protection, or recovery of any signifrcan! resources. The County will require the applicant to obtain a qualified professional archaeologist to complete an intensive-level pedestrian survey of the portion of its proposed project area outside USFS land that was not surveyed in October 2006 and July 2007 prior to initiation of ground-disturbing activities. The unsurveyed areas generally refer to the portions of the proposed ski runs located outside USFS land. The County shall obtain a qualifed professional archaeologist to complete an intensive- level pedestrian survey of the portion of the snowmobile trailer loading area that was not surveyed for the Village Lift in October 2006 and July 2007 less than 0.1 acre) prior to initiation of ground-disturbing activities. The pedestrian survey shall be conducted in compliance with Section 106 requirements of the NHPA (36 CFR 800) and CEQA requirements (14 CCR 15064.5 and PRC 21083.2) and in accordance with the standards set by the Secretary of the Interior. After completion of the surveys, the qualified archaeologist shall complete a technical report documenting the results of all work, and any cultural resources identified during the survey shall be formally recorded on Department of Parks and Recreation series 523 forms. The report shall meet the Secretary of Interior's Standards and Guidelines and follow the Office of Historic Preservation's ARMR guidelines (Archaeological Resource Management Reports: Recommended Confents and Format). The report shall include assessment of the significance of any newly identified resources, and recommend appropriate procedures to either further investigate or mitigate adverse impacts in conformance with the protocols set forth in Section 106 and PRC Section 5097.98. Attachment A-4: Conditions of Approva]/Mitigation Measures Page 14 of 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- project implementation. The County shall include these measures on all grading plans and construction contracts for the snowmobile parking and trailer loading areas. If paleontological resources are discovered during construction, the applicant or County shall halt all activities in the immediate vicinity of the find until a qualifed professional paleontologist can evaluate it. The paleontologist shall examine the resources, assess their significance, and recommend appropriate procedures to either further investigate or mitigate adverse impacts on the resources encountered in conformance with CEQA statutes and guidelines for the protection of paleontological resources. Mitigation measures may include salvage of macrofossils, sampling of sediments for microfossils, and curation. Once mitigation measures are complete, the paleontologist shall prepare a technical report detailing the results of the recovery to be filed with the Alpine County Planning Department; Bear Valley Village I and II, LLC; and any relevant regulatory agency. The USFS can and should require the applicant to include on all grading plans and construction contracts for work on USFS land notation of the paleontological resource discovery measures described above. 27. Mitigation Measure A-4: ! mplement a lighfing plan for every development phase. As part of the application submittal for a conditional use permit (CUP) for each phase of development, the project proponent shall submit to the County a plan for outdoor lighting and interior lighting sources visible from off-site locations) showing all proposed exterior lighting (and interior lighting sources visible from off-site locations) on the site, including all light sources for buildings, driveways, landscaping, signs, parking structures, commercial windows, and public areas. All exterior lighting fiutures shall be full cutoff type and provide only the minimal amount of light necessary for safe pedestrian and vehicular access to the site and the dwelling units. All interior lighting sources visible from off-site locations should be shielded in a manner that precludes light sources from shining directly toward the sky. Project lighting shall not cause glare beyond the boundaries of the site. 28. Mitigation Measure TC-2: Contribute tra~c mitigation fees to reduce SR 4 fraffic congestion in Arnold and generated by the projecf. Passinp Lanes The traffic study prepared by LSC determined that construction of 8.8 miles of climbing or passing lanes on SR 4 between Moran Road East (on the eastern edge of Arnold) and Big Trees Road (in would allow SR 4 to operate at LOS or better, thereby reducing this impact to a less-than- significant level. One mile of passing lane would mitigate an existing deficiency; therefore, the project would be responsible for 7.8 miles. Constructing 7.8 miles of climbing or passing lanes, however, would be fnancially infeasible for the project. Based on average costs for SR 4 projects included in the Calaveras County 2007 Regional Transportation Plan (LSC 2007), and adjusting for terrain, a unit cost of $630,000 per mile (2007 dollars) is estimated, which equals 645,000 per mile in 2008 dollars. For 7.8 miles of additional lanes, the total construction cost for the applicant would be $5 million (2008 dollars), which equates to more than 10,000 per privately owned Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) and would render these Attachment A-4: Conditions of ApprovaVMitiga[ion Measures Page 16 of 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- improvements infeasible (refer to Feasibility of Funding SR 4 Widenrng memo in Appendix The environmental consequences of constructing 8.8 miles of climbing or passing lanes in this area may also be undesirable. For example, widening of SR 4 could adversely affect sensitive habitats wetland and riparian) or other environmental resources along the roadside. In addition, widening the highway between central Arnold and Moran Road East could alter the scenic character of a 1- mile section of SR 4 that has been designated a state scenic highway and holds National Scenic Byway (NSB) status. For these reasons, neither Alpine County nor Calaveras County supports constructing 8.8 miles of climbing or passing lanes to mitigate this impact. Calaveras County indicated its opposition to these passing lanes during two meetings with Alpine County in June and August 2008, and in written correspondence to Alpine County dated June 30, 2008 Appendix Calaveras Countv Road Impact Mitiqation Fee Proqram This impact is located entirely within Calaveras County. Therefore, Alpine County considered whether requiring the applicant to pay into the Calaveras County Road Impact Mitigation (RIM) Fee program would mitigate the projecYs LOS impact on SR 4. Under this program, Calaveras County imposes RIM fees on development projects throughout Calaveras County, and is used to fund a variety of improvements both on and off of the state highway system. If the RIM fee rates are applied to the proposed project, a total fee of roughly $1.2 million is identified. However, few projects within the project impact area are slated to be funded by the RIM. Payment of Calaveras RIM fees would therefore not effectively mitigate project impacts. SR 4 Imorovement Proiects in Arnold and Murohvs Alpine County will require the applicant to provide fair-share funding of roadway improvements along SR 4 in Arnold and that will offset project impacts on SR 4. The Arnold Rural Livable Community-Based Mobility Plan was recently completed for the Calaveras Council of Governments, providing a strategy to enhance overall mobility conditions in the Arnold area which was based upon an extensive public input process ( Calaveras Council of Governments 2008). The following projects identified in the are directly associated with traffic volumes along SR 4: The Meadowmont Gateway project includes constructing a roundabout at the intersection of SR 4 and Fir Drive in Arnold to reduce the speed of vehicles entering Arnold from the west. The Eastern Gateway project in the eastern portion of Arnold along SR 4 is a traffic calming project that would include a raised intersection, alerting drivers that they have entered the community of Arnold and may need to reduce their speed. Constructing intersection improvements at the SR 4/ Blagen Road/Dunbar Road/Henry Street intersection complex would reduce congestion and improve traffic flow between SR 4 and county roads in the eastern portion of Arnold. Attachment A-4: Condi[ions of Approval/Mitigation Measures Page 17 of 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- The Meadowmont Roadway Infrastructure Improvement project includes constructing raised roadway medians, sidewalks, striped crosswalks, and curb enhancements along SR 4 located between Fir Drive and Country Club Drive. The SR 4 Sidewalk Implementation project includes constructing sidewalks along the eastbound travel lane of SR 4 between Country Club Drive and Sierra Pine Way. These sidewalks would provide a safe route for pedestrians to travel and would provide an opportunity for travel between commercial shopping areas. The SR 4 Infrastructure Improvements project (Applewood Center to Meadowview Road) includes various roadway infrastructure improvements along SR 4 between Applewood Center and the eastern intersection of Meadowview Road and SR 4. The roadway improvements would include raised roadway medians, sidewalks, and striped crosswalks to provide a safe route for pedestrians and bicyclists to travel and enhance the pedestrian and bicycle amenities in Arnold. The SR 4 Infrastructure Improvements project (Meadowview Road to Manual Road) includes roadway medians, sidewalks, curb extensions, and striped crosswalks. The roadway improvements would improve both vehicular and pedestrian/bicycle transportation gaps by providing a more balanced transportation network and would increase the bicycle and pedestrian amenities throughout town. The SR 4 Infrastructure Improvements project (Pine Drive to Lilac Drive) would include striped crosswalks, sidewalks, raised medians, and curb extensions to help improve resident mobility in town by creating a recognized space for pedestrians. In addition, the raised medians and sidewalks would reduce the tendency to speed by narrowing the travel lanes. The SR 4 Infrastructure Improvements project (Manual Road to Henry Street) would include striped crosswalks, sidewalks, raised medians, and curb extensions. Alpine County will also require the applicant to provide fair share funding to widen and re- stripe SR 4 to provide a three lane cross-section from the vicinity of Main Street to Apple Blossom Drive in This project would improve traffic flow at the SR 4 intersections with Main Street, Williams Street, and Apple Blossom Drive and also has the benefit of providing a two-way left-turn lane to serve other public streets and commercial driveways. This project is consistent with the Circulation, Pedestrian, Bicycling, and Parking Study (LSC 2002), which calls for a consistent center turn lane along SR 4 through Total length of widening (including the tapers at both ends) would be 4,705 feet, or roughly 0.9 mile (see Draft Bear Valley Village SR 4 Mitigation Plan dated August 8, 2008, in EIR Appendix G for more details on this project). The projects listed above are consistent with recent planning studies prepared for the Calaveras Council of Governments, including the (Calaveras Council of Governments 2008), the Draft Calaveras County Bicycle Master Plan (Alta Planning and Design 2007a), the Draft Calaveras County Pedestrian Master Plan (Alta Planning and Design 2007b), and the Circulation, Pedestrian, Bicycling, and Parking Study LSC 2002). Attachment A-4: Conditions o'f ApprovaUMi[igation Measures Page 18 of 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- Proiect Costs Estimated costs for the projects in Arnold are based upon those presented in the The consultant that developed these costs, however, indicates that the costs presented in that document are strictly construction cost estimates, and do not include the costs necessary for design and engineering. To estimate the actual funding that would be needed to implement the projects, the construction costs were increased by 30 percent. These projects in the Arnold area are estimated to require $12,998, 700 in construction, design, and engineering costs (2008 dollars). An estimate of total costs associated with the turn lanes is provided in the DraR Bear Valley Vr!lage SR 4 Mitigation Plan (EIR Appendix Including project design and engineering costs, the total cost of this combined project is estimated to equal $845,000 2008 dollars). Total costs for all mitigation projects equal $13,843, 700. Cost Allocation The proportion of total costs attributable to the Bear Valley Village project was determined based on the proportion of total impacts associated with the project. As discussed in the DraR Bear Valley Village SR 4 Mitigafron Plan (EIR Appendix the proportion of total growth in summer traffic along SR 4 generated by Bear Valley Village ranges from 28 percent at the east end of Arnold to 20 percent in In winter, this proportion ranges from 26 percent to 17 percent. Multiplying the total project costs by the associated proportion of total future growth in traffic volumes yields the proportion of costs potentially allocated to Bear Valley Village. Summing across all projects yields a total cost potentially attributable to Bear Valley Village of 002, 400. Reflecting the fact that there are other potential funding sources available for roadway projects (state and federal programs), impact fee programs typically are not designed to fully fund roadway project using impact fees, particularly along state highways. The Calaveras County RIM fee program allocates 25 percent of costs for projects on state highways to the fee program. Applying this same reduction factor to the impact fees imposed on Bear Valley Village for improvements along SR 4 in Calaveras County results in total fees of $750,600 to be provided upon full build-out of Bear Valley Village. Fundinq Mechanism Alpine County will impose the required traffic mitigation fees using an impact fee of 1. 132 per sf imposed on project lodging/residential land uses 132/ sf 663,201 sf = 750,744). Improvements to SR 4 in Calaveras County could adversely affect sensitive habitat ( e.g., streams, wetlands) and cultural resources, and construction of the improvements could result in temporary traffic, water quality, soil, or noise impacts. SR 4 improvements are subject to review, approval, and subsequent environmental review pursuant to CEQA by Caltrans and Calaveras County. Alpine County will hold the collected funds in escrow until the improvements are approved by Caltrans District 10 and are programmed by Calaveras County. This will allow Calaveras County (or Caltrans) to draw on these funds when they are needed to construct the improvements. As an alternative to implementing Mitigation Measure TC-2, provide funding in accordance with Condition of Approval (COA) number 66 set forth below. The payments Attachment A-4: Conditions ofApprovaVMitigation Measures Page 19 of 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- set forth in COA 66 are in excess of the projecYs "fair share" for improvements along the SR4 corridor, as calculated in the FEIR. The applicant has agreed to provide such additional funding. 29. Mitigation Measure TC-5: Prepare a Parking Management Plan ior Bear Valley, The County will require the applicant to prepare a Parking Management Plan (PMP) for the Village area of Bear Valley for each development phase. An updated PMP shall be submitted with each conditional use permit (CUP) application to the County Planning Department for review and acceptance prior to approval of the requested CUP. The purpose of the PMP will be to establish methods to control parking within Bear Valley to ensure the Village Lift does not reduce existing parking availability for existing users. The PMP will include specific actions to be implemented by the applicant (at the applicanYs expense) and may suggest actions for the County to implement. The PMP will include a schedule for implementation that ensures adequate parking will be available during each phase of project development. In no way shall the actions be designed to limit Village Lift access to specific users (such as residents or lodging guests of the Bear Valley area) or to deny equal access to the lift. However, public access to the Village Lift may be limited indirectly by limited public parking availability on busy days. Actions to be considered for inclusion in the PMP may include, but shall not be limited to: Parking Surveys: The applicant will conduct a survey of persons parking in the Village public parking areas on peak ski days. The survey will be conducted for a minimum of six days per year (selected to represent the days of greatest skier vr., activity) from 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. Using a minimum of two surveyors, driver destinations will be identified either through direct questioning or through observation. These surveyors will also record total parking counts in each available parking area on an hourly basis, as well as whether active parking enforcement is in effect. These surveys will be required until two years after completion of any new development phases of Bear Valley Village. Annual Parking Management Report: An annual parking management report will be prepared by the applicant and provided to Alpine County by May 1 of each year that surveys are required. This report will present the collected data regarding parking demand and the number of parked cars associated with the Village Lift, and will also identify any proposed changes in parking management for the next ski season. Parking Permits: Permits will be made available (possibly using a reservation system) to Bear Valley homeowners and employees. Daily permits will also be made available to local businesses (not located within the Bear Valley Village development) for the vehicles of their customers. Parking Signs: The County may post signs stating "Permit Parking Only" in public parking areas and authorize an ordinance to allow enforcement of this restriction. Specific dates for the ski season may be defined and included on the signs. Also, a limited time of enforcement may be considered (restricting parking between 8 a.m. and 3 p.m. on weekends and holidays may be sufficient to address the skier parking issues). Recommended sign locations include: Bear Valley Road north of Quaking Aspen Road, No Name Road, Creekside Drive, Lots B and C, Lot A( near the community center), and South Lot. All signs will be Attachment A-4: Conditions of Approval/IVfitigation Measures Page 20 of 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- located so that at least one sign is visible from all restricted parking spaces. ~ Signs will also be posted by the applicant to direct Bear Valley Village residents to appropriate private parking. Parking Enforcement: The PMP will describe methods and funding sources to enforce parking restrictions as necessary to address periods of potential parking shortages. Enforcement personnel will only issue tickets for vehicles parked without a valid permit for more than 15 minutes to allow drivers an opportunity to obtain a day permit. Parking Attendants: Parking attendants may be used during peak demand periods to maximize parking capacity double-parking) of public parking areas. Satellite Parking: Overflow parking may be provided at remote satellite parking locations during peak demand periods. Ski area shuttle buses may serve the satellite parking locations, carrying skiers to the ski area and carrying homeowners and visitors to town. Attachment A-4: Conditions ofApprovaUMitigation Measures V~ Page 21 of 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- 30. Mitigation Measure TC-6a: Provide bicycle sforage facilities within Bear Va!!ey Village. trr The County will require the applicant to include safe and secure bicycle storage facilities within Bear Valley Village. Storage facilities may include bike racks where bicyclists can lock their bikes, or bike lockers for Village residents and guests. Bike storage facilities shall be shown on plans for each development phase submitted as part of any CUP application. 31. Mifigafion Measure TC-6b: Confribute fra~c mitigation fees fo reduce SR 4 tra~c congestion in Arnold and generated by the project. Implement Mitigation Measures TC-2 and TC-11. (See also COA 66.) 32. Mifigafion Measure TC-7: Prepaie a Consfruciion Tra~c Control Plan ior review and approval by Alpine County prior to commencement of each year of construction. The County will require the applicant to prepare a Construction Traffic Control Plan CTCP) for each development phase. An updated CTCP shall be submitted with each application for any TM and/or CUP approval that would involve construction activity to the County Public Works and Planning departments for review and acceptance prior to approval of the requested TM/CUP. Each such TM and/or CUP will include conditions requiring the applicant to update the CTCP prior to commencement of each year of construction activity and submit it to the County Public Works and Planning departments for review and acceptance. At a minimum, the plan shall address truck haul routes, truck turning movements, traffic control signage, parking supply, bicycle and pedestrian traffic, on-site circulation and staging areas, and monitoring of the in- place traffic controls. Actions to be considered for inclusion in the CTCP may include, but shall not be limited to: Provide public outreach for construction activities: The applicant would post public notices of construction activities along affected roadways one week prior to construction. The applicant would also provide written notice to property owners along affected roadways one week prior to construction or closures. Identify a temporary automobile circulation route for the period when No Name Road is closed for construction. Place steel plates over open trenches in roadways at the end of each workday to restore full vehicle access to all residents. Limit daily construction equipment traffic by staging heavy construction equipment and vehicles on the project site at the end of each workday, rather than removing them, to the degree possible. Construction staging areas would be included on improvement and grading plans in a location acceptable to the County. Provide replacement public parking spaces to ensure an adequate seasonal parking supply, including parking needed tor the Bear Valley Music Festival. During the winter ski season, provide parking equal to the number of spaces lost Attachment A-4: Conditions of ApprovallMitigation Measures Page 22 of 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- to public use because of construction staging and access restrictions, two-way w~r~ winter traffic on town roadways, and removal of the Lodge Lot. Provide pedestrian routes between the evenUfestival venues and Lots B and C that are as direct as possible given construction site access restrictions. Design temporary roadways and intersections so that all emergency response vehicles would be accommodated. Direct construction traffic that could access construction sites from either Bear Valley Road or Creekside Drive to use Creekside Drive. In addition, Alpine County will modify the County Code to temporarily allow two-way traffic on Bear Valley Road and Creekside Drive while No Name Road is closed for relocation. 33. Mifigation Measuie TC-8: Prepare a Consfiuction Traffic Control Plan for review and approval by Alpine County prior to commencemenf of each year of consfruction. Implement Mitigation Measure TC-7. 34. Mifigation Measure TC-11: Contribute traffic mitigation fees to reduce SR 4 traffic congestion in Arnold and generated by the pro% ect. The traffc study prepared by LSC determined that construction of approximately 29.5 miles of climbing or passing lanes on SR 4 between Bear Valley and Angels Camp would allow SR 4 to operate at LOS or better, thereby reducing this cumulative impact to a less-than- significant level. Approximately 27.7 miles of additional travel lanes along SR 4 would be required to mitigate this cumulative impact even if the project were not built. The project's contributian would therefore be 1.8 miles (29.5 - 27.2 = 1.8). Such passing lanes, however, are neither programmed nor funded by Caltrans or Calaveras County. The passing lanes are not programmed in the Calaveras County 2007 RTP ( LSC 2007) or the 2006 Alpine/Amador/ Calaveras Tri-County Regional Transportation Improvement Program (Alpine County 2005c). Based on average costs for other projects included in the Calaveras County RTP and adjusting for terrain, a unit cost of $630,000 per mile (2007 dollars) is estimated, equal to $645,000 per mile in 2008 dollars. For 29.5 miles of additional lanes, total construction cost is estimated to be $19 million. The projecYs fair share can be estimated by considering the proportion of total future growth in traffic generated by the project. This varies from 35 percent (closest to Bear Valley) to 10 percent (in Arnold). Applying the proportion for each roadway segment to the total cost of additional travel lanes in each link, the total allocated cost to the applicant would be about $4 million. If the applicant were to provide the $4 million, Caltrans and the Calaveras Council of Governments (and possibly others, as part of the three-county coalition with Alpine and Amador Counties) would be faced with identifying the remaining $15 million. The current Calaveras RTP does not include plans for substantial widening of SR 4 east of Angels Camp. The RTP does include some programmed improvements along SR 4 between Bear Valley and SR 49, including curve corrections near Arnold and near the entrance to Calaveras Big Trees State Park, and some additional turn lanes. These projects, however, would not significantly address the need for additional passing or climbing lanes. State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) funds are already fully allocated for projects such as the Angels Camp Bypass and improvements of SR 4 west of Angels Camp. The likelihood of raising $15 vri~` Attachment A-4: Conditions of ApprovaVMitigation Measures Page 23 of 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- million of additional funds from non-applicant sources is extremely low. This would require substantial re- allocation of highway funds (both those controlled directly by the state and those controlled by Calaveras Council of Governments) away from other projects to address this specific deficiency. The environmental consequences of constructing 29.5 miles of climbing or passing lanes in this area may also be undesirable. For example, widening of SR 4 could adversely affect sensitive habitats wetland and riparian) or other environmental resources along the roadside. In addition, widening the highway between central Arnold and Bear Valley could alter the scenic character of a 25-mile section of SR 4 that has been designated a state scenic highway and holds NSB status, including the section of SR 4 passing through Calaveras Big Trees State Park. For these reasons, neither Alpine County nor Calaveras County supports constructing 29.5 miles of climbing or passing lanes to mitigate this impact. Calaveras County indicated its opposition to these passing lanes during two meetings with Alpine County in June and August 2008, and in written correspondence to Alpine County dated June 30, 2008 (Appendix This impact is located entirely within Calaveras County. Therefore, Alpine County considered whether requiring the applicant to pay into the Calaveras County Road Impact Mitigation (RIM) Fee program would mitigate the projecYs LOS impact on SR 4. Under this program, Calaveras County imposes RIM fees on development projects throughout Calaveras County, and is used to fund a variety of improvements both on and off of the state highway system. If the RIM fee rates are applied to the proposed project, a total fee of roughly $1.2 million is identifed. However, few projects within the project impact area are slated to be funded by the RIM. Payment of Calaveras RIM fees, therefore, would not effectively mitigate project impacts. Therefore, Alpine County will require the applicant to implement Mitigation Measure TC- 2 as mitigation for cumulative impacts on SR 4. In addition, Calaveras County can and should require projects within their jurisdiction to mitigate their contributions to this significant cumulative impact on SR 4. Improvements to SR 4 in Calaveras County are subject to review, approval, and subsequent environmental review pursuant to CEQA by Caltrans and Calaveras County. As an alternative to implementing Mitigation Measure TC-11, provide funding in accordance with Condition of Approval (COA) number 66 set forth below. The payments set forth in COA 66 are in excess of the projecYs "fair share" for improvements along the SR4 corridor, as calculated in the FEIR. The applicant has agreed to provide such additional funding. 35. Mitigation Measure SNO-2a: Re- esfablish the 2006/2007 snowmobile trail between Bear Valley Road and Creekside Drive fhrougb Open Space Parcel E. Alpine County and applicant shall implement the recommendations of the Bear Valley Snowmobile Committee to re- establish the 2006/2007 snowmobile trail between Bear Valley Road and Creekside Drive through Open Space Parcel E. Full implementation includes the following actions by the County: ur Attachment A-4: Conditions ofApprovaUMitigation Measures Page 24 of 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Adjust the alignment of the trail to stay within the County owned Open Space Parcel E and not encroach onto or travel across any private property (except the area now used for the Lodge Lot snowmobile parking area). 2. When practical given snow depths and snow conditions, use trail grooming techniques such as trenching the trail through the snow or creating a sound wall with snow to reduce noise impacts to surrounding properties. 3. Provide the County Sheriff officers with equipment to monitor travel speeds and sound generated by snowmobiles. 4. Request that the Sheriffs offce actively monitor and enforce applicable requirements, including existing state and federal noise limits for snowmobiles. More restrictive local regulation of sound levels is not recommended. 5. Reconstitute the committee in 2010 to evaluate trail use and the effectiveness of the noise reduction measures, and to make further recommendations as necessary. The County will ensure the route will be available for public use prior to County approval of conditional use permit ( CUP) and/or tentative map ( TM) approvals for any construction phase of the Bear Valley Village project. 36. Mitigation Measure SNO-2b: AIlow snowmobile access through the Lodge Lot fo access the groomed snowmo6ile roufe to be re- established through Open Space Parcel E. The County will require the applicant to allow snowmobiles to travel through the northern most portion of the area now used as the Lodge Lot snowmobile parking area to access the groomed snowmobile route to be re- established through Open Space Parcel E. 37. Mifigation Measure SNO-4: Improve snowmobile access and implement measures to ensure the employee housing facility does nof reduce the amount of available snowmo6ile parking. To ensure the employee housing facility does not reduce the amount of available snowmobile parking, the applicant has committed to (and will be required to) implement at least one of the following three alternative mitigation measures. These measures are listed in order of the applicanYs and County's preference: The applicant shall not construct the proposed employee housing facility before the South Village is constructed. The applicant shall provide the required amount of employee housing determined to be necessary in the EHIP (see Mitigation Measure PHE-3) by either: using the existing Base Camp employee housing facility to house project employees ( including construction workers); or arranging other housing for employees until the South Village and employee housing facility can be built simultaneously. If the requirements for employee housing are such that it is necessary to build the new employee housing structure before South Village ( i. the applicant demonstrates to the County that the first two alternative mitigation measures are not feasible), the County will expand the snowmobile parking area further north by plowing less parking lot to accommodate for the reduced parking area. To offset Attachment A-4: Conditions of ApprovaUMitigation Measures Page 25 of 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- r the loss of automobile parking, the applicant shall be responsible for supplying the total lost automobile parking spaces elsewhere in the Village project. r~ The applicant shall also remove trees along the north side of Quaking Aspen Road to provide a new snowmobile access route between Quaking Aspen Road and the parking area. This new route would compensate for the existing access route that would be blocked by the employee housing facility. This improvement shall be completed prior to or concurrent with construction of the employee housing facility, and shall be completed prior to the first winter season following the start of construction of the employee housing facility. The County will also enforce short-term parking restrictions in the parking area, thereby allowing more frequent grooming of the parking area and maximizing parking e~ ciency in this area. The applicant shall show this improvement on any plans submitted as part of CUP and/or TM applications for construction of the employee housing facility. 38. Mitigation Measure AQ-2a: Comply with GBUAPCD Rule 401 to reduce construction pollufanfs through water application, sfabilizing exposed soil, and periodic cleaning ofpaved areas. The County shall require the applicant to prepare a construction pollutant reduction plan that implements the mitigation measures listed below, including those recommended by the GBUAPCD to reduce air emissions from short-term construction. The applicant shall submit the construction pollutant reduction plan to the County as part of the discretionary permit application (tentative map [TM] and/or conditional use permit [CUP]) that would involve construction activity for each phase of development. Reasonable precautions shall be taken to prevent visible particulate matter from being air6orne, under normal wind conditions, beyond the property from which the emission originates. Reasonable precautions include, but are not limited to: Use, where possible, of water or chemicals for control of dust in the demolition of existing buildings or structures, construction operations, the grading of roads, or the clearing of land; Application of asphalt, water, or suitable chemicals on dirt roads, material stockpiles, and other surfaces that can give rise to airborne dusts; Installation and use of hoods, fans, and fabric flters to enclose and vent the handling of dusty materials. Adequate contaminant methods shall be used during such handling operations; Use of water, chemicals, chuting, venting, or other precautions to prevent particulate matter from becoming airborne in handling dusty materials to open stockpiles and mobile equipment; and Maintenance of roadways in a clean condition. 39. Mitigation Measure AQ-2b: Reduce temporary batch planf construcfion pollufants through proper siting and control and use of equipment, materials, and waste products. Wr- Attachment A-4: Conditions of ApprovaVMitigation Measures Page 26 of 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 44. Mifigation Measure N-1b: Locafe porta6le but femporarily frxed consfruction equipmenf (such as temporary batch planfs, compressors, and generafors) and construcfion staging and parking areas as far from existing residences as possible. The County will require the applicant to identify locations of temporarily fixed construction equipment and proposed staging and parking areas on plans submitted for tentative map (TM) and/or CUP submittals that would involve construction activity, and shall assure that they are located as far away from existing residences as possible. The locations for the batch plant and parking areas shall be approved by the Alpine County Planning Department prior to approval of the TM and/or CUP. The approved locations shall be identified in construction contracts and drawings. 45. Mitigation Measure N-1c: Pos! signs at the construction site thaE include permitted construction days and hours, expected timeframe for construcfion, a day and evening contacf number for the job site, and a County contact number ior complainfs about consiruction noise. The County will require the applicant to ensure signs are posted at the construction sites to specify permitted construction days and hours (7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Friday; 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Saturday), expected timeframe for construction, and contact numbers for the contractor and County. The signs would help to facilitate rapid communication of any problems related to noise. Posting of the hours and duration would allow the adjacent residences to understand the length of the proposed construction phase and also the limits on activity each day and week. This measure shall be identified on grading plans and construction contracts. 46. Mitigation Measure N-1d; lmplement "quief" pile-driving technology and notify neighbors abouf fhe estimated durafion of the pile-driving activity. The County will require the applicant to implement technologies such as pre-drilling of piles and the use of more than one pile driver to shorten the total pile-driving duration, unless the applicant provides documentation to the County from a geotechnical (or other qualified) engineer that such techniques are either not feasible or are not recommended from an engineering perspective. The applicant shall notify property owners within 300 feet of the project construction area about the estimated duration of the pile-driving at least 10 days in advance of the activity. Mitigation Measure N-1e: lmplement noise technology to further reduce the impacts of construction related noise. The County will require the applicant to implement the following technologies, unless the applicant provides documentation to the County that such techniques are not feasible, effective, or reasonably available. Muffle stationary noise sources and enclose them within temporary sheds, incorporate insulation barriers, or employ other measures to the extent feasible. Use equipment and trucks equipped with the best available noise control techniques (for example, improved mufflers, equipment redesign, use of intake silencers, ducts, engine enclosures, and acoustically attenuating shields or shrouds, wherever feasiblej. Attachment A-4: Conditions of AppmvaVMitigation Measures Page 28 of 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- Ensure all construction equipment is properly maintained and operated and equipped with mufflers. Use hydraulically or electrically powered impact tools (such as jackhammers, pavement breakers, and rock drills) for project construction wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools. Where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used; this muffler can lower noise levels from the exhaust by up to about 10 dBA. External jackets on the tools shall be used where feasible. Quieter methods or tools, such as using drills rather than impact tools, shall be used whenever feasible. 47. Mitigafion Measure N-2: Conduct crack survey before pile-driving acfivifies that could cause damage to nearby sfrucfures. The County will require the applicant to conduct a two-phase crack survey of the Creekside Condominium building located on Bear Valley Road directly south of the Bear Valley Lodge, if pile-driving is proposed within 50 feet of this building. The first phase of the survey shall include pre- construction photograph or video documentation of the interior and exterior of structural and cosmetic architectural features walls, floors, driveways). All existing cracks shall be documented with sufficient detail for comparison after construction to determine whether actual vibration damage has occurred. The second phase of the crack survey shall include post- construction photograph or video documentation of the features evaluated during the first phase of the survey. If the survey indicates that cosmetic or structural damage has resulted from pile-driving, the County will hold the applicant financially responsible for the damage. The applicant shall submit the pre- construction crack survey to the Alpine County Planning Department for review as part of any application submittal for CUP and/or TM approval for any phase that requires pile-driving within 50 feet of this Creekside Condominium building. The applicant shall submit the post- construction crack survey to the Alpine County Planning Department following cessation of pile-driving for the relevant phase. If the survey indicates that cosmetic or structural damage has resulted from the applicanYs pile-driving, the County shall not issue an occupancy permit for the relevant phase until the applicant has demonstrated it has provided restitution to the owner of the damaged property. 48. Mitigation Measure N-4: Re- esfablish fhe 2006/2007 snowmobile frai! fhrough Open Space Parcel E and allow snowmobile access fhrough the Lodge Lot !o the treil. Implement Mitigation Measures SNO-2a and SNO-2b. 49. Mitigation Measure Soils-fa: Perform subsurface geofechnical invesfigations. The County will require the applicant to perform subsurFace geothechnical investigations within the portions of the project area that were not previously investigated. Specifically, these areas shall include the South Village and the portion of the Village Center south of No Name Road and west of Bear Creek. The resulting investigation reports shall include recommendations for feasible engineering techniques to protect project structures from liquefaction hazards revealed during the investigation(s). As part of the application for conditional use permit (CUP) and/or tentative map (TM) approvals for any phase of Attachment A-4: Conditions of ApprovaUMitigation Measures ~ Page 29 of 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 65. Mitigation Measure CC-1: Prepare and implement a GNG Reduction Plan. v~ yw The County will require the applicant to prepare a GHG Reduction Plan for each phase of development describing feasible measures the applicant will incorporate into the project. The GHG Reduction Plan shall be submitted to the Alpine County Planning Department as part of the application for any conditional use permit (CUP) approval. The plan shall describe the method for ensuring the measures will be incorporated into the subject phase of the project. The applicant has prepared a GHG Reduction Plan, which has been submitted as an Additional Condition of Approval. The California Attorney General's publication entitled The Cafifornia Environmenfal Qualiry Act Addressing Global Impacts at the Local Agency Level (Department of Justice 2008) lists examples of ineasures that could be applied to a diverse range of projects. The following list includes mitigation measures that may be applicable to the Bear Valley Village project. Some of the mitigation measures on the following list might not be feasible for the project and therefore would not be included in the project. The Attorney General's publication includes other measures that may also be applicable to the project. Energy Efficiency Design buildings to be energy efficient. Site buildings to take advantage of shade, prevailing winds, landscaping, and sun screens to reduce energy use. Install efficient lighting and lighting control systems. Use daylight as an integral part of lighting systems in buildings. Install light-colored "cool" roofs, cool pavements, and strategically placed shade trees. Install energy-efficient heating and cooling systems, appliances and equipment, and control systems. Install light-emitting diodes (LEDs) for traffc, street, and other outdoor lighting. Limit the hours of operation of outdoor lighting. Use solar heating, automatic covers, and efficient pumps and motors for pools and spas. Provide education on energy efficiency. Renewable Energy Install solar or wind power systems, solar and tankless hot water heaters, and energy-efficient heating ventilation and air conditioning. Educate buyers about existing incentives. Use combined heat and power in appropriate applications. Attachment A-4: Conditions of ApprovaVMitiga[ion Measures Page 33 of 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- Water Conservation and Efficiency Create water-efficient landscapes. Install water-e~ cient irrigation systems and devices, such as soil moisture-based irrigation controls. Design buildings to be water-e~ cient. Install water-efficient fixtures and appliances. Restrict watering methods prohibit systems that apply water to non- vegetated surfaces) and control runoff. Restrict the use of water for cleaning outdoor surfaces and vehicles. Provide education to residents and guests about water conservation and available programs and incentives. Solid Waste Measures Reuse and recycle construction and demolition waste (including, but not limited to, soil, vegetation, concrete, lumber, metal, and cardboard). Provide storage areas for recyclables and green waste and adequate recycling containers located in public areas. Provide education and publicity about reducing waste and available recycling services. Reuse building materials from the Bear Valley Lodge after demolition. Transportation and Motor Vehicles Limit idling time for commercial vehicles, including delivery and construction vehicles. Use low or zero-emission vehicles, including construction vehicles. Provide information on all options for individuals and businesses to reduce transportation-related emissions. Provide education and information about public transportation, inciuding the ski area shuttle bus. ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Conditions of approval listed below are separate and in addition to the mitigation measures included in the FEIR. Development of the project shall fully comply with these conditions of approval. 66. Highway 4 Pioject Funding COAs 28 and 34 (mitigation measures TC-2 and TC-11) require the applicant to make certain fair-share payments for regional traffic improvements. The County has engaged in further consultations with Calaveras County, Calaveras County Council of Governments, and Caltrans. Based on those consultations, the applicant has proposed to provide additional funding for regional traffc improvements. The funding proposed by the applicant is in excess of the fair share calculations set forth in COAs 28 and 34. Based on these consultations, and the applicanYs consent to providing additional funding, the applicant shall provide the funding required by this condition of approval. This condition of approval shall substitute for the payments required by COAs 28 and 34. Attachment A-4: Conditions of ApprovaUMitigation Measures Page 34 of 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- The project applicant will provide 975, 000 in funding for future improvements to Highway 4 west of Bear Valley per the funding schedule indicated below. The schedule relies on the economic viability of the project in light of other obligations of the project to provide up front funding for necessary infrastructure in Bear Valley, the Village Lift and early project components. The full funding amount shall be provided in increments that are tied to actual development of the project. It is anticipated that development thresholds or milestones will trigger payments. Details for providing this funding and agreements among the agencies will be consistent with TC-2: Alpine County will hold the collected funds in escrow until the improvements are approved by Caltrans District 10 and are programmed by Calaveras County. This will allow Calaveras County (or Caltrans) to draw on these funds when they are needed to construct the improvements. This condition shall supersede and replace mitigation measure TC-2 and TC-11/ condition of approval #28 and #34, but it does not supersede the applicanYs voluntary funding of $106,467 to the 'Wagon Trail RealignmenY project on SR 4( see COA 67). The following concepts are incorporated to guide implementation of this condition: Funding payment schedule for SR 4 improvements: Number of units in application Fees per unit Dollars generated D to 50 1, 700 85,000 51 to 100 3, 000 150,000 Milestone payment (100"' unit) 200,000 101 to 200 4, 000 400,000 Milestone payment (200'" unit) 250,000 200 to 300 5, 000 500,000 Milestone payment (300'" unit) 250,000 300 to 490 6, 000 1, 140, 000 TOTAL 2. 975, 000 Projects to be funded per the above schedule shall be located along Highway 4 between the Alpine County line and Angles Camp. Fees per unit are due concurrent with issuance of a building permit for construction of the unit Milestone payments for the 100`", 200'h and 300t6 units are due concurrent with the final occupancy approval granted for the respective unit. Alpine and Calaveras Counties and CCOG are engaged in discussions to reach agreement regarding the specific projects along the SR4 corridor to which this funding will be directed. The funding generated by this condition of approval shall be dispersed in accordance with such agreement. 67. Funding for Improvements to SR 4 west of SR 49 infersection. Although not required 6y the traffic study, the applicant has voluntarily agreed to provide funding for improvements to SR 4 in Calaveras County west of SR 49. In accordance Attachment A-4: Conditions of ApprovaUMitigation Measures Page 35 of 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- r with this commitment, the applicant shall pay a fee of $198 per residential unit (total of 106,467) for specific improvements on SR 4 west of SR 49. These improvements consist of two potential projects: the Wagon Trail Realignment project and the Passing Lanes between the Stanislaus County Line and West of Reeds Turnpike project identified in the Calaveras County RIM program. The Wagon Trail project is the higher priority to receive funding identified in this condition. The passing lanes will only receive funds if the Wagon Trail project does not occur. 68. Pine Marten and Fisher Impacis If trees or vegetation that provide potential denning habitat for the marten or fisher will be removed during the denning season, then project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist approved by the County to conduct focused preconstruction surveys for active dens of martens and fishers. These surveys shall be conducted within 30 days of the onset of each construction phase of the project, initiated during or extending into the denning season. Such preconstruction surveys for active dens of martens and fishers shall be conducted within 500 feet of active construction areas within the Bear Valley Village project area, including the ski lift line and return ski run areas as they cross non- USFS land. If an active den for either species is located during the preconstruction surveys, then the applicant shall notify the County. Construction shall be delayed within mile of the den to avoid disturbance until the den is no longer active. The Y< mile- buffer may be reduced through consultation with the County and the qualified biologist if the County determines that, based on site specific conditions, a lesser buffer will still protect the active den from disturbance from construction activities. The County may consult with DFG and/or USFWS in implementing these requirements. or The Bear Valley Mountain Resort is seeking approval to construct ski runs on US Forest Service (USFS) lands which will cross County land. In conjunction with that license, the USFS is developing appropriate conditions to address active marten/fisher dens. In the event USFS adopts additional or more stringent measures in connection with its approval of ski runs on USFS land, those measures shall also apply to all project-related construction activities located on land within County jurisdiction. 69 Donafe $50,000 to Wildlife Conservation Board. To address commenters' concerns regarding the projecYs impact on habitat, the applicant has proposed to donate 50,000 to the California Wildlife Conservation Board (WCB). At the applicanYs request, the County agrees to adopt a condition of approval incorporating this proposal into the project. The donation shall be made in two instaliments. The first installment of $25,000 shall be paid to WCB upon issuance of the first Conditional Use Permit issued for the project. The second installment of $25,000 shall be paid prior to issuance of the building permit for the 100`" residential unit. The donation shall be made to WCB in order to provide funding for the acquisition of a conservation easement or other interest in land in Alpine or Calaveras Counties, in consultations with CDFG. 70 GHG Reduction P(an. In order to implement COA 65 (mitigatio~ measure CC-1), the applicant shall implement the GHG Reduction Plan submitted by AECOM December 1„ 2009). Attachmen[ A-4: Conditions of Approval/Mitigation Measures Page 36 of 36 ---PAGE BREAK--- ATTACHMENT 4 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA PACKET DECEMBER 10, 2009 BEAR VALLEY VILLAGE RESOLUTION TO ADOPT CEQA FINDINGS ---PAGE BREAK--- ATTACHMENT 4 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA PACKET DECEMBER 10, 2009 BEAR VALLEY VILLAGE RESOLUTION TO ADOPT CEQA FINDINGS ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- rb+ RESOLUTION NO. 2009- RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUN'I' Y OF ALPINE MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE BEAR VALLEY VILLAGE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT AND ZONING CHANGE WHEREAS, the County of Alpine, as lead agency, prepared a Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) and a Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Bear Valley Village Project (State Clearinghouse No. [PHONE REDACTED]) (°the EIR"); and WHEREAS, the Project consists of a General Plan Amendment and zoning change to develop a new pedestrian village and related infrastructure in the town of Bear Valley, California, all as more fully described in Exhibit A hereto; and WHEREAS, On May 29, 2009, Alpine County certified the FEIR for the Project; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR consists of the Draft EIR, responses to the comments and recommendations received on the Draft EIR, a list of persons, organizations and public agencies commenting on the Draft EIR, responses to environmental issues raised in the review and consultation process, and other information concerning the impacts of approving the project and recommended mitigation as set forth in the Mitigation Monitoring and Reparting Plan which documents are incorporated by reference in the Final EIR as provided in CEQA guidelines; and WHEREAS, On May 29, 2009, the Alpine County Board of Supervisors (Board) adopted Resolution No. 2009-28 certifying the Final EIR by a vote of 5-0 and further approved the MMP for the Project; and WHEREAS, On August 27, and September 24, 2009, the Alpine County Plannuig Comutission (Commission) held public hearings regarding the project and on 5eptember 24, 2009, the Commission voted to recommend that the Board apprwe the Project by a vote of 5-0. vr/ ---PAGE BREAK--- WHEREAS, the Board has reviewed alternative projects and alternatives to the approval and development of the Bear Valley Village Project; and WHEREAS, the Board has identified the approval and development of the Bear Valley Village Project as the preferred alternative; and WHEREAS, the Final EIR revealed that significant environmental effects of the project have been mitigated where feasible through mitigation measures which will eliminate the unpacts or reduce the impacts to a level less than significant as provided herein;and WHEREAS, the County has prepared written findings of fact for each significant environmental impact identified in the EIR, supported by substantial evidence, and for each significant unpact the County has determined that changes have been made to the Project that either substantially reduce the magnitude of the impact, (ii) are within another agency's jurisdiction and have been or should be adopted, or (iii) specific econoxnic, social, legal, technical or other considerations make mitigation measures or alternatives infeasible, pursuant to CEQA Section 15091(a); and WHEREAS, the findings of fact and statement of overriding considerarions are attached as Exhibit hereto and incarporated by reference herein; and WHEREAS, the MMP has been approved to implement mitigation measures adopted as a part of the project; and WHEREAS, the Board has independently reviewed and analyzed the Final EIR and considered information contained therein and all comments, written, and oral, received at the public hearing on this project prior to approving this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the Board desires, in accordance with CEQA, to declare that, despite the occurrence of significant environmental effects that cannot be substantially lessened or avoided through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or feasible altematives, there exist certain overriding economic, social, and other considerations for approving the Project that the Board believes justify the occurrence of those impacts, all as set forth in the attached Exhibit NOW, THEREFORE, the Board of Supervisors of Alpine County does hereby resolve, determine and order as follows: 1. The Final EIR and the MMP have been approved by the County pursuant to Resolution No. 2009-28. The findings and statement of overriding considerations are contained in the "CEQA Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations" attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- EXHIBIT A Proposed Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Bear Valley Village General Plan Amendment and Zoning Change Planning Case #2006-35 I. INTRODUCTION Alpine County, as lead agency, prepared a Draft Environmenta] Impact Report (DEIR) and a Fina] Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the Bear Valley Village project (State Clearinghouse No. [PHONE REDACTED]) (collectively, the DEIR and the FEIR aze referred herein simply as the EIR). These findings, as wefl as the accompanying statement of overriding considerations, have been prepazed in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Public Resources Code, Secrions 21000 et seq.) and the CEQA Guideli~es ( 14 California Code of Regulations sections 15000 et seqJ. Alpine County (County) is the (ead agency for the CEQA review of the Bear Valley Village project and has the principal responsibility for its approval. II. DEFINITIONS AND ACRONYMS These findings use the same definitions and acronyms set forth in the EIR. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND OBJECTIVES A. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Beaz Valley Village I, LLC, and Bear Valley Village II, LLC (the project applicant), is proposing a General Plan Amendment and zoning change to develop a new pedestrian village and related infrasttucture in the town of Bear Valley, Califomia, to be named Beaz Valley Village. The Beaz Valley Mountain Resort (ski area) is also proposing construction of a new high-speed chair lift (Village Lift) from Beaz Valley Village to the ski azea and several new or modified ski runs retuming to Bear Valley from the ski area. The County is proposing a new snowmobile parking area, a new passenger loading area, and a new snowmobile trailer loading area. The project applicant owns approximately 14 acres in the town of Beaz Valley. The acreage owned by the applicant is commonly known as Village Center-1 ( VC-1) and Village Center-2 ( VC-2), referring to the parcels' BVMP land use designations. The current BVMP provides for up to 562 two- bedroom residential units and an undefined amount of commercial and retail uses for the applicant-owned VG1 and VG2 parcels. The applicant is also proposing the purchase of a 4.4- acre pazcel southwest of VG1 and VC-2 for the development of a multi-story parking structure, with residential units above the structure and employee housing adjacent to the structure. This component of the proposed project is known as r- Findings of Fact Exhibit A ---PAGE BREAK--- South Village. This pazcel is currently owned by Alpine Counry and is used for public parking (Lots B and The B VMP designates this pazcel of land for pazking use only. As originally proposed, the project will consist of a mixed-use community with private residential units; ski area improvements serving the Beaz Valley Village and town of Beaz Valley including a new chairlift i. Village Lift) and several ski runs returning to Beaz Valley; various commercial and amenity uses; and associated utilities and service systems to serve the project. Development of the proposed South Village component of the project will require a General Plan amendment and zoning change to allow residential, commercial, and retail uses, in addition to pazking, in the current pazking (P-3 ) zone. The residential community, as originally proposed, will include approximately 486 privately owned residential units, and 51 lock-off units within a village of 14 separate buildings. The applicant is proposing to define the residential portion of the project in terms of Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs), where one EDU is equivalent to 1,350 sf of residential space. Using this definition the project will include 491 privately owned EDUs. The "Village Center" will be a centrally located pedestcian-oriented village with a central plaza and pedestrian walkways. The Village Center includes Buildings 5 through 10 and the Pool House. The North Village" will be north of Village Center and will include Buildings 11 through 13 and the bottom terminal of the Village Lift. The "South Village" will be located on County Parking Lots B and C, and will include Buildings ] through 4 and a private central plaza for South Village residents on top of a ma~ cimum three-story parking structure. The South Village also includes a 50-bed employee housing facility. The commercial and ameniry uses will include an outdoor amphitheater, swimming pool, rental units, restaurants, and other small retail services. Pazking for commercial and ameniry facilities will include ry~,r under-building and off- street parking azeas. Ski area improvements include construction of a Village Lifr that will traverse through the existing ski lifr easement from the Village to Koala Rocks at the ski area. The Village Lift is intended to allow for ski-in and ski-out access to the ski area from the homes and Village core in the winter. The project will include construction of all required utility infrastructure, including sewer and water lines, and underground lines for all "dry utilities" electricity and telephone) throughout the mixed-use communiTy as part of the development. The water supply for the project will be provided by Lake Alpine Water Company (LAWC) and Bear Valley Water District (BVWD) will provide sewer services. The applicant is also proposing an site propane storage and delivery system to serve the project. Other project fearizres include the realignment and reconstruction of No Name Road, tum lane improvements at the Bear Valley Road/SR 4 intersection and four new bridges in the Village Center azea. No Name Road will be shifted south of its curcent location to allow room for construction of the Village Center and will not be passable to automobiles for a minimum of three yeazs. Turn lane improvements at the Beaz Valley Road/SR4 intersection witl include an exclusive westbound right-tum lane, lengthening the existing eastbound left-turn lane, and separate right and left turn lanes on the southbound approach on Beaz Valley Road. These improvements will allow this intersection to operate at an acceptable level of service (LOS). Other circulation features include four new bridges in the Village Center azea; two pedesVian bridges, one skier bridge, and one vehicle bridge on No Name Road. Snowmobile pazking and loading azeas will be available for subdivision residents neaz the Bear Valley Road winter closure. Specifically, four short-term loading spaces will be provided by the applicant on the west side of Building 6. The County is proposing to construct up to two additional loading spaces within the Beaz Valley Road easement immediately adjacent to the spaces proposed by the applicant, for a total of five or six loading spaces. Findings of Fact Exhibit A ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 1 Pofenfial Permits and Discrefionary Actions Responsible Agency Permit or Discrefionary Action U.S. forest Service Approval of the Village Lik and Ski Runs NEPA review and compliance (42 USC Sedion 4321 et seq.) California Division of Occupational Safety and Health Permit to operate ihe Village Lik (a passenger iramway) Califomia Transporfation Commission Encroachment Permii Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Clean Water Ad Sedion 401 certifimiion for 404 permit Construdion siormwater NPDES permit California Department of Fish and Game Siate Endangered Species Act compliance Section 1602 Streambed Alierotion Agreement U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act Secfion 404 Permit V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW PROCESS In accordance with section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines, Alpine County prepared a Notice of Preparation (NOP) in March 2007. The County circulated the NOP to public, local, state, and federal agencies, and other interested parties to solicit comments on the Project. Concerns raised in response to the NOP were considered during preparation of the DEIR. The County published the DEIR for public, local, state, and federal agencies, and other interested party review on September 22, 2008. The 45-day review period ended on November 7, 2008. (FEIR, Vol. 2, p. The County received comment letters from the public, local, state, and federal agencies, and other interested parties regarding the DEIR. On May 29, 2009, Alpine County published the FEIR for the Project. The FEIR includes comments received on the DEIR, responses to significant environmental issues raised in the comments, and evisio~s to the text of the DEIR. Together, the DEIR arid the FEIR constitute the EIR for the Project. On May 29, 2009, the Alpine Counry Board of Supervisors (Board) held a public meeting regazding certification of the EIR. The Boazd certified the EIR by a vote of 5-0. On August 27, and September 24, 2009, the Alpine County Planning Commission (Commission) held public meeting regarding the project. At the end of the meeting on September 24, 2009, the Commission voted to recommend that the Board approve the project by a vote of 5-0. IV. RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS r Findings of Fact Exhibit A ---PAGE BREAK--- In accordance with Public Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision the record of proceedings for ~ the County's decision on the Bear Valley Village project includes the following documents: The Notice of Prepazation and all other public notices issued by the County in conjunction with the project; All comments and correspondence received during the NOP public notice period. The Draft EIR for the project, including all appendices; All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the comment period on the Drafr EIR; All comments and correspondence submitted to the County with respect to the project, in addition to timely commenu on the Drafr EIR; The Final EIR for the project (Volumes I and II), inc(uding comments received on the Draft EIR and responses to those comme~ts and appendices Documents cited or referenced in the Draft and Final EIRs; The mitigation monitoring and reporting program for the project; All findings and resolutions adopted by the County in connection with the project and al] documents cited or referced to therein; All reports, studies, memoranda, maps, staff reports, response to comments, or other planning documents relating to the project prepazed by the County, consultants to the County, or responsible or trustee agencies with respect to the County's compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to the County's action on the project; All documents submitted to the County by other public agencies or members of the public in connection with the project, up through and until the date of the Board's fina( decision on the Bear Valley Village project; ~ Aay minutes of public meetings and public heazings held by the County in connection with the project; Any documentary or other evidence submitted to the County at such public meetings and public hearings; The 1999 Alpine County General Plan, as amended, and all documents prepazed in connection with the adoption of the General Plan; The 1978 Bear Valley Master Plan (BVMP); The County Zoning Ordinance and all other County Code provisions cited in materials prepared by or submitted to the County; Any and all resolutions adopted by the County regazding the project, and all staff reports, analyses, and summazies related to the adoption of those resolutions; Matters of common knowledge to the Counry, including, but not limited to federal, state, and local laws and regulations; Any documents expressly cited in these findings, in addition to those cited above; and Any other materials required for the record of proceedings by Public Resources Code section 21167.6, subdivision VI. FINDINGS REQUIRED UNDER CEQA Public Resources Code Section 21002 provides that "public agencies should not approve projects as proposed if there are feasible altematives or feasible mitigation measures availabie which would Findings of Fact Exhibit A ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- a.r+ General Plan AmenOment antl Zoning Change Bear Vallev Villaae IX. SIGNIFICANT EFFECTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES A. INTRODUCTION The DEIR identified a number of significan[ environmen[al effects (or impac[s) tha[ the Beaz Valley Village projec[ would cause or contri6ute Some of these significan[ effec6 can be avoided or reduced to a less-Ihan- significan[ level through the adoption of feasible mitiga[ion measures. Other effects are significan[ and unavoidable. Some of these unavoidable significan[ effects can be substan[ially lessened by the adop[ion of featible mitigazion measures. O[her significan[, unavoidable effects canno[ be subs[antially lessened. For reasons set forth in [he Statement of Overriding ConsiJerations below, however, the Board of Supervisors has detertnined tha[ overziding economic, social, and other considerations ouhveigh the significant and unavoidable effecCS of [he Pmjec[. The Boazd's findings wi[h respect to thz Bear Valley Village prqecPs sip~ iFcan[ effects and mitigation measures are set forth in the EIR and in he table attached [o these findings as E~ ibit A. " lhis table does not describe the full analysis of each envvonmental impac[ contained in [he EIR. Instead, the [able provides a summary description of each impact, describes [he applicable mi0gation measures iden[iFed in Ihe E(R and adopied by Ne Boazd, and states the Board's findings on the significance of each impact after imposition of Itie adopted mitiga[ion measures. A full explana[ion of these environmental findings and conclusions can be found in [he EfR, and [hese findings hereby incoryora[e by reference and in some specified ins[ances upda[e [ he discussion and analysis in [he EIR supporting the determina[ions regazding the projec['s impacfs and mitigation measures designed [o address [hose impac[s. In making [hese Fndings, [he Board incorporates [he analysis and explanation in the EIR in these findings, ezcept to the ex[en[ any such determinations and concWsions are specifically and expressty modified by these findings. B. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT ARE AVOIDED OR REDUCED TO A LE55 THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL Finding: As aufhorized by Public Resources Code Sec[ion 21081 and CEQA Guidelines 15091, 15092, and I5093, [he County finds that, unless otherwise stated, all of [he changes or alterazions ro the projec[ lis[ed in the attached [able (Exhibi[ which mi[igate or avoid the significan[ or potentially sign~can[ emironmental impacts, az identified in the EIR, have been required iq or incoryorated inW, the Beaz Valley Vi]] age projec[, that [hese mitiga[ion measures will be effec[ive ro reduce or avoid [he potentially sigpifican[ impacts ac described in the EIR, and [hat these mi[igation measures are feuible [o implement and are within [he responsibility and jurisdiction of the County to implemen[ or enforce. The Counry finds [ha[ the following significant environmental impacGS will 6e avoided or reduced [o a Iess-[ han- significan[ ] evel wi[h implementa[ion of mitiga[ion measures described in Exhibit A. P} 3E- 3: The project could generate demand for non- construction employee housing in excess of available supply PHE-0: Thz project could genera~e demand for wnsVUCtion employee housin~ in excess of availabiz supply Fintlings of Pact: Exhibit A Y ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- General Plan Amendment and Zoning Change Bear Vallev Villaoe AQ-3: Projec[ opera[ions wouldi~ crease AOQ NOx, and PM10 emissions. AQ-b: Implemen[a[ ion of [he proposed projec[ woufd contribute to a cumula[ive air quality impact in [he projec[ area. N-2: Pile-driving for building foundations could cause cosmetic or swctural damage to buildings within 50 fee[ of the activity Soils-1: The projec[ could ezpose people or to hazazds relazed to liquefac[ion. Cumulative PHE-2: The projec[, in combina[ion with o[her rea5onably foreseeable projects in and near Bear Valley, could generate demand for employee housing in excess of available supply Cumula[ive PS-L The project in combination with other reasonably foreseeable projects in Bear Valley, would contribute [o a cumula[ive increue in demand on local service providers, resulting in the need for new equipment and facili[ies. Cumula[ive U-2: 7'he projec[ plus all reasonably foreseeable projec[s would generaze increased was[ewater, resulting in po[ential exceedance of Ihe sanitary sewer sys[em capacity and exceedance of BVWD's was[ewa[ er disposal capaciTy Cumulazive HWQ-L The project, in combination with other reasonably foreseeable projec[s in Bear Valley, would result in a cumulative increase in construction and urban pollutants in sudace wa[ers (Bear Creek, Bloods Creek, and the Stanislaus River). Cumulative BR-1. The project, in combina[ion with other reasonably foreseeable projects, woufd result in a cumula[ive loss of habi[a[, including sensi[ive habi[ats such as nparian habiffi[ and wetlands. Cumulative BR-2: The projec[, in combina[ion with other reasonably foreseeable projects, would result in direct and indirec[ impac[s on special status plants and wildlife, wfiich could affect regional popula[ions of the species. Cumulative A-2: The projec[, in combination with other reazonably foreseeable projects, would introduce a substantial amount of new nighttime ligh[ing to Bear Valley, and could result in a significan[ cumulative adverse effec[ o~ [ he visual charac[er of Ihe community a[ night. FEIR, VoL 1, Table ES-2; see also FEIR, Vol. 1, pp. 4-4 13.) C. SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE AVOIDED OR REDUCED TO A LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT LEVEL Finding: The CounN finds, based on substantial evide~ce in [he whole record of this proceeding, [ha4 where feasible, changes or altera[ions have heen required, or incorporated into, the Bear Valley Village project tu reduce the significan[ environmental impact listed below as iden[iFed in [he EIR. The Counry Fnds further, based on subs[antial evidence in the whole remrd of this proceeding, that, despi[e the inwrporation of mitigation meazures, specific economic, Iegal, social, [echnological, or other considera[ions make infeasible or ineffective cer[ain mi[igazion measures analyzed W reduce the following impacts to a] ess- than- significant level. The County hereby finds [he following mi[igation measares inkasible or inefrective in reducing impacLS to a less-than- significant level, and therefore finds [he following impacts significant and unavoidable. LU-2: The projec[ would create physical land use conflicts related [o ex[erior ~oise ]evels generated by snowmobiles near exis[ing and proposed residen[ial land uses. U-3: The projec[ could con[ribute to exceedance of WDRs for copper. Findings of Fact Exhibit A ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- General Plan Amentlmen~ and Zoning Change 8) Denver 5[ oner of the Bear Valley Public Safety Depariment of the Npine County Sheriffs Office (Comment Letter G) made the following comments conceming mitiLazing potentially signiicant impacts to public safeN: a) Mr. S[ oner recommended thaz No Name Road remain open during the winter months and not be temporarily closed for [luee years, as described in [he DEIR. In response, the County modified Mi[igation Meuure TC-7 to aclmowledge the impacts Ihat would be caused by [he [emporary closure of No Name Road and to include a proposed amendmen[ to Alpine County Code sec[ion 10.12. 050 [ o allow for [he temporary closure of No Narne Road. ffEIR, VoL 2, p. 51; FEIR, Vol. 1, pp. 3.9- 39 3.9- 40J The County 6nds [hat this modified mi[igazion measure adequately addresses [he commen[er' s concem. 9) lim Macedo of the Calaveru County Sheriffs O~ ce (Commen[ Letter H) made the following comments conceming mitigating po[en[ ially significant impacts to pubtic safety~ a) Mr. Macedo recommended adop[ion of a mi[igation measwes that could address the need to provide s~ cie~ t public safety staff. In response, the County modified Mitigation Measures PS-1 and PS-la to specifically address [ he Project's proportional conVibutions [o mee[ funding needs for increased Public Safety Division S[aff. (FEIR, VoL 2, p. i7; FEIA, VoL 1, pp. 3.3- 4 33- The County finds [hat [he modifica[ions to Ihese mitigazion measures adequacely address the commenter's mncem. l0) RobeR Pachinger of the Calaveras County Public Works Deparhnent (Comment Letter I) made the following cortunen[s conceming mitiga[ing potentially significan[ impac[s to tr~ c: al Pachinger cri[icized the methodology the CounTy used in calculating the £unding requiremen[s and cos[ alloca[ion for road improvemen[s iden[ified in [he EIR. In response, the County described in detail the methodology i[ employed to es[ablish the Projecfs proportionate fair share conVibu[ions [o improvements necessary for anticipa[ed growth in Ihe SR-4 corzidor. Thz County also explained [hffi requiring the Pmject applican[ to conVibu[e the amount recommended by the commenter would be infeasible, and tha[ [his level of contribution would exceed the PmjecPs fair share of funding. (FEIR, Vol. 2, pp. 67-70. 1 The CounTy has met with CalTrans and Calaveras County officials [o further discuss mitigation For which the project will be responsible for paying its proportionate share. Following [he close of the public comment period, Calaveras County o~ cials submitted additional comments conceming the adequacy of mitigation for t~ c impacts, [hese commen[s, and Ihe CounTy's responses [o [hese additional commen[s are described below. p 1) Eric Jung (Comment Letter M) made the following comments concemin~ mitigating potentially significant impacts to housing: Findings of Fact: Exhibi[ A I ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- General Plan Amendment and Zoning Change In response, [he CounTy verified [ha[ the impac[ analysis provided in the EIR conceming public views was adequate and [hat the sugges[ed mitiga[ion wu not required because Ihere was no significan[ impac[ to public views. (FE[R, Vol. 2, p. 181, FEfR, Vol. 1, p. 3.8- 14 3.8- 15.) The County finds that the response to comment FF-13 adequa[ely addresses the commenter's concem. e) Mr. Fraser recommended including mi[igation that could address [he Project's poten[ially significant noise impacts caused by Project consWC[ion. In response, [he County rejec[ed the proposed sound curtain mitigation u visually undesirable. The CounTy also added new Mi[igation Measure N-le [o require Ihe CounTy [n implemen[ noise muf7ling technology to further reduce the impac[s of constructiomrela[ed noise. (FEIR, Vol. 2, pp. ISL182; FEIR, VoL I, pp. 3.12- 12.) The additional mi[igazion mea5ure, however, would not reduce temporary noise to a less-than- significant IeveL ( FEIR, Vol. I, p. 3.12- 13.) The Coun[y finds thaz the response to commen[ FF-l6; including the additional mitigation measure, adequa[ely addresses Ihe commenter's concem. Mr. Fruer reclaiming Ihe wood from Ihe lodge and commercial center for re-use. In response, the Counry modified Mi[iga[ ion Measure CGl to require re-use of building ma[erials from [he Beaz Valley Lodge after demolition. (FEIR VoL 2, p. i82; FEIR, VoL 1, p. 5-8.) The Counry finds Ihat this modified mitigation measure adequately addresses Ihe commen[er' s mncem. 13) Barbara Goodrich (Commen[ Letter KK) made [he folbwing comments conceming mi[iga[ ing po[entially significan[ impacts to pazking: a) Ms. Goodrich recommended several po[ential mitigation measures thffi could address the ProjecPs potentially significant impacCs o parking. In response, [he County modified Mitigation Measures TGS to include: a possible parking permit reservation system, satellite parking, or parking attendants. (FEIR. Vol. 2, pp. 240-241.) On 7uly 1, 2009, SWCA, the consultant that prepared the EIR, sent a letter to ttie Counry that fur[her addressed the adequacy of mitigation for ttie ProjecPs impacfs [o parking (see Responses GD-2 and GD-8). The CounTy fmds, based on subs[an[ ial evidence in the record, including the analysis presen[ed in SWCA'S letter described above and fur[her artalysis of the parking mi[iga[ ion measure provided in [he S[aff Report [o the Alpine County Planning Commission, dated September 18, 2009, [hat [he modificazions to Mitiga[ion Measure TGS adzquately address the commenter's wncems. al The wmmenrer recommended modifying the description of several mitigalion measures for clarification and consistency Findings of Fact' Exhibit A ---PAGE BREAK--- r General Plan Amendment and Zoning Change Bear Vallev Villaae In response, the CounTy modified the descriptions of Mi[igazion Measures CR-l, TG2, TC-6b, TC-11, SNO-2a, SNO-2b. ( FEIR, Vol. 2, p. 275.).1 The County £nds [hat the modificazions to this miUgation measure adequa[ely address the comme~[er' s concem. l4) Bear Valley Village LLC and Bear Valley Village LLC (Comment Letter PP) made the following comments conceming mitigating poten[ially significant noise impac[s, ( ii) clarifying [he descrip[ions of some mi[iga[ ion measures, a¢d (iiil a pmposed modificffiion [o mitigation measures addressing water quality, tr~ c, snowmobile parking, and noise impacts: fa) The commen[er recommended banning 2- stroke snowmobile engines as a potential mitiga[ion measures [ha[ could address [he PmjecYs po[en[ ially significan[ noise impacts. In response, the County explained thal the Bear Valley Snowmo6ile Committee recently rejec[ed such a ban and confirmed that the EIR concluded certain snowmobile noise impacts would be significan[ and unavoidable. (FEIR, VoL 2, p. 275.) The CounTy finds [ha[ Ihe ezplanffiion provided adequa[ely addresses [he commenter's concem. b) The commen[er recommended modifying [he descrip[ion of several mi0ga[ion measures for clarifica[ion and consistency In response, the Counry modified the descriptions of Mi[igation Meuures CR-1, TG2, TG66, TC-11, SNO-2a, SNO-26. ( FEIR, Vo1. 2, p. 275.) The CounTy finds thaz the modi£ cations to these mitiga[ion measures adequately address the commenter's concems. c) The commenter recommended modifying Mi[igation Meuure U3 to eliatinate [he ban on [he use of copper piping. In response, [he County modified Mitigation Meuure U-3, so [hat the use of copper piping for the Project would be allowed if certain conditions are satisfied. (FEIR, VoL 2, p. 276; FEIR, Vol. 1, pp. 3.4- 7he CounN finds that the modificazions to this mitigation measure adequately address Ihe commen[er' s wncem. d) The commen[er recommended modifying Mi[igation Measure HWQ-1 [ o allow heavy equipmen[ lo operare within l00 feet of creeks; pmvided BMPs aze followed. In response, the Coun[y explained why the 100-foot buffer wac necessary to avoid compac[ion of salura[ed soils. The CounTy also modified Mitigation Measure HWQ-1 to allow opera[ion of heavy equipmen[ within 100 feet of creeks provided BMPS are followed [o ensure no discharge of pollutants into [he creeks occurs. (FEIR, Vol. 2, p. 277; FEIR Vol. 1, pp. 3.5- The County finds [ha[ the explanation provided and the modifica[ion [o this mi[igffiion measure adequately addresses the commenrer's concem. el The commen[er recommended modifying Mi[igation MeaSUres TC-3, TC-4, and TGl lb [o clarify ttiat the Project applicant is only responsible for "fair share" funding of the specified roadway Findings of Fact: Exhibit A 12 y~ ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Generel Plan Amendment and Zoning Change provides further assurance that Mitigation Measure CGI will result in enforceable reduc[ions in GHG emissions. The CounTy finds thaz there is curzently a paucity of guidance regarding dztermining the significance of GHG emissions, and of speci[ic standards goveming Ihe adequa:y and effec[iveness of mitigation meuures [o address such emissions. The County Iherefore finds thaz Mi[iga[ io~ Measure CC-1 does no[ constitute unlawful defertal of mitigation. The CounTy further finds tha[ the development of a GHG Reduc[ion Plan will resul[ in [he imposition o£ all feasible measures available to reduce such emissions. The County also finds tha[, even with the developmen[ and implementa[ion of a GHG Reduction Plan, such emissions will be significant and unavoidable. (See DE[R, Chap[er 5, see also letter from Scott Goebl, SWCA, ro Brian Pe[ers (November 9, 2009, pp. 15-17 Wastewater imoact mi[ieation. The CounTy has not defened i~ analysis of the ability of BVWD to provide sewer service o Ihe projec[. BVWD haz been pursuing a Mrtiary trea[ment plan in order ro comply with exis[ing Regional Boazd orders. Such a plan is required with or without the Bear Valley Village project ' The condition of approval requiring confirtnation of adequatz sewer capacity dces not constitute defertal. (See Staff Report [o [he Alpine CounTy Planning Commission, dazed Sep[ember 18, 2009; letter from Scott Goebl, SWCA, [o Brian Peters (November 9, 2009, pp. 14-15, 17-19) 18) After the close of [he public comment period for the EIR, Irvine Krauss of [he Alpine County Library Commission made [he following commen[s conceming [he Pmjec['s design and the noise; air pollu[ion, and hazards associated with the [emporary concrete batch plant for the ProjecC a) Mr. Krauss recommended changing the ProjecPs design [o include a fotmal pedes[rian path from the commercial cen[er to the library. The reques[ed pazh would include a foo[bridge spanning Beaz Creek. Because ~his comment was submitted to the County afrer the close of Ihe public comment period, no response is required (Public Resources Code section 21091, subd. The design takes Ihe loca[ion of the exis[ing library into considera[ion and would no[ in[ erfere with librazy opera[ions. No modifications [o the design are [herefore required. b) Mr. Krauss expressed concems about the noise, air pollu[ion, and po[en[ ial hazazds tha[ would be caused by [he [emporary concrete batch plant, which would be ]ocated in close proximiTy [o the library The FEIR includes mitiga[ion measures that address the Rojec['s construc[ion- related impacts, including impac[s caused by [he emporary batch plant these measures include: Mitigation Meazures N-Ib and AQ-26. 'Ihe County finds [hat [hese mitiga[ion measares already adequa[ely address Ihe commenter'S concem and no fiuther impact analysis or mi[iga[ ion is required ro address the issues raised by the commen[er. 19) After [he close of [he public commen[ period for the EIR, Daniel Brewer of CalTrans made the following comments wnceming the adequacy ofmi[iga[ ion for 4affic impacts: Findings of FacP Exhi6it A 18 Ilr" ---PAGE BREAK--- General Plan AmendmeM and Zoning Change a) On May 29, 2009, Mr. Brea~er submitted a letter recommending [he County modify the proposed mi[igazion measures to address he Project's traffic impac[s. Because these comments were submitted [o [he CounTy after the close of the public comment period, no response is required. Public Aesources Code section 2109I, subd. Nevertheless, the CounTy considered these and subsequrnt comments submitted by CalTrans when determining whether the final Vatkic mitigation measures were adequate to mi[igate Project impacts and wheffier any addi[ional mi[iga[ ion suggested by CalTrans was feasible. CalTrans recommended developing a public transi[ system where 75 pusengers or mom could be accommoda[ed by one or more bus runs each moming and aftemoon. CalTrans opined tha[ mitigazion for traffic impacts was inadequate, but stated [ha[ it would defer to [he judgment of [he Calaveras County Counsil of Govemments (CCOG) with respect [o necessary mitigation along SR-4 in Calaveras CounTy CalTrans concurted wi[h the EIR consul[an[' s de[ ermination tha[ tr~ c mi[iga[ ion fees should be bued on Calaveras CounTy's Road Impact Mi[iga[ ion ( AI~ program. CalTrans sta[ed [hat [he Project should be responsible for either paying OOQ000 for the of 2 miles of passing lanes on SR-4, or funding one mile of pacsing lane and placing a heavier emphasis on promoting [ransit service. 67 On July 22, 2009, John Hostetter of W'ells Fargo Business Banking sent [he applican[ a letter confirming [hat the bank would be unable [o provide addi[ional financing for Ihe 000, 000 fee proposed by CalTrans. c) On August 13, 2009, the consultant tha[ prepazed the EIR for the Projec[ submitted a de[ailed letter responding to each comment included in CaITrans' May 29, 20091etter. I~ response [o CaII'rans' comment [ f~ e County has agreed [o modify Mi[iga[ ion Measures CC-1 and TC-5 N venfy the Counry's wmmitment to promoting Vansi[ service u a means [o reduce Vaffic conges[ion on SA-4, including tra~c generated by Ne Project. The Board wishes [o emphasize thaz it remains committed [o full implementation of Mitigation Measures CC-1 and TGi in order [o reduce traffic 6y promo[ing transit service on SR-0. The Board also wishes [o emphasize [hat i[ remains open to additional measures [o promo[e transit, over and above those already included in Mitigation Measures CGl and TGS. If addi[ional measures ro promo[e [ ransit are de[ ertnined to be feasible, [hen the Boazd is commi[[ed to incorporazing [hem in[o iu ezisting mi[igffiion program. In response [o CalTrans' comments designated as CdOe, G10f, C-lOg, Gl l, GI2a, G12d Ihe CounTy finds thaz the mi[igation designed to address the Projec['s impac~ [ o SR-0 intersections (TC-2 and YC-11) is adequa[e and additional imlieu fees for traffic mi[iga[ ion would not be feasible. Findings of Fact Ezhibi~ A 19 ---PAGE BREAK--- General Plan Amendment antl Zoning Chanqe Bear Valley Village d) On August 17, Mr. Brewer submitted ano[her letter objecting [o the proposed mi[iga[ ion measares for ffie PmjecYs V~ c impacts. CalTrans reiterated its de[ ermina[ ion [ ha[ Mitigation Measures TC-2 and TGlI were not adequatz [o mi[igafe Ihe ProjecPs impacts. CalTrans rejec[ed thz CounTy's de[ ertnination tha[ exacting a[ leas[ OOQ000, [he amount CalTrans insisted was required, Gom the Project applican[ would be infeasible. CalTrans sta[ed [hazthe applicanPs cos[ considerations should no[ be a factor mid, even if a valid fac[or, [ he per unit fee of approximately $11,000 would no[ necessarily make [he Prqec[ financially unviable. The letter afso rei[erated Ihe need to promote Vansi[ as an additional means to mitigaze [he projecfs impac[s. e) On August 27, 2009, Nolman Hulberg of Hulberg & Associates, submitted a letter [o the County that addressed CalTrans demand for a lump sum conVibution of OOQ000 as mi[igation for Ihe Projecfs Vaffic impacts. This letter concludes that requinng the applicant to pay Ihis amounf would no[ be financial feasihle. The County has wnsidered the evidence presented in [his letter and, bated in part on [his evidence, has concluded [hat i[ would be 6nancially infeasible [o impose on [he applican[ the 000, 000 fee proposed by CalTrans. 7'he County finds that financial considera[iuns are a valid basis for determining [he feasibiliTy of a mi[iga[ ion measure. ( Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, subd. 3) ( determination of feasibility may consider ewnomic factors).) The Counry finds tha[ [he ii~• record contains substan[ial evidence supporting the rejec[ion of requiring [he applicant to provide E7 million in funding for SR 4 improvements. This evidence includes [he letter from Mr. Hulberg. This evidence also includes information in the DEIR regarding he pervunit cost of Va£fic mitigation in relation to o[her projects in the region (DEIR, Appendix L.J The CounTy recognizes tfiat, in Caltrans' view, such financial infortnation should no[ be taken into accoun[ in detertnining whether [o require a projec[ [o contribu[e [ o tr~ c mi[igation. The County respec[fully disagrees, and finds Ihat economic issues are relevan[ to the feasibility of mi[igation. The County further finds, as se[ forth in [he DEIR ,tha[ widening SR 4 would result in environmental impac[s. ( See DEIR, pp. 3.9- 28.) The EIR identifies mi[igation measures [o address the projec['s contribution to Vaffic along lhe SR 4 cortidor. The EIR esplains how he County's tr~ c consultan[ perfortned the calculations [o dMetmine [he projecPs fair share for these improvemen[s ( DEIR, pp. 3.9- 27 - 3932.) ] n [he County's view, [his discussion represen6 substan[ial evidence suppoRing [he EIR's conclusions regarding Ihe appropria[e level ofmi[igation to impose on the projec[ to address SR 4 impac[s. The CounTy notes Ihat Ihis analysis was prepazed by Gordon Shaw of LSC, a recognized c expert. Calaveras County hu requested tha2 the County expand the geographic scope of the tr~ c analysis [o address road segments localed beyond the intersec[ion of SRs 4 and 49. The County believes [he geographic scope of 1he [ra~c s[ udy is reasonable and appropriate, for reasons explained in de[ai] in [he EIR. In order to address [his issue, however, the CounTy considered providing fair-share funding contribution to existing, planned improvemen[s to W"agon Wheel Road. The County's tra~c consultant derermined that the projec['s Findings of FacC Exhibit A 20 ---PAGE BREAK--- General Plan Amendment and Zoning Change Bear Vallev VillaQe fair share contribu[ion [o this projec[ would be $]06,467 The CounTy has agreed to require the applican[ [o provide fairshare funding for this improvemen[. (Sez Siaff Report to Planning Commission (September l8, 2009).) 1he County also recognizes tha[ other s[ akeholders notably, Calaveras County, thz Calaveras County Council of Govemments and Caltrans - believe that the miligation measures iden[ified in the EIR aze insufficient. In their view, the project should be required to provide a greater level of funding for improvemen6 along the SR 4 cortidor. This disagreemen[ does not mean [ha[ the EIA is inadequate. Rather, simply means that there aze various ways to calculffie a projecPs "fair share" for tr~ c improvements. The County notes, however, that the EIR's analysis of [he "fair share° constitutes a detailed and reasonable estimate of how to calcula[e his amount (See also S[aff Report to Planning Commission (September 18, 2009).) Since the County certified the EIR, [he CounTy has met wi[h Calaveraz County, the Calaveras County Council of Govemments, and Caltrans to determine whe[her [here exists a mutually acceptable approach [owards providing funding for SR 4 improvements. The applicant has also participated in these diswssions. Based on Ihese discussions, Ihe applican[ hu proposed [o provide addi[ional funding, over and above the funding called for by Mitiga[ion Measure TG2, for regional traffic improvemen[s. The County will include [hz applicanPs proposal for increazed funding in the conditions of approval for [he project The condition of approval will generate approxima[ely $ 3.1 million for reeional tr~ c These funds will be available for improvements along the SR4 cotridor. 7he Coun[y believes Mi[iga[ ion Measure TC-2, as se[ forth in [he EIR, is adequa[e. With the applicanPs consent, the Counry is adop[ing a condition of approval requiring addi[ional tunding for regional tr~ c improvements. The CounTy will continue to mee[ with Calavera5 County, the Calaveras Counry Council of Govemments, and Caltrans, in order to prioritize projects to receive this tunding to address regional traffic conditions along the SR4 cortidor. Greenhouse eas mitieation. The County considered CalTrans' comments presen[ed in the August 13, 2009, letter, and subsequen[ comments described above, and agreed to revise mi[igation measures conceming the PrqecPs GHG emissions. Specifically, [he County agreed [o add provisions promoting public transit u an addi[ional means of reducing Ihe ProjecPs GHG emissions. The County finds, based on substantial evidence in [he record, thaz Ihe mitigation measures adopted to address the ProjecPs traffic impac[s are adequate. 20) After the close of the public comment penod for the EIR, o~ cials from the Calaveras County Public Works and Planning Deparhnents made the following comments conceming the traffic mitigation fee that will be imposed as mitiga[ion and wnceming the EIR's anatysis of GHGs and relazed mitigation: a) On May 27, 200Q three officials 6om the Calaveraz CounTy Planning Deparlmen[ submitted a le[ter criticizing the mitigazion pmposed for the Projec['s V~ c impacts and GHG impacis. Because this comment was submitted to the County after the close of [hz public comment period, no response is required (Public Resources Code sec[ion 21091, subd. A)J Findings of Fac~: Exhibi~ A 21 ---PAGE BREAK--- General Plan Amendment and Zoning Change Bear Valley Village Nevertheless, on May 28, 2009, SWCA provided written responses [o the wncems raised by Mr. Garcia. Specifically. SCWA con6rmed [he adequacy of fee-based mi[iga[ ion for Project-related Vaffic impacts tha[ would occur in Calaveras County. SCWA also confimied the adequacy of Mi[igation Meuure CC-1. which addresses [he ProjecYs GHG emissions. After further discussions with officials from Calaveru CounTy and o[ her commen[ers, including CSERC and CalTtans, Alpine CounTy has modified Mitiga[ion Measures TC-2 and CGl to more fully miUgaze the PrqecYs haffic impac[s and GHG emissions. The County finds that the modifica[ion to [hese mitigazion measures adequa[ety addresses [he commenter's coocem. b) On Augus[ 27, 2009, an official from the Calaveras County Public Works Departmen[ submitted a letter statine that [he fee amoun[ should have been calcula[ed using Calaveras County's Road Impac[ Mi[igation IRIM) me[hodology This me[hod would resul[ in a traffic impac[ mitigation fee of 024, 000. Because [his comment was submitted to the CounTy after the close of the public commen[ period, no response is required. (Public Resources Code section 2I091, subd. 21( Nevertheless the CounN considered [his wmment, and [hose of CalTrans, when de[ermining whe[her the mi[iga[ ion meatures designed to address thz Projec['s [ raffic imput were adequate. While Ihe E[R did no[ find [hat the Project would cause a sigiifican[ impact [o SR-4 west of Angels Camp, Alpine County has agreed [o pay Calaveras County $750;744 [o usist in funding planned roadway improvements. The EIR describes how this fee was calculated, and explains why this amoun[ represents [he projecis' fair share towazds these improvements (DEIR, pp. 3.9- 27 v~ y+ 3.9- 29.) In additioq as noted above, [he County has participated in mee[iogs with agencies focusing on faio-shaze mi[igation for the SR 4 wrzidor. While the County believes Iha[ [he meuures se[ forth in the EIR are appropria[e, the CounTy is committed to wntinuing to participate in these discussions in hopes [hat a mutually acceptable approach can be identified. To [he ex[ent these discussions result in increased faio-share payments for improvements, [hese paymen[s will represen[ more [han the Projecl's fair shaze, and thus will pmvide fur[her assurance [hat the Project will con[ri6ute [o traffic improvemen[s alon~ this cortidor. 2l ) After Ihe close of the public comment period for [he EIR, Gloria Dralla made [he following comments conceming mitiga[ion to impacts associated with [hz use of snowmobiles, parking impacts, and wastewater impacts: a) On May 28. 2009, Ms. Dralla submitted commen[s criticizing the azialysis of impacts rela[ed to snowmobile use and [he associated sug~ ested mi[igation measures. Because this commen[ waz submitted ro the Counry~ after the close of [he public mmment period, no response is required (Wblic Resources Code section 21091, subd. Nevertheless, on luly 1, 2009, SWCA provided written responses [a the cancems raised by Ms. Dralla. Specifically, SCWA confirtned Ihe adequacy of the impact analysis and the suggested mitiga[ion for Pmject-rela[ ed snowmobile impacts. SCWA also confirmed the adequacy of Ihe Mitiga[ion Measure 7G5, which requires the Findings of Fact~. Exhibil A Z2 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- General Plan Amentlment and Zoning Change Bear Vallev Villaae projeR's objec[ives. In additioq Ihe defini[ion of feasibility encompasses desirabi]iTy [o the ex[en[ ffiat an agency's determination of inFeasibili[y represents a reasonable balancing of compe[ing economiq emironmen[al, social, and [echnological factors. The Board finds tha[ ihe range of altematives sNdied in [he EIR reflec[s a reasonable to identify and evaluate various types of altema[ives Ihat would potentially be capable of reducing the Beaz Valley Village projec['s envuonmen[al effects, while accomplishing mos[ bu[ not all of [he projec[ objectives. The Board fmds [ha[ [ he altema[ives analysis is sufficien[ [o infortn the Board and the public regarding the tradeoffs belween he degree ro which altematives ro the projec[ wuld reduce environmental impacts and [he cortesponding degree [o which [he altematives would hinder the applicanYs ability [o achieve its project objec[ives. The Draft EIR iden[i£ ed and compared environmental effects of the hvo attemaUVes described below wi[h emironmental impacts resulting fmm Ihe Bear Valley Village project. Based on substan[ial evidence in [he whole record of [hese proceedings, the Board finds [ha[ the hvo altematives listed below would no[ reduce any of the significan[ unavoidable impacts of the projec[ and would no[ mee[ Ihe project objec[ive of providing all- weather parking for Beaz Vallzy residenLS and guesis because the parkin~ would not be buil[ at Lots B and C. The full analysis of projec[ altematives, set forth in Chapter 6 of [he Draft EIR, is hereby incorporated by reference into this evalua[ion of altemazives.No Projecf Nternative Under the No Projec[ AI[ emative, Bear Valley Village I, LLC and Beaz Valley Village LLC would continue to devetop the project area wi[h lmid uses allowed under its curten[ mning. Findine: 'Ihe No Projec[ ernative would no[ reduce any of the significan[ unavoidable impacts of the project (as listed in Section X(C) above). Yjy~ This altema[ive would resul[ in similar environmental impac[s to [he projec[, wi[h the following excep[ions. The No Prqec[ Altema[ive would not include new foo-sale residen[ial or employee housing land uses in [he South Village. Unlike [he project, therefore, [his al[ ema[ ive would no[ result in significant unavoidable exterior noise levels a[ the proposed~South Village generated by the snowmobile pazking area behind [he' Iransportafion Center. This altemative, however, would s[ill exceed ffie CounTy's ex[erior noise threshold at the Sundowner Condominiums and some existing sin~le- Family homes within the subdivision, and therefore would no[ reduce Impac[ N-4 (as lis[ed in Section X(C) above) [o a less-[ han- significant level. This al[ emative would generate grea[er demand for wastewater disposal, wa[er supplv, and public services because more residenws would be added m Bear Valley. Because lhe South Viilage is not induded in this alremative, views of the South Village area would continue to include Pazking Lots B and C and would not alter the aestt~etics of the South Village project area. This alremative would include 63 percent more EDUs within VC-1 and VG2 [han the project. To accommodate [hese addi[ional units, [he buildings would have more mass than the project buildings and would be taller and/or have a larger footprin[ than [he buildings. Thzrefore, the efFect on the visual charac[er of central Bear Valfey would be more noticeable. This al[ emative would not include [he employee housing facility, an impoRant component of Ihe CounTy's overall s[ra[ egy tn ensure Beaz Valley has adequate employee housing for proposed and PoNre develnpment. Findings of Fact Exhibit A 24 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- General Plan Amendment and Zoning Change Bear Vallev Villaae No Village Lift Alternative In a letter submitted after the County certified the EIR, Shu[e, Mihaly & Weinberger uked the Comry ro analyze an altemazive that did not include the Village Lift. M analysis of [his altema[ive has been prepared ( See letter from Swtt Goebl, SWCA, to Brian Peters (November 9, 2009), pp. 19-25.) As set forth in [his analysis, the EIR did no[ need m analyze [he "No Village Lift" al[ emative becaue this al[ emafive dces not meet the project's basic objec[ives. Moreover, because the significan[ effects of the prqec[ do not arise as a result of the Villape Lifl, this altemaziveoffers no environmental advantages u compared to Ihe proposed Project ( Ibid.) This alremative would resul[ in reduced impacts [o biological resources, bu[ as atitiga[ed such impacts are less [han significant in any even[. Basis for ldentifying Environmentally Superior Alternative The EIR iden[ifies [he No South Village AI[ema[ ive as the environmentally superior altema[ive. ( DEIR, p. 6-ll- 6- 12. 1 This altema[ive would have ttie fewes[ environmental impacts compared to the Projec[ and would have no significan[ and unavoidable effecfs. Also, i[ could po[entially have environmental benefits. However, [he No Sou[h Village AI[ema[ ive would nol meet lhe Project objec[ive of pmviding all- weather parking for Bear Valley and guests. XI. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS A. INTRODUCTION CEQA recognizes Ihat in detertnining whe[her and how a prqec[ should be approved, a public agency has an obligation [o balance a variety of public objectives, including ewnomic, environmental, and social factors and in pazticular the goal of providing a decent home and sa[isfying living environment for every Califomian. An agency shall prepare a s[a[ ement of overtiding wnsiderations as described in CEQA (iuidelines sec[ion 15093 to reflect the ul[ imate balancing of mmpe[ing public objectives when [he agency decides [o approve a projec[ [ha[ will cause one or more significant effects on [he environmen[." ( CEQA Guidelines, § 15021, subd. see also Ciry of De7 eLlar v. Crry of San Diego (1982) 133 Cal.App3d 401; CEQA Guidelines, § 15093J A statement of ovetriding considerations sets forth the reuons why the agency finds [he projecYs specific economic, legal, social, tectmological, or other benefits° render "acceptable" its "unavoidable adverse environmental effects.° ( CEQA Guidelines, 15093, subd. I5043; subd see also Pub. Resources Code, ¢ 21081, subd. As ret fotth in the preceding sections, the Boazd's approval of the Bear Valley Village project will resul[ in significant adverse environmental efiecGS [hat canno[ be avoided even with [he adop[ion of all feasibie mitiga[ion meuures, and [here are no feasible projec[ al[ ema[ ives which would mitigate or substantially reduce [he impacts. Despite tkie occurtence of these effects, however, [he Board chooses to approve [he project because, in its view, the economic, social, and other benefits tha[ [he projec[ will prnduce will render the signi£cant effects acceptable. Findings of Fact Exhibi~ A 26 y ---PAGE BREAK--- General Plan Amentlment and Zoning Change Bear Valley Village The following statemen[ iden[ifies the reasons Ihat, in the Board's judgment, the beneFits of the Projec[ u approved ounveigh its unavoidable significan[ effects. My one of [hese reasons is su~ cient [o jus[ify approval of [he Projec[. Thus, even if a court were [o conclude Ihat no[ every reuon is suppor[ed by substantial evidence, [he Board would stand by its detertnina[ion tha[ each individual Ieason is sufficient. The subs[antial evidence supporting the various benefits can be found in the preceding findings, which aze incorpora[ed in[o this S[ azement by reference, and in he dowments idzntified for inclusion in the Record of Proceedings, as defined above. B. OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS The Bear Valley Village project provides an opportunity for the County to achieve a variety of important goals. My one of these reasons, discussed below, is sufficient to jus[ify approval of Ihe projec[. The 8oard finds [ha[ [ he Bear Vallzy Village projec[ will have the following benefits: The project will mee[ the goals and objectives of the Alpine County General Plan. The projec[ will genera~e a ne[ increase of 47,111 squaze feet of relail, ms[auranL and arneniTy space, which will generate approxima[ely 260 full time equivalen~ employees. The projec[ will generaie substantial increases in property taxes 6om the project site. Projec[ consWC[ion will generate a subs[an[ ial number of C. CONCLUSION The Board has balanced these benefits and considerazions against [he si~ nificant unavoidable emaonmental effects of the Project and has concluded that [he impacts are ounvzighed by these benefi[s, among others. After balancing emironmental cosis agains[ Projec[ benefits, the Boazd haz concluded [hat [he benefi[s [ o [he Counry and its residents ouhveigh the risks. The Board believes the Project benefits outlined above overtide the significant and unavoidable environmenial cos[s usocia[ed wi[h the Projec[. In sum, the Board adopts the mi[igation measures in the final Mitiga[ion Monitoring and Reporting Program, attached to and incorpora[ed by in the Findings of Fact, and finds Iha[ any residual or remaining effects on the envimnmen[ resulting from the Project, identified u significan[ and unavoidable in Ihe Findings of Fact, are acceptable due to the benefits se[ forth in [his S[a[ ement of Overriding Considerations. Findings ot Fact~. Exhibit A 27 ---PAGE BREAK--- General Plan AmenOment and Zoning Change Bear Vallev Villaae Exhibit A Bear Valley Village: General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment Final Environmental Impact Report Table of Significant Impacts, Mitigmion Measures, and CEQA Findings of Fact Significant Environmental Impa. Accessed October 2009. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007a. Climate Change 2007: Mitigation of Climote Change. Cambridge U~ iversity Press, Cambridge, U~ ited Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. Available: http:// www. ipcc.ch/ publications_and_ data/ publications_ ipcc_ fourth_ assessment report wg3_ repoR_ mi tigation of climate_change. htm>. Intergovemmental Panel on Climate Change. 2007b. IPCC Fourth Assessment Report. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NI', USA. Available: http:// www. ipcc.ch/ publications_and_ data/ publications_ and_ data_ reports.htm# IPCC. See Intergovemmental Panel on Climate Change. OPR. See Govemor's Office of Planning and Reseazch. Sacramento Meh~ opolitan Air Qualiry Management District. 2007 (August 15). Recommended Guidance for Land Use Emission Reductions (Version 2.4). Available: . Accessed October2009. Folk, Ellison. 2009 (September Attorney, Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP. San Francisco, CA. Letter to Greg Finch of Dundee Resort Development regazding mitigation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation for the impacts of the Bear Valley Village project on biological resources. AECOM Bear Valley Village Project Bear Valley Village I and II, LLC 10 Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan v~ ---PAGE BREAK--- Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP. 2009 (Septem6er). Memorandum regarding mitigation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigation for the impacts of the Bear Valley Village project on biological resources. San Francisco, CA. Letter memorandum from Ellison Folk to Greg Finch of Dundee Resort Development, Edwards, CO. r' SMAQMD. See Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. Urban Land Institute. 2007. Developing Sustarnable P[ anned Communities. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Department of Energy. 2009. Energy Staz Web site. Available: http:// www. Accessed October 2009. USGBC. See U.S. Green Building Council. U.S. Green Building CounciL 2009. Green Building Design and Construction. 2009 edition. Washington, DC. Bear Valley Village Project Greenhouse Gas Reduction Plan AECOM Bear Valley Village I and II, LLC ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- r ATTACHMENT 6 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA PACKET DECEMBER 10, 2009 BEAR VALLEY VILLAGE ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTATION ---PAGE BREAK--- ENVIRONM£NTAL CONSUITANTS Sossnd 5cience. Creative Solutions. August 13, 2009 5aacm¢roo OiSca 3840 R« in Court, Su»e 730 Sacromemb, U 9593-0 Tc141dSb5A356 Pax91b.565. Q75J wm... svm. cvrn Mr. Brian Peters, AICP Alpine Counry Community Development Director 50 Diamond Valley Road Markleeville, California 96120 Re: Response to Caltrans' Letter on the Bear Valley Village Final EIR Dear Mr. Peters: SWCA Environmental Consultants has reviewed Caltrans' May 29, 2009 letter on the Bear Valley Village Final EIR (letter attachedJ. We appreciate and take seriously CalTrans' expressed concerns regarding the environmental review document for the proposed Bear Valley Village (BV~. Based on the below responses, however, in our professional judgment, comments expressed by Caltrans do not affect the adequacy of the Final EIR; in porficular, they do not express concerns that warrant significant revisions to the Final EIR and, thus, do not present significant new information that would require recirculation of the EIR prior to certification. In its letter, CalTrans points out perceived inadequacies with the responses to comments concerning the Draft EIR. Because the responses to comments, viewed "as a whole[,] evince good faith and reasoned analysis" and "adequately serve the disclosure purpose which is central to the EIR process," the fact that, in certain respects, "the responses are not exhaustive or thorough," in CalTrans' opinion, is not fatal. (Twain Harfe Hameowners Assn. v. Coun~y of Tuolumne (1982) 138 Cal. App. 3d 664, 686 (Twain Harte).J Nevertheless, in order to provide as much information to the public and to the decision makers prior to their rendering a decision on the project, we respond to CalTrans' expressed concerns below. As a preliminary matter, we believe it is important to note that CEQA grants a lead agency broad discretion to determine the appropriate approach for analyzing a projecYs impacts. ( CEQA Guidelines, 15151, 15204, subd. The existence of competing methodologies and models does not invalidate the lead agency's approach. (Greenebaum v. City of Los Angeles (1984) 153 Cal.App. 3d 391, 412- ---PAGE BREAK--- Or++ ENYIkONMENTALCONSULTANiS e: t. Mr. Brian Peters Response to Caltrans Letter on the Bear Valley Village FEIR August 13, 2009 Page 2 413 (Greenebaum) [a public agency may rely upon the judgment of experts and disagreement among experfs is not a sufficient basis for invalidating an EIR].J As the County's assumptions were reasonable and supported by substantial evidence, the County is not required to accept CalTrans' or any other assumptions. (Association of Irritated Residents v. County of Madera (2003) 107 Cal.App. 4th 1383, 1392 (AIR).) We assigned numbers to each comment within Caltrans' letter that relates to the Draft or Final EIR. The responses below were numbered to correspond to each comment. For some of the responses, SWCA consulted with the applicant, the applicanYs traffic consultants (LSC Transportation Consultants), and the applicanYs counsel (Remy, Thomas, Moose and Manley LLP). Response C-8: In response to this comment, the applicant expressed a desire to reiterate that Bear Valley Village I, LLC and Bear Valley Village II, LLC (the project applicant) and the Bear Valley Mountain Resort BVMR; the ski area) are strong proponents of reduced traffic on SR 4, reduced day-skier parking demand at the ski area particularly on peak winter days), and the continued and expanded use of transit for visitors. The applicant and the ski area understand that fewer private vehicles driving to Bear Valley reduces traffic on SR 4, reduces vehicle emissions, reduces damage to the roadway system serving Bear Valley, and reduces the need to construct roadway improvements which can be costly and can have undesirable environmental consequences. Very importantly from a business perspective, reduced traffic on SR 4 and reduced day-skier parking demand) promote a smoother, more enjoyable visitor experience at the ski area and the proposed Village. In addition to reducing traffic congestion and parking demand, transit service that delivers day-skiers and other visitors directly to Bear Valley Village would increase patronage of Village businesses. To reduce vehicle trips on SR 4, BVMR currently operates an employee shutfle bus every day of the winter season. This bus carries staff 32 miles in each direction between BearValley and the mountain towns of Avery, Arnold, Dorrington, and Camp Connell. The bus is free for employees and can accommodate ---PAGE BREAK--- Mr. Brian Peters up to 60 passengers. The bus makes one or two round trips per day depending on employee needs. During the regular winter season the bus is mostly full on weekends, holidays, and when winter road conditions warrant vehicle restrictions. When ridership exceeds 60 passengers, an additional bus is now added to the route. In the off- season, BVMR offers car pool opportunities to its summer employees by allowing a company vehicle to be used when it carries four or more occupants. To reduce traffic on SR 4 and day-skier parking demand at the ski area and Bear Valley Village, the applicant and BVMR have expressed an ongoing commitment to expanding the use of the existing employee ski shuttle bus to transport day-guests from major residential areas such as Arnold in Calaveras County to Bear Valley in conjunction with the Calaveras Transit Ski Bus, or the existing employee bus service described below. The implementation and schedule of this shuttle bus would be driven by demand, which is subject to fluctuation. While the exact locations of potential transit stops have not been determined in the Village project, they would be conveniently located near the Village Center and pedestrian plazas (within walking distance of the Village Lift). At the ski area, the bus stop would likely remain at the front doors of the BVMR Day Lodge. The applicanYs commitment to facilitate transit services will be added as either conditions of approval or as a minor clarification to Mitigation Measures CC-1 (climate Change) and TC-5 (Parking) when ihe CEQA findings are prepared, prior to project approval. Response C-9: Response to Comment J-4 in the FEIR calculates the emissions generated by project vehicles traveling on SR 4 through Calaveras County and concludes that these emissions would be well below the thresholds of significance, resulting in a less-than- significant impact. With respect to the comment about preparing an air qualiiy conformity analysis for a passing lane, no passing lane is proposed by the applicant or required by the EIR; even if ---PAGE BREAK--- y`r+` it were, conformity analysis would be triggered only if federal funding was involved. Please see Response C- 12d for a discussion of the infeasibility of a passing lane. Response C- 10a: Master Response 3 of the EIR is correct in stating that the largest proportion of traffic generated by Bear Valley Village on regional roadways away from the immediate Bear Valley area will be generated by residents/guests arriving and departing from the region. As stated on Page 31 of the Traffic Study, the proposed project is expected to generate 3,309 one-way vehicle trips over the course of a busy winter day. As discussed on FEIR Page 32- 5, however, the project would increase employment in Bear Valley by approximately 256 full-time equivalent employee FTEE) positions during the peak visitation season. Using very conservative assumptions that: 1) each new FTEE position is composed of two half-time positions, 2) each of these employees would commute to Bear Valley on SR 4, and 3) none would use the existing employee shuttle bus system described in Response C-8, project employees would comprise about 15 percent of the trips generated by the Bear Valley Village project on peak winter days (256 FTEE x 2= 512 / 3, 309 - 0.15 - 15%). Most of the remaining trips would be generated by residents and guests of the proposed BW. It is important to note that the actual percentage of trips generated by new employees would be less than 15 percent. Response C- 106: Please refer to Response C-l Og for a discussion substantiating the fifth bullet of Master Response 3, which states that peak- hourly traffic volumes generated at BW will tend to disperse over the day, due to ihe long travel time (and distance) on SR 4 to and from SR 49. The expert opinion of consultants preparing the traHic study and traffic impact analysis constitutes substantial evidence supporting this conclusion. That CalTrans may disagree with the conclusion does not undermine its validiiy or the County's ability to rely on it. (Greenebaum, supra, 153 Cal.App. 3d at pp. 412-413.) r- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Mr. Brian Peters Response to Caltrans Letter on the Bear Valley Village FEIR August 13~ 9 Page 7 and areas. The aim was to focus on those portions of SR 4 where improvements would have the greatest benefit. Alpine and Calaveras Counties concluded that focusing on these areas was appropriate in light of existing planning efforts in Calaveras County to improve traffic along SR 4 in these communities. For the Arnold area, this mitigation package was developed based upon the extensive communiy input and transportation planning process documented in the Arnold Rural Livable Community-Based Mobility Plan (Arnold Plan). Forthe area, this mitigation package is developed based on the Circulation, Pedestrian, Bicycling and Parking Study Study), augmented by additional analysis of SR 4 roadway improvements. When preparing the EIR for the BW and in responding to comments, we reviewed the Arnold Plan and Study. These documents should therefore be considered part of the administrative record for this project. The EIR acknowledges that Caltrans' approval of the specific improvements listed in Mitigation Measure TC-2 is uncertain and that Alpine County will hold the collected funds in escrow until the improvements are approved by Caltrans District 10 and are programmed by Calaveras County (see FEIR pp. 3.9- 31 and 3.9- 32). The funding mechanism, therefore, provides Caltrans and Calaveras County the flexibility to apply the applicant's traffic mitigation fees to the specific SR 4 improvements Caltrans and Calaveras County determine to be most effective. Response C-l Of: Mitigation Measure TC-2 clearly describes the EIR's methodology for calculating the amount of money the applicant will be required to pay for SR 4 improvements in Calaveras County and is based on the proporfion of total traffic impacts associated with the project. Both the CEQA Guidelines and CEQA case law clearly recognize that fee-based infrastructure mitigation programs based on fair-share contributions, such as Mitigation Measure wr~r ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Mr. Brian Peters Response to Caltrans Letter on the Bear Valley Village FEIR ENViRONMENU~CONSUITANTS AUgUSt ~ 3, 2OO~J Page 9 that is "roughly proporfional." The methodology described in the EIR is a reasonable approach towards calculating the projecYs fair share. With respect to financial feasibility of mitigation measures, EIRs are only required to describe feasible measures which could minimize significant adverse impacts (CEQA Guidelines, § 15126.4, underline added). "Feasible" means "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and technological factors." (CEQA Guidelines, § 15364, underline added.) The traffic impact fee required in Mitigation Measure TC-2, although substantial, is economically feasible. As discussed in Mitigation Measure TC-2, however, funding an additional $5 million dollar passing lane, which is less than the $7 million dollars suggested by the commenter, would render the improvements infeasible. Therefore, the $7 million contribution for roadway improvements is also infeasible. Please see Response C- 12d for a discussion of the infeasibility of a passing lane. Calaveras County is a third party agency whose actions the County cannot control. The EIR, therefore, conservatively concludes that these cross-jurisdictional impacts in Calaveras County are significant and unavoidable, even after the identification of feasible mitigation. (FEIR, pp. 3.9- 31-3. 9- 32.) This approach is consistent with case law. (See Sacramento Old CilyAssociation v. Ci1y Council of Sacramento (1991) 229 Cal.App. 3d 101 1, 1028 (SOCA) [where the precise means of mitigating impacts is impractical at the time of project approval, the agency should commit itself to eventually working out such measures as can be feasibly devised, but treat the impacts in question as being significant at the time of project approval].) In approving the Projed, however, the County must make findings that these measures are within the "responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency (Calaveras County) and ---PAGE BREAK--- ENYIRONM£NTRL CONSULTANTS fi Mr. Brian Peters Response to Caltrans Letter on the Bear Valley Village FEIR August 13, 2009 Page 10 have been or can and should be adopted by such other agency." (See Pub. Resources Code, § 21081, su6d. CEQA Guidelines, § 15091, subd. Federation of Hillside & Canyon Associations v. Cify of Los Angeles (2000) 83 Cal.App. 4th 1252, 1260.) Based on the implementation of the "reasonable plan" for mitigation through Mitigation Measure TC-2, the conclusion that the County has adequately mitigated for impacts in Calaveras County, to the extent feasible is supported by substantial evidence. Response C-1 Og: The fifth bullet of Master Response 3 is correct in stating that peak-hourly traffic volumes generated at BW will tend to disperse over the day, due to the long travel time (and distance) on SR 4 to and from SR 49. As a general rule, traffic from a specific generator tends to dissipate over long distances because drivers praceed at varying speeds and make intermediate stops for fuel, meals, and other necessities. This behavior is particularly true for traffic generators that release a very high concentration of traffic in a shorf time span. Examples include concerts, sporting events, and ski days that end at a specific time. The tendency for peak traffic on SR 4 to dissipate over distance is reflected in the traHic count data. Based on Caltrans' traffic count data shown in Figure 6 of the traffic study, 26.6 percent of the daily westbound traffic on SR 4 on a busy winter Saturday in Dorrington was observed to occur in the peak hour. However, LSC traffic counts on westbound SR 4 on a busy winter Saturday in Arnold indicate that this proportion dropped to 21 .l percent, which represents a reduction of 20.7 percent. Although there is no available data to calculate the proportion of westbound Bear Valley drivers making intervening stops for fuel and meals along various sections of SR 4 before proceeding west out of Angels Camp, it is reasonable to assume that many ---PAGE BREAK--- Mr. Brian Peters n such stops do occur (and would continue to occur) for the following reasons. The ski day ends at 4 pm when the chair lifts close. Following an exerting day on the slopes, many of the skiers and snowboarders leaving Bear Valley will be hungry for dinner. Existing dining options in BearValley are somewhat limited and include Sky High Pizza and the Creekside Dining Room. Many more dining options are available along SR 4 in Arnold and The drive from Bear Valley to SR 49 takes just over an hour under favorable driving conditions, and longer during inclement winter weather and road conditions. It is reasonable to assume that many skiers and snowboarders will want to eat dinner within an hour of leaving Bear Vailey. It is also reasonable to assume that some drivers will require fuel and sanitary breaks within an hour of leaving Bear Valley. As mentioned in the traffic study, no reductions were taken to reflect either this dispersion over time of day or trips that terminate between Bear Valley and Angels Camp. This represents a conservative approach. It is also imporfant to note that Bear Valley Village's proposed restaurants, shops, and public plazas would increase dining, enterfainment, and relaxation options within BearValley, encouraging some guests to remain in Bear Valley to eat, shop, and relax, while allowing peak hour traffic to dissipate before beginning their westbound trip on SR 4. As a conservative approach, the Village's effect on peak-hour iraffic attenuation is not reflected in the traffic study. Figure 6 of the traffic study shows Caltrans hourly count information on westbound SR 4 at Dorrington is roughly 293 vehicles per hour in the 3 PM hour, 562 vehicles per hour in the 4 PM hour, 478 in the 5 PM hour, and 88 vehicles per hour in the b PM hour. Table 1 presents an evaluation of the reduction in peak traffic volumes associated with this westbound traffic at Dorrington, assuming that 20 percent of drivers stop for a 1- hour dinner in Bear Valley or along SR 4 before reaching Angels ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- fNYIRONMEtiTAR CONSUlTAN75 Table 1: Erample of Peak Tra~c Spreading Mr. Brian Peters Response to Caltrans Letter on the Bear Valley Village FEIR August 13, 2009 Page 13 Impact of 20% of Westbound Drivers at Dorrington Stopping for 1 Hour Between Dorrington and Resulting Angels Camp Westbound Volume Addition in of Traffic from Hour of Volume at Reduction in 1st Subsequent Dorrington atAngels Day Dorrington Hour Hour Camp 2:00 PM 196 39 3:00 PM 293 59 39 273 4'00 PM 562 112 59 509 5:00 PM 478 96 112 494 6:00 PM 88 18 96 166 Change in Peak Hour Volume 9% Source of Dorrington Counts: Caltrans, for Saturday, Feb 28, 2004. Assumes 20 percent of NB drivers stop and all WB drivers travel the entire distance. With respect to the geographic scope of the Bear Valley Village traffic study, it is also appropriate to consider standard traffic engineering practices with respect to the geographic extent of other traffic studies for similar projects. The BW traffic study considered roadway elements up to 45 miles from the project site. Expanding the area to SR 4/ Jack Tone Road would result in assessment of traffic on an intersection 87 miles from the project site. In comparison, the following is a summary of the maximum distance from the project site for similar mountain resorf development environmental documents completed in recent years. All of these projects are similar to the Bear Valley Village proposal in that they are accessed via limited mountainous state highways with existing seasonal traffic deficiencies. These study distances are substantially shorter than the study distance used in the Bear Valley Village EIR (45 miles) and those suggested by the commenter (87 miles). v~ ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ENYIRO!!M£ NTAi. CONSULTANTS Mr. Brian Peters Response to Caltrans Letter on the Bear Valley Village FEIR August 13, 2009 Page 17 Response C-13: The Camp Connell Cottage $prings) passing lane referenced by the commenter was included in the traffic analysis. This lane was in operation and was noted as part of the roadway data collection conducted in October 2007. All planned Caltrans projects were reviewed as part of the traffic study. While the Calaveras Widen Left Turn Project will improve traffic safety, it will not increase passing opportunities along SR 4, which is the key roadway geometric variable for roadway LOS. The Calaveras Widen Left Turn Project, therefore, does not affect the results of the traffic analysis. As discussed in Response C-l Of above, EIRs are only required to describe feasible mitigation measures. CEQA defines "feasible" as capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, and other factors. As discussed in Mitigation Measure TC-2, funding a$ 5 million dollar passing lane, which is less than the $7 million dollars suggested by the commenter, would renderthe improvements infeasible and is neither proposed by the applicant nor required by the EIR. Please see Response C-12d for a discussion of the infeasibility of funding ^ passing lane. The scope of the EIR traffic study was limited to SR 4 east of SR 49 because project-related traffic impacts outside that study area are expected to be less than significant. As discussed in Response C-l Og and Master Response 3, peak-hourly traffic volumes generated at Bear Valley Village will tend to disperse over the day, due to the long travel time (and distance) on SR 4 to ond from SR 49. Also discussed in Response C-l Og, the geographic scope of the Bear Valley Village traffic study 45 milesJ far exceeds the "state of the practice° with respect to the geographic extent of other traffic studies for similar projects up to 13 miles). Furthermore, because the project proponent will contribute fees to Calaveras County for the purpose of ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ENY3RONMENiXLCONSUITANTS Mr. Brian Peters Response to Caltrans Letter on the Bear Valley Village FEIR August 13, 2009 Page 19 While the comments in CalTrans' letter express disagreement with the EIR's analysis and conclusions, the County, as the lead agency for the BW project has discretion, when faced with conflicting expert opinion, to decide which opinion to rely on. (See, e.g., Browning-Ferris Industries v. City Council (1986) 181 Cal.App. 3d 852, 863 Browning-Ferris). J As the standard and methodology used in the EIR is supported by substantial evidence, Caltrans' opinions are in no way binding on the County. Greenebaum, supra, 153 Cal.App. 3d at pp. 412-413 [a public agency may rely upon the judgment of experts and disagreement among experts is not a sufficient basis for invalidating an EIR].) Under the substantial evidence standard, a reviewing courf would be required to defer to the County's decisions regarding the BW project, the traffic impact analysis, and mitigation measures when these decisions are supported by substantial evidence. (Laurel Heights I, supra, 47 Cal.3d at p. 409; Defend the Bay v. Ciry of Irvine (2004) 1 19 Cal. App. 4th 1261, 1265-1266; Del Mar Terrace Conservancy, Inc. v. City Council (1992) 10 Cal.App. 4th 721, 725.) It has been SWCA's sincere pleasure to assist Alpine County with this project. If we can be of further assistance, please let us know. Sincerely, f Scott Goebl EIR Project Manager Attachments: Caltrans Letter (May 29, 2009J Wells Fargo Letter (July 22, 2009) rr~ r~ ---PAGE BREAK--- STATLOFCALIFORNfA-BUSINE55 TRANSI'ORTALONANDHOUSINGAGENCY ARNQ~D~' HWARZE7JHGGER C DEPARTMENT OF TRAiVSPORTATION P.O. BOX 2048 STOCKTON, CA 95201 1976 E. CHARTER WAY/1976 E. DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING JR. BLVD. 95205) TTY: Califomia Relay Service (800) 735-2929 PHONE (209j 948•7112 FAX (209) 948-7164 May 29, 2009 Mr. Brian Peters Planning Director Alpine County Planning Departrnent 17300 State Highway 89 Markleeville, CA 96120 Dear Mr. Peters: 10- ALP- 4- PM 0.775 FEIR Bear Valley Village SCH # [PHONE REDACTED] Flex}eurpo~ rer! Be energ~~ e~ cienl! The Department of Transportation (Caltrans) appreciates the opportunity to review and comment upon the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the proposed Bear Valley Village. Caltrans twice commented upon the Draft Envirorunental Impact Report (November 3, 2008 and November 5, 2008). Responses C2 through C'7 and D2 through D7 are directed to comments provided by Traffic Operations. Traffic Operations has no additional comments upon the FEIR. Responses C-8 through C-12 in the FEIR address the concems that led to Caltrans' conclusion: Caltrans recommends that the DEIR be revised to address the inadequacies of the traffic study as its anaiysis may not minor actual impacts from the development, and a more intensive analysis ofthe competing traffic end circulation impact to SR-4 mitigations be studied 5 of In this response we will respond to these comments, and detail other deficiencies in the analysis performed. The concerns Planning addressed in the November 3, 2008 comment letter were primazily focused upon the TransportaGon and Circulation impacts as listed in Table ES-2, and lack of consh~ctive effort to undertake mitigation. Criticat among these is TG2 which is a significant and unavoidable impact after mitigation: SR-4 would operate at unacceptable LOS levels beiween Moran Road East and Moran Road West and between Big Meadows and Moran Road East. And TGl l which is a significant and unavoidable impact after mitigation: tiYr+' CalErons improves mobility across CaliJornia" ---PAGE BREAK--- Brian Peters Bear Valley Village FEIR May 29, 2008 Page 2 of 7 The project and other reasonably foreseeable projects would cause SR~ to operate at an unacceptable LOS in 2627. Comment C-8: Caltrans agrees with the first pazagraph of the response, but contends that the second paragraph does not line up with transportation planning goals in Calaveras County. Transit services would need to be provided either from the residential area of a significant concentration ofpopulation, orfrom an intercept location (such as Angels Camp). Caltrans notes that development of a multi-modal transit facility has been identified in the Calaveras County 2007 Regional Transportation Plan's Twenty Year Vision 103) associated with completion of the Angels Camp Bypass. The comment also identifies as likely users residents of the Central Valley or the Bay Area, which from Ca[trans perspective is more likely from the Bay Area given the differenflals in property value and wealth with the Ceniral Valley, and would suggest that that particular market niche would not be pazticularly indif£erent if a h~ ansit aiternative were available. The response in the third pazagraph indicates that transit solutions were not seriously considered as part ofpotential mitigaEion given our estitnate of what is the actual current cost {see below): As an example, the peak hour, peak direction traffic volume impact of Bear Valley Village is show in Table 22 of fhe Traffic Study to be 108 vehicle trips. If a transit service were to reduce fhe volume by, say, 20 percent, it would need to eliminate 22 vehicle-trips. At a typica! occupancy of 3.4 persons per vehicle for long distance recreational trips (per the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency's transportation model), this would require a transit service that would cury 75 passengers. This would be roughly eight times the ridership of the existing Calaveras Transit Ski Bus program. Therefore, a transit program would not serve as a feasibFe mifigation measure far the pro}ect' s traffic impacts. (p.26) There are a couple of flaws in determining the infeasibility of this option. As the Calaveras Transit Ski Bus ran on a wintertime basis of Fwo trips (one to Bear Valley arciving at 9:00, the other back, leaving at 4:15). The likely ridership would he for daily recreational use, not employee or resident travel. Given the likely size of the bus given the current ridership, one would not anticipate even that at ma~ cimum capacity would the run accommodate 75 riders. However, with rising demand and stable ridership, the number of bus runs would likely increase to where handling of 75 passengers or more can be accomplished vnilar to condilions at Mam~noYh Mountain). Such a soluUon would have to be negotiated with the appropriate local government entities (Calaveras County Public Works, Calaveras COG), but appropriate incentives for transit use to and from the village, as well as disincentives for travel by car {lack ofavailable pazking, surcharges on parking, etc.) , coald make this not only a feasible mitigation, but a preferred one. Comment C-9: our comment was meant to echo concems that should be addressed by local agencies, but hinted at a concem with air qualiiy. We note that commenf J-4, Calaveras COG does address the local issue with air quality. We wish to echo their concem. The proposed passing Iane mitigation, increases highway capacity, which would require confoimity analysis, if not considered in the air quality conformity analysis perfoimed far the most recent Regional Transportation Plan. Caltm~~a improirs mobiiiiy ocrross Cali/orttia° ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Brian Peters Bear Valley Village FEIR May 29, 2008 Page 4 of 7 The fifth bullet makes no sense. Without data, one can with equal validity make the alternative conjecture, that driver behavior will `cluster' the peak hour into higher volumes, and that the traffic study under estimates the peak hour, as those who stop in Arnold catch up to later departures; and that therefore the traffic study takes too liberal an approach. There is no clear evidence offered, other than possibly expert opinion, that recreationaI traffic behaves differently than commuter traffic (other than it occurs at different times in the week}, therefore there is no `facY illustrating that a conservative approach was taken (we note that comment VV-3 addressed this same language, but did not consider the lack oflogical coherence, but the lack of empirical justification}. Pazagraph2( page 2) indicates that taking into consideration alI the intersections between Angels Camp and Bear Valley on SR-4 " would increase exponentially the cost of the study without yielding meaningful additional information" Mitigation of envimnmentat impacts are closely allied with meeting CEQA's public disclosure intent (Inyo County v. Yorty 32 Cal. App. 3d 795). Only with full disclosure of alI lrnown environmental impacts can one then move on to address acceptable mitigation that may only partially attenuate a significant and unavoidable impact. IF cost ofassessing those unpacts is a concern, then the lead agency may need to reconsider the projecYs ability to progess further. Paragraph 3{ page 2) indicates that the cumulati~e conditions with or wifhout the project would require 28 miles of passing lane for mitigaGon; and that with the project an additional two miles of passing lane would be requit•ed. Caltrans would consider only conslruction of the two miles of passing lane to be an `opening day' impact, since throughout the traffic impact analysis moving from the present to the future does the proportional share diminish. Initially it is two out of 7.8 however Caltrans suspects that the Camp Connell passing lanes are not included (see below), so the ratio is more likely two out of six on opening day). Paragraph 1( page Caltrans acknowledges Uvs effort, and in consultadon with the Calaveras County Council of Govemments (CbG) defers the selecGon of a mitigation approach for impacts to the State Highway system in Calaveras County to that agency for this project. In our comments, we noted a competing mitigation interest that the COG might consider relative to transit. Our position is and was that we aze not persuaded that an apt mitigation has been offered, and would look for a more detailed analysis of how well vazions combined strategies may attenuate those impacts that are considered adverse and unavoidable that should be a component of the traffic study. The concern which Alpine County documents in their footnote is that their effort at consultation set out to select a solution not knowing the extent of the pxoblem, and did not follow through on that wnsultation after comments on the DEIR were received. If the direct mitigation cost, or the proportional share of the mitigation cost required exceeds that which a project is willing to budget, then the lead agency should reconsider if the project is financially viable or if future residents will fund future safety projects. From Caltrans perspective what is in dispute is the amount ofmoney and effort that the mitigation will require, as both nexus and proportionality have been established by the lead agency for t~ ose impacts discussed in the DEIR. However, it now appeazs that impacts beyond the study ea of the traffic study are likely. Bullets numbers two and three (mentioned above), identify a potential impact that was not disclosed under the DEIR should be considered. Our interpretation of bullet 2 is that trip assignments would have predicted traffic volumes sQlit to a 75% on State Route 4 at build out; and, that in bullet three, it is G10~ C-1~ C C-10~ C-1 de C-10f C- ~ Og ~ Caltrana imprauea n~ obiiity acrass Caii/a• nin" ---PAGE BREAK--- Brian Peters Bear Valley Village FEIR May 29, 2008 Page 5 af 7 reported that current traffic volumes in Copperopolis are lower than those for (5,000 compared to 9,800) The comparison being made is between a future project condition and current highway conditions, which is inappropriate. Far more near term development has been approved in the area of Calaveras County wesf ofAngels Camp, thaa has been approved eas[ ofAngels Camp. Since the proponent has not conducted any modeling of traffic impacts west of Angels Camp, this would be a deficiency in the traffic study, and should be incorporated into a revision. At fhe meeting held in Calaveras County after the Notice of Preparation was filed, Caltrans indicated that there were concerns with the extent of the area studied under the Traffic Impact Analysis, and that for purposes of public disclosure, more intersections should be analyzed under the traffic study. At that time the proponent allowed that overall contributions to traffic beyond the ~ a9 SR-4/ SR-49 intersection would be diluted to insignificattce, to which we assented. Sowever, the Cont'd disclosure that 75% of the future traffic generated will originate on SR-4 west ofAngels Camp was not provided, and would suggest there is a conhibution to cumulative traffic impacts to SR-4 in San Joaquin Covnty, specifically the intersecFions of SR-4 and Escalon-Bellota Road; and SR-4 and Jack Tone Road. Previously, Caftrans has directed development projects in the vicinity of Copperopolis (Oak Valley Ranch, Copper Mill, Sawmill Lake), to include consideration of their poteniial impacts to SR-4 in San Joaquin County in their Traffic Impact Studies; and directs the lead agency and the proponent to work with the San Joaquin Council of Govemments. Calfrans also directs the proponent to work with Calaveras Planning Department to calculate fhe overall contribufion to traffic thaF this project would have in addition to that already planned and approved in the Copperopolis azea. Comment C-11: The focus on this comment was to address the proportionality of the cumulative effect of the project to SR-4 east of Angels Camp, and fulfill criteria consistent with Dolan vs. ~ Tigard (i944), alkhough Caltrans has reservations regarding the method employed to obtain it. The response by the lead agency does not address this point, and is better considered as a response to Comment C-l2. Comment C-12: The only proposed mitigation effort for traffic and circulation impacts in Calaveras County is to contribute traffic mifigation fees, which are by the lead agency's calculation based upon a proportional impact. That calculation is based in part by the Road Impact Mitigation fee program, and the supporting nexus study to characterize cumulative impacts and funding priorities. To Caltrans understanding, cumulafive impacts can only occur in those portions of the county subject to development, and may be weighed to address the proposed priority project in the 2a area. No projects on SR-4 east of Angels Camp ace identified within the Road Impact Mitigation fee (RIM) pmgram that may fulfill the necessary nexus underlying the tr~ c impact. Therefore it would be erroneous to underwrite any of the proposed project's impact using the ffiM pLOgram, as it could not and it should not be calculated as part oFthe fee schedule, since the cost of the projecYs impact and subsequent mitigation is not factored into the fee scbedule. We also note that in describing the Alpine County Regional Transportation Plan, there is an objective and policy: G12b 5.3. 1.E Consriuct passing lanes on SR 4 to improve safety and circulation. Calfrm~a improvea mvbiiiEy ac+ oss CaPi/ornio° ---PAGE BREAK--- Brian Peters Bear Valley Village FBIR May 29, 2008 Page 6 of 7 Policy: The County supports the of a passing lane on SR-4 6etween Arnold in Calavei~as County, and Bear Valley in Westem Alpine County, as its second highest priority C i Zb This policy statement is the only direction stating a need for passing lanes cited, and is out of date. ~arYd Passing lanes were constructed by Caltrans in 2006 near Cottage Springs (EA 10- 444804), and fundedt} urough the Tri County MOU. CaFtrans can only suppose that this improvement was not considered in the traffic study; and coul@ further affect the findings. Efforts to address the operational deficiencies on SR-4 have been primarily programmed through the State. The proposed project will adversely affect those state priorities on SR-4. No consideration in the Tr~c Study is given to fhe piojects programmed by Caltrans within the affected traffic study area. The Calaveras Widen Left Tum Pmject (EA 10- OFA201) was in the G12c PS&E stage, and was anticipated to be `Headquarters Advertise' on Apri122, 2009. The project is a Non-Capacity Increasing Operational Improvement (program code 02.01. 210.310), and will likely go ta construction with in the next two yeazs. Caltrans concurred with the proponent that the proposed project should be responsible for funding two miles of the proposed 28 miles of future passing lanes {C-11), but considers this feasible mitigation. Caltrans understood this to reflect the proponenYs rough proportion of the total mitigation required in line with the decision in Dolan vs. Tigazd, and in no way concurs with the subsequent calculation provided or corrected. Additionally, our position in regards that as the proponent is the first developer in, that this should be considered as aa opening day mitigation- that the developer should fund the PSR and subsequent construction of two miles ofpassing lane, or provide funding for this mitigation or equivalently apt mitigation by opening day. Comparable construction on Stete Route 88 (Cook's and Ham's Passing Lane) incurred 500, 000 in support costs, and 100, 000 million in construction costs. Since tFie project built 1.6 miles ofpassing lanes, the potential cost of a 2.0 mile passing lane project should be somewhat higher. Further given the greater topographic variability and constraint along SR-4 compared to the ridge where G12d Cooks and Hams Stations az~e located, there may be considerable escalation of construction cost. This mitigation cost is considerably higher that the proposed $750,Q00 (see Woodwazd Pazk Homeowners Association Inc vs. City of Fresno (2007) 150 CaLAppA~h 683), and does not consider potential costs associated with Air Quality Conformity analysis or mitigating impacts other than TG2 and TC-ll, such as mitigafing impacts in San doaquin County. Whether the use of the term feasible was being confused with reasonable is anotk~er question. Feasibiliry under CEQA means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social, and technological factors.; reasonable refers to how wst efficient the proposal is. As an example, what would likely render the previous transit proposition unfeasible would be if Calaveras County had no transit service, but service provided on a par[icular run, even if discontinued due to low ridership, would not rise to that standard. Underwriting such might be unreasonable if the mitigation effort were limited to a lump sum payment of $750,000 as is being proposed, but woutd not be if the lump sum were equivalent to 000, 000. Additionally, no monetary amount can be attached to developing appropriate incentives and disincentives since these can be built into the development's covenants, codes, and restricGons. improues mobi7ilyacross ColiJornia" ---PAGE BREAK--- Brian Peters Bear Valley Village FEIR May 29, 2008 Page 7 of 7 wrr It is witha~$ 7, 000,000 traffic and circulation mitigation ouflay, that a more considered traffic analysis should be done. Approp~iate selection of locations for passing lanes may avoid impacting the Ebbett's Pass Scenic Corridor; a combination of one miie of passing C- 12d lane, along wiih a sfrong tiansit emphasis by the developer; or a combination of a mile of passing lane with the proposed improvements to Arnold and Comment G13: Stemming from the site's traffic modeling, the inputs to the traf~'ic and mitigation analyses were out of date--they failed to consider the passing lanes installed at Camp Connell; and, they do not consider operational improvement from the programmed left turn installation in Arnold. Passing lanes were defined as "financially infeasible and their consequences may also be environmentally undesirable." 3.9- 37), which within an area of roughly 84 mile of lanes (of which only three miles have passing lanes) seems an overgenera(ization, as there would certainly appear to be other sites; and cost alone should G13 not be a consideration when assessing mitigation for a direct impact of a project. The extent of analysis failed to consider how the 75% trip distribution via State Route 4 west ofAngels Camp may contribute to impacts in the Copperopolis area or in San Joaquia County. The proposal to increase passing lanes could conceptually lead to greater highway safety issues despite best design, and should be considered against other solutions {such as transit and traffic calming) which may minimize these risks. Based on these considerations, a traffic study would need to be redone, and a revised Draft EIR circulated. If you have any questions or would like to discuss our comments in more detail, please contact Michael Robinson at (209) 948-7575 mail: Michael robinson(cr~ dot.ca. eovl or me at {209) 948- 7112. c: State Cleazing House CaIaveras COG Calaveras County Planning Calavecas County Public Works Calirats imp~ro~~ es mobi7ily ac~ ross Caii/ornia" Office of Rural Planning & Administration ---PAGE BREAK--- Wells Fargo Busineu 8anking MAC C7476~07 t 2d5 Chapei Place, BIdg.C PO 8oz 6494 Avon,CO Sib20 970 7- 08- 4900 Welh Farc~o Ban4,N. 0. Ju1y 22, 2O~9 Greg Finch Dundee Resort llevei~p~ nent 225 [~1ain Street. Suitr 03 Ed~~ ards, CO R 1632 Re: Sear Valley Village Dear Mc. Finch: Over the past Cwo years, you have kept us infonvecl about th~ pcogress you are ~naking on your Bear Valley proj~cC. In response to your inquiry about f~ aisibility af finaucing, it is in~ portant for me te~ com~nent on soine recent de~ el~~ meeEts in ce~ ard to the California Department of "Transportation (Caltrans) opinion on portioi~s of the enviro~mlental impact report (I IR1 prepared for tl~e proposed Bear Valley Village and ti9ouutain Resort pz•oject. 5ince C'altrans is stating tl~ at the project should - nn beCor~; caper~in~ cl3y - funci $7 millinn in additionai roadtivay improvements fix Fwr~ 7oses ul' constru~ ting tuo miles of passing lanes on State Route {SR)-4, this wonld Gkel3= have in~ paet on futw•e financing dependine on how these improvements ould be funcled. The additional cost~s proposed by Caltrans considea~ing eFie already elevated project costs arising frorn the isolated location of Bear Valley; the costs of infra;. tructure including roads, ivastewat~r, sew~er and electric in Alpine oimty, and tl~ e- ~ uitigation measures inclucled in tlie EIR equate to substantial costs to the prc~jes: t ti~; lrn~~ ieopardir.e future bank financing. As ~ m°e conhast tlie baselit~e investment projectecl ith tui a~ ditit~ tial $ 7, 00( l, OfJO in road iinprovement cost for purposes of constructing additionai passing lanes witb other prnjects with which we har•e been heavily involved ~cith you, it is apparent this project could be at a significant competitive disadvantage. 1t is our understanding that the project may be wiable to move~ forward ~vithout our financial backing. At this time, we are not in a positio~i to entertain lmancing an additional $7 milliov over and above the costs alrcady anticipai:eci for tl~ e projeet. It u~ ould seein difficult for any financial institution in our current en~~ ironment to pursue ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ENY180NM{NTALCONSUL7ANTS Sound Science. Creative Solutions. November 12, 2009 1422 Monterey Street, Suite C200 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805.543. 7095 Mr. Brian Peters, AICP Alpine County Community Development Director 50 Diamond Valley Road Markleeville, California 96120 Re: Response to CSERC and Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger Letters on the Bear Valley Village Final EIR Dear Mr. Peters: SWCA Environmental Consultants has reviewed CSERC's June 26, 2009 letter and Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP's August 11, 2009 letter on the Bear Valley Village Environmental Impact Report (EIR; letters attached). Based on the below responses, in our professional judgment, comments expressed by these parties do not affect the adequacy of the EIR; in particular, they do not express concerns that warrant significant revisions to the EIR and, thus, do not present significant new information that would require recirculation of the EIR prior to considering whether to approve the project. We assigned numbers to each comment within the two letters that relate to the EIR. The responses below were numbered to correspond to each comment. For some of the responses, SWCA consulted with the applicant, the applicanYs traffic consultant (LSC Transportation Consultants), and the applicanYs counsel (Remy, Thomas, Moose and Manley LLP). Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center Response CS-1: This comment generally centers on the EIR's analysis and conclusions of two issues related to construction of the proposed Village Lift and ---PAGE BREAK--- ENVIAONMENTXICONSULTANTS Mr. Brian Peters Response to CSERC and Shute, Mihaly on the Bear Valley Village FEIR November 12, 2009 Page 2 the new or modified ski runs returning to Bear Valley. The first issue is whether the vegetation removal needed to construct these project features would significantly impact wildlife habitat. The second issue is whether construction of these project features would significantly impact denning habitat for Pacific fisher or American marten. As discussed below, the EIR evaluates both issues. Habitat Removal With respect to the acreage of habitat that would be removed for the Village Lift and return ski runs, this comment letter incorrectly uses the quantity of 65 acres. As discussed in Impact BR-1 (FEIR page 3.6- 18), the project would remove approximately 25 acres of conifer forest and chaparral and a minor amount of montane meadow associated with the Village, Village Lift alignment, snowmobile parking area, and SR 4 improvements and less than 40 acres of conifer and shrub habitats associated with the ski runs and trailer loading area. The EIR's figure of 65 acres, therefore, is the maximum amount of habitat to be removed for all project components. Page 2 of CSERC's comment letter states, "the project development proposed within the existing town boundary of Bear Valley will admittedly not eliminate high quality habitat for any of the four species of furbearers listed above." As shown in EIR Figure 3.6- 1 ( Habitats in Project Area), all the lodgepole pine forest and much of the mixed conifer/huckleberry oak vegetation communities are located within the existing town boundary of Bear Valley. Based on the affected habitat acreages listed on Table 3.6- 4, impacts to these two vegetation communities within the town of Bear Valley total about 10 acres. The maximum amount of habitat to be removed outside the town of Bear Valley, therefore, is closer to 55 acres. It is important to understand that these 55 acres of habitat are not all healthy habitat; some of it is diseased as discussed on EIR page 3.6- 19. Impact BR-1 describes the factual basis for the EIR's conclusion that impacts to conifer forest, chaparral, oak woodlands, and montane meadow in the project area would be less than significant. These facts include the following: rr ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- NYIROt2MENTAL COHSULTANTS Mr. Brian Peters Response to CSERC and Shute, Mihaly on the Bear Valley Village FEIR November 12, 2009 Page 4 territories, though they are highly sensitive to human disturbance and are unlikely to den within the project area. Impact BR-4, therefore, concludes that the project would not affect breeding habitat or primary foraging habitat for these species. Impact BR-4 also clarifies that the Pacific fisher maintains large territories, and the project area would result in impacts to a small percentage of the species' potential local territory. For these reasons, the EIR concludes that the disturbance created by construction and continued use of project facilities would not substantially affect the Pacific fisher's or American marten's use of nearby habitats if present, and would result in a less-than- significant impact. Neither individual marten or fisher nor any evidence of their dens were observed during reconnaissance level surveys of the Village Lift alignment or within the Bear Valley Village project area. CSREC's comment letter also does not provide evidence that these species den within the project area. The comment letter only provides a photograph of martens that, according to the commenter, is not located within the project area. However, SWCA understands the County and applicant wish to proceed with an abundance of caution to ensure construction activities do not disturb individual marten or fisher that might den within the portions of the Village Lift alignment, or the return ski runs located on CounTy open space, BVRI controlled common areas, and private land outside USFS land. To ensure no harm to these species during construction of the portions of the ski lift or the return ski runs outside USFS land, SWCA understands that County staff will recommend the following protective measures be required as conditions of any County approvals for the Village Lift and return ski runs. Such measures are not recommended for the Bear Valley Village portion of the project because marten and fisher are extremely unlikely to den within the town of Bear Valley. 1. If trees or vegetation that provide potential denning habitat for the marten or fisher will be removed during the denning season, then project applicant shall retain a qualified biologist approved by the County to ---PAGE BREAK--- F; conduct focused preconstruction surveys for active dens of martens and fishers. These surveys shall be conducted within 30 days of the onset of each construction phase of the project, initiated during or extending into the denning season. Such preconstruction surveys for adive dens of martens and fishers shall be conducted within 500 feet of active construction areas within the Bear Valley Village project area, including the ski lift line and return ski run areas as they cross non-USFS land. If an active den for either species is located during the preconstruction surveys, then the applicant shall notify the County. Construction shall be delayed within a 1/a mile of the den to avoid disturbance until the den is no longer active. The mile-buffer may be reduced through consultation with the County and the qualified biologist if the County determines that, based on site specific conditions, a lesser buffer will still protect the active den from disturbance from construction activities. The County may consult with California Department of Fish and Game (DFG) and/or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in implementing these requirements. 2. The Bear Valley Mountain Resort (ski area) is seeking approval to construct ski runs on USfS lands which will cross County land. In conjunction with that license, USFS is developing appropriate conditions to address active marten/fisher dens. In the event USfS adopts additional or more stringent measures in connection with its approval of ski runs on USFS land, those measures shall also apply to all project-related construction activities located on land within Countyjurisdiction. These measures would provide further assurance that impacts to the marten and fisher will be less than significant. With respect to California wolverine and Sierra Nevada red fox, the EIR concludes that existing human activity in the vicinity makes the presence of these species unlikely within the project area (FEIR page 3.6- 16). ---PAGE BREAK--- ENYIRONM£NTXL CqNSU~TAN75 Mr. Brian Peters Response to CSERC and Shute, Mihaly on the Bear Valley Village FEIR November 12, 2009 Page 6 Response ~S-2: Impact TC-2 ( FEIR page 3.9- 27) discloses the percent increase of peak hour trips that would be generated by the project. Tables 3.9- 10 and 3.9- 27 show that the number of eastbound and westbound vehicle trips generated by the project during the a.m. peak hour would total 99 trips and the number of eastbound and westbound vehicle trips generated by the project during the p.m. peak hour would total 164 trips. The term "peak hour" refers to the hour of the day with the highest traffic volume. By definition, traffic volumes during other hours of the day would be Iower. Impact BR-8 (FEIR page 3.6- 31) evaluates highway mortality impacts on deer, disclosing that the project would result in increased traffic along SR 4, which may cause an increase in the number of vehicle collisions with mule deer. The EIR also concludes that the project is expected to see the greatest traffic increases in mid- summer (June through Labor Day weekend) and winter (December through February) months. These months represent relatively low periods for traffic collisions with deer because they remain close to summer and winter ranges, respectively, during these periods. Therefore, increased traffic collisions due to project implementation are unlikely to result in a substantial adverse impact to mule deer; traffic-related impacts would be less than significant. This comment includes anecdotes about fisher highway mortality in Yosemite National Park, but does not include supporting documentation or substantial evidence that the project would cause fisher highway mortality. Response CS-3: The project is not expected to substantially increase the number of free-ranging pets, including dogs. The project would include new condominium-style lodging units, not single-family homes. In addition, very few of these units are expected to be occupied permanently. Most owners or guests would use the units for relatively short periods of time weekends and holiday periods) and many would be expected to leave their dogs and other pets at home. The owners or guests choosing to bring their pets would not be expected to let them range freely, especially in locations where they would encounter fisher ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ENVIRONMENThI CONSUlUNTS Mr. Brian Peters Response to CSERC and Shute, Mihaly on the Bear Valley Village FEIR November 12, 2009 Page 9 EIR Table 2-2 provides a very accurate description of the amount of greding and tree removal that would be needed. Specifically, Table 2-2 says: The Beginner Ski-Way (Cinch Trail) would require less than 0.05 acre of grading and removal of about 30 to 40 trees within a 3.3- acre portion of USFS land. No tree removal or grading is expeded for the East Bowl tree skiing area. Schoolhouse Ridge and Apple Bonkers would require minimal grading (if any) and would include removal of a combined total of 1,700 trees. Apple Bonkers would return to Bear Valley via the BVRI Common Areas between Lots 314 and 315 and Lots 319 and 322. Some trail improvements would be needed for the existing Home Run and Lunch Run, including a new bridge crossing a drainage, 8.8 acres of selective tree removal, and approximately 0.3 acre of grading. Snowshoe Traverse would cross a short stretch of private property between USFS land and Snowshoe Road. This run would include a new bridge crossing a drainage, with a total disturbance area of less than 1 acre. The description of these ski runs provides sufficient information to allow an intelligent evaluation of the potential impacts of the proposed ski runs, including impacts to biological resources as described in Section 3.6 of the EIR. It is important to note that this comment makes assertions about the EIR's ability to adequately evaluate project impacts based on the ski run descriptions, but does not provide substantial evidence to refute the analysis and conclusions of the EIR, which are based on substantial evidence. With respect to the locations of wetlands and streams within the mapped alignments of the return ski runs, the USFS' environmental consultant recently provided SWCA with a map showing the locations of streams and wetlands in the vicinity of the return ski runs and the larger Bear Valley area (the map is shown below with stream crossing locations added by SWCA). This map provides more ---PAGE BREAK--- lrr NYIRONMENTXt CONSULTANT$ Mr. Brian Peters Response to CSERC and Shute, Mihaly on the Bear Valley Village FEIR November 12, 2009 Page 10 precise information about ski run stream crossings and is consistent with the EIR's analysis and conclusions. Impact BR-2 (EIR page 3.6- 21) concluded that direct and indirect impacts tojurisdictional waters could result in a net loss of wetlands and a loss of the aquatic functions and values provided by the wetlands and drainages, which would be a significant impact. Mitigation Measure BR-2b includes wetland mitigation requirements that would achieve no net loss of functions and values. ---PAGE BREAK--- ENVIRONMENTY~1 CONSU~TANTS Mr. Brian Peters Response to CSERC and Shute, Mihaly on the Bear Valley Village FEIR November 12, 2009 Page 11 As discussed in EIR Section 42.2 (page 4-3), the ski area is currently in the process of requesting modification of its USFS Special Use Permit (SUP) to allow several ski area improvements. In addition to the Village Lift and return ski runs that are included in the project, the ski area is also proposing a new restaurant and day lodge at the top of the mountain, expansion and remodel of the existing Approximate Locations of Stream Crossings for Return Ski Runs red ovals). Source: SE Group 2007; SWCA 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 3 ENVIRONMENTAI iONSt7LTANTS Mr. Brian Peters Response to CSERC and Shute, Mihaly on the Bear Valley Village FEIR November 12, 2009 Page 13 Response SMW-3: The meeting facility mentioned on EIR page 2-16 would be located at the proposed Pool House. The EIR evaluates the site development impacts of the meeting facility as part of the Pool House and the land use impacts were evaluated as part of the analysis of non- residential uses amenity space). The traffic related impacts were evaluated as amenity space adjunct to the residential units. The trip generation analysis prepared by LSC Transportation Consultants, Inc. to serve as the basis for their Bear Valley Traffic Impact Analysis EIR Appendix G) uses the trip generation rate for "hotel" land uses for the proposed residential units rather than the "multi-family residential- condominium-townhouse" rate. The Institute of Tronsportotion fngineers (ITE) Trip Generation (8`h Edition) rate for daily "hotel" trips is 10.5 trips/unit, which is nearly twice the daily rate for "multi-family residential-condominium- townhouse" land uses (5.81 trips/unit). Relevant to the comment about meeting facilities, ITE Trip Generation describes the hotel land use as a place of lodging that provide sleeping accommodations and supporting facilities such as restaurants, cocktail lounges, meeting and banquet rooms or convention facilities, limited recreational facilities and/or retail and service shops. Therefore the trips that would be generated by a meeting facility are included in the trip generation for the proposed lodging units. It is reasonable to assume that many of the proposed lodging units, including the lock-off units, would be available for rent and that meeting facility users would rent these units for sleeping accommodations, especially given that the Bear Valley Lodge (Bear Valley's only hotel) would no longer be in use. Response SMW-4: As discussed in Response SMW-14 below, the Regional Water Quality Control Board is requiring Bear Valley Water Distrid (BVWD) to provide tertiary treatment for discharge to Bloods Creek regardless of whether the Bear Valley Village project is approved or constructed. Similarly, if BVWD must continue land disposal of treated wastewater after expiration of the USFS ---PAGE BREAK--- ENVI80NMENThL CONSOLTAMtS Mr. Brian Peters Response to CSERC and Shute, Mihaly on the Bear Valley Village FEIR November 12, 2009 Page 14 SUPs and if the SUPs are not renewed, BVWD would need to find appropriate non-USFS land for land disposal regardless of whether the Bear Valley Village project is approved or construded. Therefore, future projects undertaken by BVWD to provide tertiary treatment or to continue land disposal of its treated wastewater are independent of, and not a contemplated future part of, the Bear Valley Village project and need not be evaluated in this EIR. Response SMW-5: Non-winter use of the Village Lift is not reasonably foreseeable. Contrary to the commenter's assertion, the EIR does not state or suggest that the Village Lift would be used during the summer. Rather, EIR page 3.13- 2 states: Summer use of the Villape Lifr is not proposed. The ski area has expressed a desire to use the Vi!( age Lift during the summer for mountain bike, hiking, and sight-seeing access at some point in the future. This wou(d require prior approval and environmenta( review by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and modification of the ski area's specia( use permit to ow use of the Vi(( age Lift for these purposes. Because summer use of the Vi(lage Lift is not proposed, impacts related to summer use are not eva(uated in the EIR underline addedJ. Response SMW-6: As stated on EIR page 2-39, construction staging would be located on disturbed sites on applicant-owned land. Stockpiling and staging would be identified in improvement plans submitted to the County for review and approval. Mitigation Measure HWQ-1 requires the applicant to implement substantial protective measures to ensure impacts from construction activities are less than significant. For example, this mitigation measure requires County Public Works Department approval of all construction staging plans for each phase of construction. Mitigation Measure HWQ-1 also requires the applicant to develop and implement Best Management Practices to proted water quality, creeks, ---PAGE BREAK--- ENYiAONMENTAl CpNSULTANTS Mr. Brian Peters Response to CSERC and Shute, Mihaly on the Bear Valley Village FEIR November 12, 2009 Page 15 wetlands, and other resources. This mitigation measure lists a variety of feasible methods for protecting these resources. Response SMW-7: Mitigation Measure AQ-2a includes measures to control airborne particulates including asbestos that may be encountered during demolition of the Bear Valley Lodge. This measure states: Reasonab(e precautions shal! be taken to prevent visible particu(ate matter from being airborne, under norma( wind conditions, beyond the properry from which the emission originates. Reasonab(e precautions include, but are not (imited to: Use, where possible, of water or chemicals for contro( of dust in the demo(ition of existing bui(dings or structures, construction operations, the grading of roads, or the cfearing of land,• In addition, the project must comply with National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants: Asbestos (NESHAP), which the Great Basin Unified Air Pollution Control District (GBUAPCD) has adopted as Rule 1002. This rule will ensure proper removal and disposal techniques are followed if any asbestos is encountered during demolition of the Bear Valley Lodge. Response SMW-8: The EIR adequately evaluates the impacts of operating a temporary concrete batch plant. Impad N-1 discusses noise impacts from batch plant operations, and Mitigation Measure N-16 requires the applicant to locate portable but temporarily fixed construction equipment (such as temporary batch plants, compressors, and generators) as far from existing residences as possible. This mitigation measure requires CounTy approval of the batch plant location. Impact AQ-2 discusses the air quality impacts from batch plant operations, and Mitigation Measure AQ-2b requires the applicant to implement the mitigation measures recommended by the California Stormwater Best Monogement Proctices Hondbook to reduce short-term construction emissions from the temporary batch plant. Mitigation Measure HWQ-1 requires the applicant to develop and ---PAGE BREAK--- ENYIRONMENTAt CONSULTAN?5 Mr. Brian Peters Response to CSERC and Shute, Mihaly on the Bear Valley Village FEIR November 12, 2009 Page 16 implement a suite of construction BMPs that would protect water quality during construction activities, including batch plant operetion. Response SMW-9: As discussed in Response SMW-1, the ski area's proposal to construct a new restaurant and day lodge at the top of the mountain, expand and remodel the existing day lodge, build additional parking, replace the existing Super Cub chair lift, and widen or regrade several existing ski runs are neither part of the applicant's proposed project nor are they connected actions. Although the Village Lift, ski runs returning to Bear Valley, and the rest of the Bear Valley Village project are complementary to the other proposed ski area improvements, they are not functionally interdependent. Please see the attached letter from the ski area to the County addressing this issue (dated August 25, 2009). These other ski area improvements are considered related projects for the EIR's cumulative impact analyses in Chapter 4. Also discussed in Response SMW-1, the USFS recently informed SWCA that it no longer considers the new or modified ski runs returning to Bear Valley to be connected actions with the Village Lift (or the Village) because the shuttle bus would continue to transport skiers and snowboarders from the base of these runs to the ski area regardless of whether the Village lift is approved and built. Resoonse SMW-10: The EIR evaluates the impacts of constructing the proposed new sewer lines to serve the project; however, it is not yet known whether the existing 8- inch pipelines within Bear Valley Road and Creekside Drive would need to be replaced to provide sufficient capacity to serve the project. As stated in EIR Section 2.5. 9 ( page 2-31 of the DEIR and page 2-35 of the FEIR): The project wou(d include constructlon of new sewer co(( ection lines and abandonment or removal of some existing llnes (Figure 2-10). New sewer fnes wou(d be located primarily within road rights-of- way or within the project area. One new sewer (ine serving the North Vi(lage, however, may need to cross Bear Creek west of the project area. Existing (ines to be bypassed would be abandoned in place or removed. r ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ENYI% ONMENTh1 Mr. Brian Peters Response to CSERC and Shute, Mihaly on the Bear Valley Village FEIR November 12, 2009 Page 18 evaluated under CEQA, and be required to adopt feasible mitigation measures for any significant impacts." The potential impacts of replacing sewer lines within existing County roads would be related to construction activities and could include discharge of pollutants intc drainages; impacts to unknown cultural resources; air pollutant emissions from construction equipment; construction noise; and construction impacts on traffic circulation and public parking capacity. As discussed above, the EIR evaluates all these impacts tor the applicanYs proposed sewer line improvements. Therefore, it is conceivable that BVWD would be able to rely on some (or all) of this EIR's environmental analysis for its CEQA evaluation of sewer line improvements, including possible sewer line replacement within Bear Valley Road and Creekside Drive. Response SMW-11: EIR Section 53.1 (page 5-6) describes the methodology for determining the projecYs greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and describes how all emission sources were included in the calculations. EIR Technical Appendix I( Air Quality Modeling) lists all C02 emission sources and the estimated vehicle miles traveled (VMT). Please also refer to the "Notes and Reference" section of the Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Calculations" sheet in Appendix I for cross- references to the formulae and emission factors from the California Climate Action Registry Report Protocol 2006 that were used for this GHG analysis. Response SMW-12: The project's primary source of black carbon would be diesel exhaust from heavy construction equipment that would be used primarily during the summer construction season. Diesel particulate emitted by the equipment would dissipate into the air and settle out some distance away, potentially on any snow remaining in the project vicinity. This carbon black deposition would cause the snow to melt more quickly than otherwise and would alter the albedo the fraction of solar energy reflected back into space) of the ground surface where it settles. ---PAGE BREAK--- ENYIRONM£NThL CONSU~TANTS Mr. Brian Peters Response to CSERC and Shute, Mihaly on the Bear Valley Village FEIR November 12, 2009 Page 19 The science that evaluates black carbon is still in a stage of only modest certainty. According to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the direct radiative forcing the amount of warming or cooling a chemical compound exerts on the climate) of individual aerosol species 61ack carbon) is less certain than the combined direct aerosol radiative forcing (IPCC 2007, 4th Assessment of Climate Change: Chapter 2, Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing) According to the IPCC, combined total anthropogenic positive radiative forcing is about 2.6 m-2 2.6 watts per square meter). Black carbon in the atmosphere represents about +0.2 m-2, and deposition of black carbon on snow changes the albedo the fraction of solar energy reflected back into space) for an additional +0.1 m-2. Combined this represents about 10% of positive radiative forcing, although the particles are short-lived compared to GHG's such as C02, N20, and CH4, and as such their impact is relatively temporary. Assuming all particulate matter generated by the project is black carbon; the project would create about 3.6 pounds per day or 557 pounds per construction season. This estimate is based on equipment using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rated Tier II engines and California Air Resources Board (CARB) ultra-low sulfur fuel. Our calculation methodology is shown at the end of this section. Black carbon is not yet regulated as a greenhouse gas by either the EPA or CARB and is not currently a part of international agreements. The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change focuses on long-lived GHGs like C02, CH4, and N20. It has long been recognized that shorter-lived radiatively active gases and particles (such as ozone and black carbon aerosols) also play important roles in climate change. However, because of the complex chemistry and physics involved, there are large uncertainties in quantifying these impacts. The IPCC and the U.S. Climate Change Science Program are making progress in including short- lived gases and particles in climate change assessment studies, but they are not presently included in the or other climate change mitigation agreements ---PAGE BREAK--- vrrr ENVIApNMENThL CONSULTAN7S Mr. Brian Peters Response to CSERC and Shute, Mihaly on the Bear Valley Village FEIR November 12, 2009 Page 20 National Research Council Committee on the Significance of International Transport of Air Pollutants 2009, Global Sources of Local Pollution: An Assessment of Long-Range Transport of Key Air Pollutants to and from the United States). Calculations: Annual Black Carbon Emissions (all PM) emissions factor x brake horse power for all machines x time period x equipment use factor) = 454 grams/Ib 0.15 grams/BHP x 300 BHP/piece x 6 pieces x 10 hours/day x 60~o use factor) = 454 grams/Ib = 3.6 Ibs/day x 156 days = 556.7 Ibs/year Assumptions: Construction season: Heary equipment: Brake horse power (BHP): Construction hours/day: Construction days/week: Construction days: Emissions factor: Equipment use factor: 6 months 6 pieces of equipment 300 per piece of equipment 10 hours 6 days 156 days 6 days/week x 26 weeks = 156 days) 0.15 grams/BHP 60% ( equipment will not run continuously all day) Response SMW-13: Please refer to the attached September 17, 2009 letter prepared by the applicanYs counsel (Remy, Thomas, Moose and Manley LLP) responding to this comment. Response SMW-14: The EIR adequately evaluates BVWD's ability to accommodate the projecYs wastewater needs. As discussed on FEIR page 3.4- 3, BVWD's existing treatment facilities are currently planned to accommodate anticipated wastewater flow from current and future developments within BVWD's entire service area. This would include the Bear Valley Village project. Also discussed on FEIR page 3.4- 3, BVWD estimates it has disposal capacity ---PAGE BREAK--- available to serve 1, 127 new equivalent dwelling units (EDUs). This is about twice the disposal capacity needed to serve the proposed project (see Impact U-2 on FEIR page 3.4- BVWD's disposal capacity is comprised of land disposal facilities and excess discharge to Bloods Creek. About two thirds of the land disposal area is located on USFS land, authorized by a USFS special use permit (SUP). The Bloods Creek disposal capacity is contingent on BVWD providing tertiary treatment by October 1, 2010. This is also discussed in the EIR's environmental setting section on FEIR page 3.4- 3. It is important to emphasize that the is requiring BVWD to provide tertiary treatment for discharge to Bloods Creek regardless of whether the Bear Valley Village project is approved or constructed. Similarly, if BVWD must continue land disposal of treated wastewater after expiration of the USFS SUPs and if the SUPs are not renewed, BVWD would need to find appropriate non- USFS land for land disposal regardless of whether the Bear Valley Village project is approved or constructed. Therefore, future projects undertaken by BVWD to provide tertiary treatment or to continue land disposal of its treated wastewater are independent of, and not a contemplated future part of, the Bear Valley Village project and need not be evaluated in this EIR. The environmental impacts of BVWD's proposed tertiary treatment plant were analyzed in BVWD's Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration in May 2006. BVWD issued a Notice of Determination dated July 18, 2006, finding that the mitigation measures included in the Negative Declaration will reduce the projecYs effects to a less than significant level. Because the project has been determined under CEQA to have a less than significant impact, there is no need for a cumulative review under this EIR. The comment states that the County cannot satisfy CEQA simply by including a provision that the project cannot proceed unless the applicant demonstrates at each phase that BVWD has adequate sewage capacity. In conjunction with an ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- It was reasonable for the EIR to not evaluate an alternative that does not include the Village Lift or the new or modified ski runs returning to Bear Valley for the following reasons. First, all significant impacts related to the ski runs and Village Lift would be reduced to a less-than- significant level by mitigation measures recommended by the EIR. Second, such an alternative would not meet the basic project objective of providing Bear Valley with ski-in/ ski-out access to the ski area for the dual purposes of improving the recreational experience of residents and visitors and reducing traffic within Bear Valley and to the ski resort via State Route (SR) 4( see EIR page 2-13). To comply with the commenter's request for such an analysis, the following is a discussion of the environmental effects of an alternative that includes the proposed Bear Valley Village but does not include the Village Lift or the new or modified ski runs returning to Bear Valley. This alternative would include the same land uses and infrastructure as the project, and would therefore result in similar impacts related to land use, permanent population and housing growth, demand for emergency service equipment, interference with oversnow emergency response procedures, propane storage tank hazards, post- construction stormwater runoff, flood hazard risk from failure of Reba Dam, minor loss of foraging habitat for the willow flycatcher, provision of bicycle storage facilities, reduced emergency access and response times from temporary road closures, snowmobile circulation and parking, creation of odors, groundborne vibration from pile-driving building foundations, snowmobile noise, increased use of Bear Lake beach facilities, and soil stability. Population and Housing Because this alternative would include the proposed Village, it would result in impacts related to permanent population and housing growth similar to the project. This alternative, however, would generate about four fewer full-time equivalent employee positions and would require fewer construction employees. This alternative, therefore, would generate less demand for seasonal and construction employee housing than the project. Mitigation Measures PHE-3 and PHE-4, however, would reduce the projecYs employee housing impacts to a less- ---PAGE BREAK--- Mr. Brian Peters Response to CSERC and Shute, Mihaly on the Bear Valley Village FEIR November 12, 2009 Page 24 than-significant level. This alternative, therefore, is not required to reduce the projecYs employee housing impacts to a less-than- significant level. Public Services Because this alternative would include the proposed Village, it would result in impacts related to demand for emergency service equipment and interference with oversnow emergency response procedures that are similar to the project. This alternative, however, would generate fewer employment opportunities and would, therefore, generate fewer elementary and high school students and less demand for new school facilities. Mitigation Measure PS-3, however, would reduce the projecYs school impact to a less-than- significant level. This alternative, therefore, is not required to reduce the project's school impact to a less-than- significant level. Utilities Because this alternative would generate fewer employment opportunities, it would generate less demand for water and wastewater services. As discussed in Impact U-1, however, Lake Alpine Water Company has adequate water supply to serve the project. Mitigation Measures U-2a, U-2b, U-2c, and U- 2d would reduce wastewater collection and disposal capacity to a less-than- significant level. This alternative would not reduce copper-related wastewater impacts to a less-than- significant level because BVWD has not yet determined the source of excess copper within its system. This alternative would generate less solid waste than the project, but as discussed in Impact U-4, the Rock Creek Landfill has sufficient capacity to serve the project. This alternative, therefore, is not required to reduce the projecYs utilities impacts to a less-than- significant level. Hydrology and Water Ouality This alternative would result in less construction activity, and therefore, would result in less risk of water quality impacts from construction activities. Mitigation Measure HWQ-1, however, would reduce the project's potential for construction stormwater impacts to a less-than- significant level. This alternative, therefore, is ---PAGE BREAK--- ENVIRONMENThI CONSULTANTS Mr. Brian Peters V Response to CSERC and Shute, Mihaly on the Bear Valley Village FEIR November 12, 2009 Page 25 not required to reduce the projecYs water quality impacts to a less-than- significant level. All other hydrology and water quality impacts of this alternative would be similar to project impacts. Biological Resources Because this alternative would not include the Village Lift or the ski runs returning to Bear Valley, this alternative would remove up to 55 fewer acres of vegetation communities, including conifer forest, chaparral, shrub habitat and a minor amount of montane meadow. It is important to understand that these 55 acres of habitat are not all healthy habitat; some of it is diseased, as discussed on EIR page 3.6- 19. As discussed in Impact BR-1 (FEIR page 3.6- 18), this project impact would be less than significant because it would not result in a substantial loss of habitat for special status species. This alternative, therefore, is not required to reduce this project impact to a less-than- significant level. This alternative would not impact ephemeral drainages (0.09 acre) or a seep wetland (0.08 acre) located within the Village Lift alignment and would not impact jurisdictional waters located within the return ski runs. Similar to the project, this alternative would result in the filling of less than 1 acre of known waters of the U.S. and waters of the State. Mitigation Measures BR-2a through BR-2d however, would reduce the projecYs impact on wetland and riparian resources to a less-than- significant level. This alternative, therefore, is not required to reduce the projecYs wetland and riparian impact to a less-than- significant level. Under this alternative, the ski run improvements would not adversely affect two special status plants (three-bracted onion and sub-alpine although construction of the snowmobile trailer loading area might. Mitigation Measures BR-3a and BR-3b however, would reduce the projecYs impact on special status plants to a less-than- significant level. This alternative, therefore, is not required to reduce the project's special status plant impact to a less-than- significant level. ---PAGE BREAK--- ENYIRONMENT/il CONSULTANTS Mr. Brian Peters Response to CSERC and Shute, Mihaly on the Bear Valley Village FEIR November 12, 2009 Page 26 Because this alternative would not include the Village Lift or the ski runs returning to Bear Valley, this alternative would result in less conversion of foraging, temporary refuge, and movement habitat for Pacific fisher and American marten. As discussed in Impact BR-4 ( FEIR page 3.6- 27), this project impact would be less than significant because it would result in only minor adverse impacts to fisher and marten. This alternative, therefore, is not required to reduce this project impact to a less-than- significant level. Similar to the project, this alternative would result in the minor loss of foraging habitat for the willow flycatcher within the Village portion of the project. This alternative would result in less conversion of habitat and a lower potential for take of nesting raptors and nesting migratory and resident birds. Mitigation Measure BR-6, however, would avoid impacts to raptor and other protected bird nest sites during construction activities, thereby reducing the projecYs impact on these bird species to a less than significant level. This alternative, therefore, is noi required to reduce this project impact to a less-than- significant level. As discussed in Impact BR-7 (FEIR page 3.6- 30), Village Lift construction could result in the loss of roosting habitat and potential take of the pallid bat. The latter project impact potential take) would be a significant impact of the project. This alternative would avoid this impact. Mitigation Measure BR-7, however, would avoid or minimize project impacts to roosting pallid bats and their young during construction, reducing this project impact to a less than significant level. This alternative, therefore, is not required to reduce this project impact to a less- than-significant level. Similar to the project, this alternative could result in increased vehicie collisions with mule deer. This alternative would result in less vegetation conversion and, therefore, would result in Iess conversion of summer range habitat for mule deer. As discussed in Impact BR-8 ( FEIR page 3.6- 31), this project impact would be less than significant because compliance with General Plan Goal No. 14 would ensure that the project would not result in adverse effeds to mule deer. ---PAGE BREAK--- ENXIRONMENUL CONSULTANTS Mr. Brian Peters Response to CSERC and Shute, Mihaly on the Bear Valley Village FEIR November 12, 2009 Page 27 As discussed in Impact BR-9, vegetation removal and ground disturbance associated with the return ski runs may have direct and indirect impacts on special status wildlife, including special status birds and the pallid bat. This alternative would avoid this impact. Mitigation Measures BR-9a and BR-9b, however, would avoid or minimize this project impact, reducing it to a less than significant level. This alternative, therefore, is not required to reduce this project impact to a less-than- significant level. In summary, this alternative is not required to reduce the projecYs impacts to biological resources to a less-than- significant level. Cultural Resources This alternative would result in less construction-related ground disturbance, and therefore, would result in less risk of inadvertent impacts to known and unknown cultural or paleontological resources. Mitigation Measures CR-1, CR-2a, CR-2b, and CR-4 would reduce project impacts to a less-than- significant level. This alternative, therefore, is not required to reduce the projecYs cultural resource impacts to a less-than- significant level. Aesthetics Under this alternative, neither the Village Lift nor the return ski runs would be visible components of the overall project. As discussed in EIR Section 3.8 Aesthetics), however, neither these components nor the proposed Village buildings would substantially degrade daytime views or the visual character of the project site or its surroundings. Similar to the project, daytime aesthetic impacts would be less than significant. No night skiing or nighttime lift operation is proposed; therefore, no nighttime lighting for the lift or the ski runs is expected. The nighttime lighting impact for this alternative would be similar to the project mitigable to a less-than- significant level). This alternative, therefore, is not required to reduce the projecYs aesthetics or nighttime lighting impacts to a less-than- significant level. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- NYIRONMENTAL Mr. Brian Peters Response to CSERC and Shute, Mihaly on the Bear Valley Village FEIR November 12, 2009 Page 29 Air ualit Because this alternative would not include construction or operation of the Village Lift, it would generate fewer construction and operational air pollutant emissions. Mitigation Measures AQ-2a and AQ-3 would reduce project impacts to a less-than- significant level. This alternative, therefore, is not required to reduce the projecYs air quality impacts to a less-than- significant level. All other air quality impacts of this alternative are expected to be similar to the project. Noise Because this alternative would not include construction of the Village Lift, it would generate less construction noise than the project. For example, helicopters for lift construction would not be needed. Similar to the project, Mitigation Measures N-la through N-le would reduce construction noise impacts, but not to a less-than- significant level, because construction activities would contribute to periodic substantial increases in noise in an area that has low ambient noise levels. Because this alternative would increase operational non- construction) vehicle trips between Bear Valley and the ski area by about 32 peak hour trips, it would generate higher traffic noise levels within Bear Valley than the project. Recreation Because this alternative would generete fewer employment opportunities, it would generate less demand for water, thereby reducing the amount of drawdown of Bear Lake. Similar to the project, however, drawdown of Bear Lake to accommodate additional water demand for this alternative would not substantially impair recreational use of the lake. This impact would remain less than significant. Climate Chanae Because this alternative would not include construction or operation of the Village Lift, it would generate fewer GHG emissions. The reduction, however, ---PAGE BREAK--- rr+' ENYIRONMENThl CONSULTANT$ z= r< ~ Mr. Brian Peters Response to CSERC and Shute, Mihaly on the Bear Valley Village FEIR November 12, 2009 Page 30 would not be sufficient to reduce the projecYs significant and unavoidable GHG impact to a less-than- significant level. As the previous discussion demonstrates, a project alternative that does not include the Village Lift or the new or modified ski runs returning to Bear Valley would not avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project that cannot be fully mitigated to a less-than- significant level by the mitigation measures included in the EIR. Therefore, it was reasonable for the EIR not to consider this alternative. Please refer to Responses SMW-1 and SMW-4 for a discussion of why the ski area's other proposed improvements are neither part of the applicanYs proposed project nor are they connected actions. These other ski area improvements are considered related projects for the EIR's cumulative impact analyses in Chapter 4. Conclusion Based on the above responses, in our professionaljudgment, comments expressed by these two parties do not affect the adequacy of the EIR; in particular, they do not express concerns that warrant significant revisions to the EIR and, thus, do not present significant new information that would require recirculation of the EIR prior to considering whether to approve the project. Sincerely, Scott Goebl Senior Project Manager rir' ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Central Sierra Environmental Resource Center Sax 39b ^ T~ vaio Harte, CA 95383 •(204) 58b-7440 • FAX (2Q9) 586-4986 i. an, rw~ emnem: n. a. n. s u m: i~ nnb~' aaerc.an v, i: , ~p 1 9. ti J~ iii~ ~ c 2~n~ June 26, 2009 n; ; 1,t~ r - r Alpine County Boazd of Supervisors/County Planning Department P.O. Box 158 Markleeville, CA 96120 Additional CSERC comments pertaining to the BEAR VALLEY VILLAGE project rrr~' To members of the Counry Board of Supervisors and Planning Department: At the recent board of supervisors hearing on the Beaz Valley Village EIR, CSERC's testimony focused on deficiencies of the EIR. Due to the hrief testimony time spelled out by the heazing protiocols, CSERC's oral commenu were limited to highlighting our main concems. With this letter, our Center is clarifying a number of points tied to biological resources that were either not appazently understood by the EIR consultant or which were not cleazly responded to in his communicarions to the board. As explained in our CSERC comment letter of vlay 27, 20Q9 and highlighte& in CSERC's oral tesfimony, our Center believes that the EIR is incorrect in dismissing the loss of 65 acres of habitat as "iess than significant." The allegation is made in the response to comments section of the EIR and on page ES-12 of the FEIR that there would not be any significant impact from the loss of 24.9 acres of conifer fores# and chapanal and a minor amouat of montane meadow associated with the Village, Village lift alignment, snowmobile parking azea, and SR4 improvements, and an additional loss ofroughly 40 acres of conifer and shrub habitats associated with the ski runs and trailer loading azea. In total, approximately 65 acres of habitat is acknowledged to 6e "losY' if the project is approved and imptemented, yet the EIR fmds that loss of habitat to be insignificant. On page 3.6- 14 of the FEIR, the aathor admits that many rare species may utilize habiTat afFected by the proposed project: Onefederal candidate species, one California endangered species, one California species of special concern, and various migratory and nesting birds may occur in the surveyedportions of the project area. The is listed as u candidate species under the ESA and also a California species of concern, the is listed as a state endangered species, and the pallid bat is a state species of concern. " ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- As part of these comments, CSERC is submitting a marten (with young) photo taken south of the ski area property tine in 2008. However, even beyond the photographic proof of breeding/denninglmaternal care use by martens within the block of forest affected by the project, CSERC also emphasizes the need to rely upon the best ailable science. As one example, scientific information was recentty presented at a Pacific fisher research study workshop on May 13, 2009, attended by CSERC staff and fisher experis and researchers &om throughout CaliFomia and across a wide range of agencies and non-profit groups. Research studdies reveal that rather than fisher population numbers rebounding from historic trapping and the logging of prime old growth forest stands that ic no longer happening on national forest lands, fisher mortality is actually exYremely high and overall population numbers in the region are esumated to be low. Research has shown that fishers in the Sierra Vevada are dying from disease, predation, drowning, starvation, and road kills. Above and beyond those direct mortality impacts on overall fisher survival, the loss of habitat and the fragmentatian of suitable habitat (caused by roads, clearings, development, or other sowces) prevents dispersal and access to mates and adds cumulacively to the direct mortality effects on the species (Green, Campbell and Fviacfarlane 2007). There is no question that the relatively dense, thick laie seral stage forest habitat across the western and southem slopes of the ski azea and along the Village Lift line is suitable habitat confaining the structural values essential for breeding, denning foraging, and random movement by fisher, marten, and Sierra Nevada red fox. Studies show that more than 65% of all fisher use takes place in conifer forest habitat with lazge older conifers, lazge snags, lazge down logs, and at least 60% or greater canopy cover. The majority of the 65 acres of habitat tbat would be lost due to the Bear Valley Village project fits these important habitat requirements. In addition, as noted above, the photographic proof of marten young close to the project site completely removes any doubt that this is important, suitable habitat that provides value to furbeazer species. It is especially important that the EIR acknowledge the need to consider altematives to the loss of the 65 acres of habitat because the EIR has failed to list a wide range of potential impacts to furbearers that would be significant and negative if the project is approved. One such impact is the greatly increased project-induced risk of road-kill for all of the furbearers of the region and the fisher in particalar (as well as the local deer herd). The EIR does a poor job ofrevealing just how many additional vehicie trips would be directly generated by the pcoject, but pages 3.9- 10 and 3.9- 27 contain charts that provide some important information related io that issue. If A.M. peak hoars include just a single three-hour period and P.M. peak hours also cover a single three-hour period, those charts indicate more fhan I, OOQ project-generated velucle trips per day along Highway 4 in winter and summer if the project is implemented. According to the EIR charts, winter season tr~ c generated by the project would increase above the level of existing tr~ c by 297 vehicles in those three peak use A.M. hours and 492 vehicle trips in the P.M. peak use hours. Combined, counring orily six hours out a 24-hour period, the project (6ased on the chart numbers) wouid result in an increase of almost 800 vehicle h~ ips along Highway 4 on each winter day. Given an assumption of at least an additional 200+ vehicles total ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- with the loss of habitat that would take ptace if this Beaz Valley Village project is implemented adds up to a significant cumulative loss of suitable habitat that the EIR fails io address. Finally, as an additive comment tied to road-kill risk due to the project and increased risk to deer in the local region from the significant projected increase in traffic. The area surrounding Bear Valley is summer deer range, with deer moving upslope from forest areas in Calaveras County as well as some deer moving up from the deep river canyons into the forest around Beaz Valley. All such migratory winter-to- summer-range movement by the deer (both up-slope movement in late spring, eazly summer and the down-slope movement in the fall) result in deer crossing Highway 4 or other roads in the project azea. The EIR failed to either acknowledge the significant risk of project traffic adding to deer mortality or to provide for alternatives to mitigate for that risk. Sased on all of the above, the FEIR is cleazly deficient in its analysis of and its mitigation measures for the impacts that the project would cause for the local deer population as well as numerous rare wildlife species such as the Pacific fisher, the Amercian marten, and the equally raze Sierra Nevada red fox. The loss of 65 acres of habitat, most of which is highly suitable for furbearers, would clearly be a significant loss. CSERC believes that the project should not be approved without supplemental EIR anatysis that not only addresses mitigation for tlxis loss of habitat, but which also identifies reasonable alternatives to the proposed proj ect that would eliminate most of the habiTat loss associated with the Village Lift and the new expanded or completely new ski runs proposed in the older forests of the national forest lands within the project boundaries. These comments are based upon 19 years of intensive engagement in wildlife, water, land planning, and ecosystem issues in this region of the Sierra Nevada. CSERC sta.ff has worked closely with wildlife biologists of the U.S. Forest Service and Califomia StaYe Department of Fish and Game on numerous wildlife surveys. Lindsey Myers, CSERCs current biologist, has collaborated with CSERC's execcti~e direcior to apply scieatific protocol survey techniques far furbeazer photo-detection surveys in both 2008 and 2009 as paR of a Memorandum Of Understanding cooperative agreemenY with the Stanislaus Nauonal Forest. CSERC has successfiilly gained photographic evidence of rare wildlife species through photo-detection surveys for more than 12 yeazs in the ]ocal regioa CSERC has also provided project specific CEQA-based comments on liierally hundreds of local azea projects over the past 19 years. Please include this comment letter conceming the Bear Valley Village project in the administrative record. Respectfully submitted, yti~ Lmdsey Myers, biologist John Buckley, xecutive duector ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- S- HUTE-,_ MIHAI.Yf~_ WEI11I& E. RG. ER... LLP- ATTORNEYS A7' LAW E CLEMENT SAlITE. JF.' MAAKI WEINBEHOERil990-2003~ FRAN M. LAYTON RACHEL B. HOOPER ELLEN J GAFBEF TAMARA 5. ORLr1NTE0. ANOREW W. SCXWARi2 ELLISON FOLH RICHRNO 5 TAYLOft WILLIAM J. WHITE RCBEflT PERLMl1TTER OSA L. WOLFF MATiHEW 0. ZINN CATiERiNE 0. ENGO£RG AMY J. BRICKER GABFIEL M.B. ROSS DEBORPH L KEETH WINTEP KING KEVIN P. BUNOY SENIGfl COVNSEL 396 HAYES STREET SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94102 TELEPHONE:C415) 552-7272 FACSIMI~E: ( 41 5) 562-8816 WWW.SMWLAW. COM R pANCIA JEANNETTE M. MACMIILAN ISAqC N. BON'EFS XCATXER M. MIJNER EHIN B. KRISTIN B BIIRFORD L4pp4L L. IMPETT, qICP C4flMEN J BOR6, URBRN PIANpLP9 LAURE^L L. IMPE7T, AICP IHPETT`SMWLAW COH August 11, 2009 rr Brian Peters, Director of Pianning and The Members of the Alpine County Planning Commission 17300 State Route 89 Markleeville, CA 96120 Re: Bear Valley Village Environmental Impact Report Dear Chair Bennett and Members of the Board: On behalf of the Centra] Sierra Environmental Resource Center, we have rr reviewed the Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"} for the Bear Va11ey Village project the "ProjecY'). We submit this letter to state our position that the EIR fails to meet the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), Public Resources Code § 21000 et seq., and the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, title 14, 15000 et seq. ("Guidelines"). Notwithstanding the Environmental Resource Center's two prior comment letters dated October 28, 2008 and May 27, 2009 describing the many substantive flaws in the EIR's analysis, the document remains thoroughly inadequate, and cannot support approval of the Project. This letter does not seek to repeat the valid issues raised in the Center's previous submissions. In particular, we note that the County has failed to adequately address significant traffic and air quality impacts identified by Calaveras County and CalTrans. These significant impacts must be fully disclosed, analyzed and mitigated. p~ a before the Project can proceed. w ; 3; , i~ 4;Ju ~ 2 i iHL°iluc COI:? VTY 7EPT.OF pJ~~ ; r J~ S ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Mr.- Benn~ ttazrd~ Vfembersofthet~ FpineCouniy _ Board of Supervisors rrr August 3, 2009 Page 4 ii. Amphifheater The Project includes an outdoor amphitheater which is intended as an outdoor gathering place for concerts and other performances in the summer months. EIR at 2-15. Once again, the EIR lacks any detail about this Project component and notes that n)o specific facilities haue been proposed for the amphitheater azea." Id. The EIR also admits that the hours of performance and even the noise levels have not yet been proposed." Id. Indeed, the EIR lacks any description ofthis facility including its size, design pazameters, and its seadng capacity. Inasmuch as the EIR identifies the amphitheater as a component of the Project, the EIR must describe this stadium and its intended operating conditions in order to evaluate the impacts that will accompany its construction and use. As it is currenfly written, the EIR preparers suggest that the County will require a conditional use pernvt if "facilities" are proposed at a late date. Id. This ague and cursory language is not sufficient. The applicant is currently seeking approval of subdivision maps, conditional use permits and a development agreement, that would support construction of the Project. EIR at 2-49. As such, environmentat review of all components of the Project - including the amphitheater must occur wifhin this EIR. The revised EIR must provide this analysis. iii. Meeting Facility The applicant also proposes to develop a meeting facility to seroe as an indoor gathering place, accommodating demand for meeting venues such as weddings and other ]ocal community functions. EIR at 2-16. Again, the EIR lacks any actual description of this facility such as its size, design parameters and capacity. Consequently, it is not possible to determine the ProjecYs environmental impaots without this rudimentary information. The revised EIR must clearly describe this meeting facility and analyze the environinental impacts that would accompany its construction and use. iv. Wastewater Services The flaws in the EIR's project description extend to the Project's pro~ rision of basic infrastructure. For exanple, the abiIity to provide for the ProjecYs wastewater is a fundamental component of the Project, yet critical details relating to this service have yet to be resolved. Treated wastewater is currently disposed of with a combination of land disposal and seasonal discharge to Bloods Creek. As will be discussed below, segnificant problems eatist with regazd to both disposal options such that no disposal capacity may eacist to serve the Project. EIR at 3.4- 7 ( emphasis added). The EIR recognizes that unprovements will be needed to Bear Valley Water District's BVWD") ueatment facelity (see 3.4- yet the EIR fails to identify these facility improvements or analyze the environmental impacts associated with the improvements. Moreover, the ~ ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- NIt:- Benuatt and Members ofthe Alpine County - r Board of Supervisars August 3, 2009 Page 11 Because, as described below, feasible mitiga6on is available that would reduce the ProjecYs net carbon contribution to zero, the Project may not be approved without the adoption of such mitigation. Adequate. mitigation for this Proj ect should include the following: an accurate emissions invenYory (to assist in developing appropriate emission targets and mitigation measures); emission targets that apply at reasona6le intervals through the life of the Project; enforceable GHG control measures; and monitoring and reporting (to ensure that targets aze met). There are many feasible avoidance and mitigarion measures available to reduce GHG emissions. Such measures include: Following the U.S. Green Building Council's LEEB (Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design) or comparable standazds for energy- and resource-efficient building during pre-design, design, construction, operations and management. See http:// www. usgbc.arg. Because black carbon is a component of diesel particulate matter, strategies that reduce particulate matter will also reduce black carbon. Using a catalyzed diesel particulate filter on both new and existing diesel engines would reduce diesel particulate and biack carbon emissions. Using salvaged and recycled-contenf materials for buiIding, hard surfaces, and non-plant landscaping materials. Masimizing water conservation measures in homes and landscaping, using drought-tolerant plants in lieu ofturf, planting shade trees. Installing the ma7cimum possible solaz energy array on the building roofs and/or on the project site to generate solar energy for the facility. Using passive heating, natural cooling, solar hot water systems, and reduced pavement. Landscaping to preserve natural vegetation and maintain watershed integrity. Installing electric vehicle charging starions. Utilizing the combination of construction materials with the lowest carbon foofprini. Utilizing only Energy Star heating, cooling, and lighting devices, and appliances. Ensuring that public transporcation will serve the site, by constructing bus stops or other facilities and funding the vansportation agency if necessary. Planting trees since trees sequester carbon. yrrr ---PAGE BREAK--- Mr: ~ fembersof the Alpine Count~ - - Board of Supervisors August 3, 2009 Page 12 In addition to the implemenfation of fhe measures listed above, another option would be offsetting the ProjecYs emissions, either tltrough contributing to the financing of sustainable energy projects or through the purchase of mitigation credits. Purchasing mirigadon credits to offset the ProjecYs GHG emissions is entirely feasible, and is becoming quite common. Early in 2006, Whole Foods announced that it would buy wind energy credits from Renewable Choice Energy to offset 100% of its eiectricity use (other companies purchasing these credits include Johnson & Johnson, DuPont, Starbucks, IBM, and Safeway). FedEx Kinkos announced it would increase its "green power" commitment by 67.5 percent to an estimated 40 million kilowatt-hours per year, and Walgreens announced it will install solaz-power systems at 96 stores and two distribution centers in California. There is no reason why this Project cannot mitigate for 100% of its greenhouse gas emissions once all avoidance and minimization measures have beenincorporated. In sum, because the EIR fails to take into account all of the Project's GHG emissions, and because the document fails to ideniify feasible mitigafion for the signifcant increase in these emissions, a revised EIR must be prepared to address these deficiencies. Not only is this required by CEQA, but it will also demonstrate the applicant's and the County's commitment to environmental and community leadership. vnrr' B. The EIR Faifs to Adequately Analyze and Mitigate the Project's Wastewater Impacts. As discussed in the project description section ofthis letter, the EIR errs in its failure to identify and describe specific components ofthe ProjecYs wastewater treatment service. The document is equally deficient in its failure to specifically identify how the County intends to serve the wastewater needs of the proposed Project. Rather than seriously study the County's ability to accommodate the Project's wastewater needs, the EIR leaves the enfire issue unresolved. See EIR at 3.4- 7. What information is provided in the EIR regarding wastewater service offers absolutely no assurance that the BVWD would be able to accommodate the ProjecYs wastewater. Treated wastewater is disposed with a combination of land disposal and seasonal discharge to Bloods Creek. BIR at 3.4- 3. Substantial problems exist with both disposal options, and ihus the ability to serve the proposed Project is far from assured. As regards land disposal, it is unclear whether the BVWD will be able to continue to dispose of treated wastewater on USFS land once e~ cisting permits with the Service expire. While the excess wastewater is allowed to be discharged to Bloods Creek, the Waste Dischazge Requirements for the Bear Valley Wastewater Treatment Facility contains effluent limits which require that any wastewater discharged to the Bear Valley Wastewater Storage Reservoir after October 1, 2008 receive tertiary treatment. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- BEAR VALLEY ri r v« . . PROPOSED August ; INTRODUCTION Beaz Valley Mountain Resort (BVMR) operal the Stanislaus National Forestto provide atpu Forest System Land. T'he U.S. ForesE Service proposes to impletnent a series ofprojects des Development Plan (MDP). MDP projects wei the Record ofDecision - Bear Yalley Ski Aiea Specifically, BVMR proposes to consftuct the associaied infrastructure, impmve customerse East Bowl azea. In addition, pmjecks not previously analyzed^in meet the current and future needs ofslciets/boai parking lots, terrain modification on severaiski open new terrain in the East Bowt atea. J§eAuthorization from porttinities on Nafional ratioa~wi~ h BVMR, it~ BVMR' s Master riceptuallg approved in ROD~~- USFS 1995). 3eai,Top lodge, and , d open new tenain in the posed anfl designed to pans~on of existing beginner capacity and LOCATION " ~ A+ , a . Yi 1 . . - : iC t , - I ~ t . The ski azea is located approxunately I milenortii ofthe Town of Bear Valtey, Califomia on the westein slope of the Sierra Nevada Mooritants, appioximately 52 miles east of Angeis Camp, Califemia (see Figure BVMR is accesaed by Heading east on Highway 4 and then turning north at the Highway 207 intersecrion.. $ VMR is locaYed on the Calaveras Ranger District of Staaislaus Natio~ial Foresf (STE~. ' PRIVATE LAND DEJELOPINEN7` Subsequent ta ~he ] 995 ROD, Bear Valley VillagelI, LLC and Bear Valiey Village II, LLC, are proposing a village master plan in the Town ofBeaz Valley based on the approved 1978 Master Plan for the town, This private Iand proposal (known as "The New Village at Bear Valley'`) includes residentiat anfl ovetnigiit lodging, restaurants, retail, skier services, pazking, and related services wi ' a rtion oftlie village. A key component of this proposal on private land is ~th T'illage. This lift will cross public, private, Alpine County and_ National Forest System lends ttuvugh an established easement. That portion of the YillageL~ tocated on National Forest land is part of the Benr Velley Mountnin Retort Proposed Action August 2908 r.r ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- frails BVMR proposes to increase beginner terrain and access in association with the proposed litZ installations. The Yillage Lifr would require a beginnes way down to the base azea for skiers/boarders arriving from Bear valley Village: Within the existi~g ski area, BVMR proposes to improve beginner access from Beaz Top to the base area Openiag up new skier/boarder terrain in East Bow] wil4 increase advanced and expert skiing opportunities. f Project # 4 Regrade/UVidening of Sprirsg Gap Trail i/ Spring Gap BVi~IR proposes to re-gtade Spring Gap first and observe the use ofthe trail for one Yo fwo seasons. There aze potential skier conflicts that could arise between beginning skiers/boazders on Spring Gap and intermediate to advanced skiers(boazders in Pomdge Bowl. This proposai incEudes provisions to develop a skier safety management plan to address Ehese conflicts. This plan would require the use ofvisible signage and baffie fe;,c: ng t~ ccnt:~I si.' ser erncni3 within tne crossing area. Yhe proposed traii iocation takes advantage of an existing 6ench in the trail and was observed to be a frequent stopping area for intermediate skiers/boarders in Porridge Bowl, A detailed description of this project is discussed in tfte "The Preliminary Re- Grading/ Widening P3an" displayed at ihe end of the Froposed Action." ( attachment 1) Project # 5 Re- Grade/ Widening of Mokelumne West Mokelumne West Tl~e beginner egress trail off Mokelumne West would be divided inW three sections (see Figure 2- P; opose3 Action). The upper section would start at the iop ofthe Mokelumne West and continue down the fall line to the trees on skiers(boarders left. The middte section contains the new rtai! azea thtough the trees to, Mokelumne Ridge. The lower section starts at the new trail junction on Skiers/boarders left ofMokelumne Ridge and continues 200 feet to the east and stops at the tree islaud oa skierslboarders right. In total, construction of the1~? ekelu~ nr.e West beginner egcess wouid result in 5.5 acres of disturbance. A detailed descrivtion oftMs project is discussed in he ' inary~e- j Grnding/Widening Pian" di~ ia~ e3 at the~,-~ 3 ofthe Proposed Action. (rlttachment 21 roject gradellhlEdanBng of 3or~~'~ R1ia~yi' re~ k Bono's Alley/ Water Tank 1~ A beginner way from the top terminal ofthe p: opos~ 3 T/ illage Llft top tertninal tb the MR base facilities would be provided by ' ing and ro- grading two existing frai~ Bono's A31ey and Water Tank (see Figttre 2- Proposed Action). rr+' ' Bear Valtey Mountein Resort Proposed AcUon August2008 ' ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ATTACHMENT 7 BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AGENDA PACKET DECEMBER 10, 2009 BEAR VALLEY VILLAGE PUBLIC COMMENTS SUBMITTED FOR DECEMBER 10 HEARING ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- November 24, 2009 Mr. Brian Peters, Director of Planning Alpine County Planning Department 17300 State Route 4 Markleeville, CA 96120 Subject: Bear Valley Vllage Projecf Final Environmenta! lmpact Report/Soard af Supervisors Pubfic Hearing Dear Mr. Peters: Thank you 4or providing an opportunity to comment on the Final EIR for the proposed Bear Valiey Viltage Project. As a homeowner in Bear Valley, the Proposed Project is of critical importance to the future economic and environmental heaRh of the ~Ilage as a family-oriented communifij and recreational mountain resort. As you are aware, the p{ ans for improvements to the Village date back more than 31 years. Secause of the lengfh of time that it has taken to have an applicant initiaie an update to the Master Plan, the corresponding length of the entitlement process, and due to the extensive financial investment incurred to date, we have spent considerable time reviewing the EIR to ensure that both the project-specific and cumulative impacts that would be anticipated over the projected 7-10 year build-out are adequately addressed, and that sufficient mitigations ha~e been put into place to protect the quality of the environment that we value both for ourselves, and for future generations. We recognize that there are but a few sign~cant, unavoidable impacts that will remain following implemeniation of all required mitigation, We feel however, that the overriding benefits of the proposed project will far outweigh the significant (residual) impacts on cumulative traffic, noise and climate change. The proposed project is substantially consistent with the plans, policies and principles established more than 30 years ago for the ~llage. Further, because of the heightened attention on sustainable design and practices, most of which were not in practice 30 years ago, this project has the opportunity to achieve levels of environmental stewardship impossible to have realized when the originai master plan was conceived. Without approval of the proposed Project, the opportunity for enhanced environmental stewardship is at best compromised, and at worst is Iost. Bear Valley is a" tegacy" mountain resort. Many of us that have purchased homes in Bear Valkey hope to pass on our land holdings to our children, and to our chiidren's children. Indeed, many of the residents in Bear Valley have had a family presence in the valley for multiple generaiions. lt is a place tha# holds unique value because of the richness of iYs natural and recreational resources, iYs majestic landscape, the community pride it engenders, and Iastiy, because of its legacy as a family resort. Like any other valuable asset, it will take both commitment and investment #o preserve, protect and sustain the qualiYy of life we expect from this mountain treasure. With this legacy comes the respons+bility to creaie and mainfain a viable and sustainable community that can thrive for generations to come. In the absence of the proposed project, there is no mechanism by which to bring the Viliage (or the ski area) up #o speed ---PAGE BREAK--- with current andlor emerging environmentally sustainable practices, including development standards supported by the USGBC. These practices, which extend beyond planning and design to infrastructure engineering, implementation and operational practices, are what will enable the Vllage to modernize in a manner that both preserves the quality of our natural resources, but serves to improve the quality, fiealth and experience of iYs residents and visitors as well. The econamic health and viiality of the current Village is impacted by the lack of upgraded infrastructure (transportation/circulation; and weUdry utilities} and service improvements (amenities) that can both adequately serve the needs of the existing homeowners, as well as pro~ide the basis for future generations to call Bear Valley Village their home. Without the proposed Project, the Village will continue to fall into a stafe of disrepair, the seasonai employees wiil continue to struggle with locations for adequate and affordable housing, and access and circulation along SR1t will continue to be exacerbated by a lack of physical, geometric or alternative transportation improvements (improvements that focus on altematives to the vehide), thus compromising the quality of bath the existing environment, and efforts to create a sustaina6le" environment for the future. While we understand there are still a number of issues yet to be resolved (sewer capacity among one of many outstanding issues), certifica3ion of the EIR is an important first step in moving this Project forvvard. There are a sufficient number of subsequent ~ approvals that must be obtained that will allow for the time and mechanisms by which the outstanding pending issues can 6e resotved. As such, we urge tfie Board of Supervisors to certify the EIR and approve the Proposed Project. An approval represents an opportunity for long-awaited economic and environmental investment in the Bear Valley Ullage community. Sincerely, 2~ r ' ' J Laura Worthington-Forbes 25D Creekside Dr. # 98 Bear Valley, CA 95223 ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 1 of 1 Sarah Simis From: D Guy Ayers [[EMAIL REDACTED]] Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2009 10:48 PM To: Brian Peters Sabject: Bear Valley Village, FEIR Mr Peters- As a property owner in Bear Va11ey, I would like to register my dissatisfaction with the Bear Valley Village design review process so far. As 1 mentioned to you 6efore, the EIR made no mention of steps to be taken to ameliorate one of the primary environmental impacts of Bear Valley- snowmohiles. The Bear Valley Vllage plan is entirely preoccupied with the accommodation of snowmobiles- there was no mention made of ways to mitigate the impact of snowmobiles, let alone discourage their use. Why should anyone take the EIR process seriously when their o~ cials don't? I am also unhappy wifh the sophistication of the developers. Their design may work better functionally for instance, it handles cars well, by keeping them out of site, and it provides more pedestrian amenities), but the "distinct design characte~' talked about in their Design Philosophy is a big step down from the more nuanced 50's modern styling of the existing Bear Valley Lodge. To the extent Bear Valley has any disfinct style, it is in the buildings which follow the lead of the existing lodge, such as the school, the firehouse, and a few of the private ca6ins, (and the townhomes, to some eMent- with better exterior finishes). Based on the few renderings they've produced, there's nothing very distincti~e or imaginative about their style- iYs basically the same imitation Tyrolean village theme being used at all the resorts these days Squaw, Kirkwood). Do you have any peer jury (of architects, hopefuity} who could review these plans? The AIA might be able to field some volunteers. Hopefulty the design aesthetic will somehow gain in sophistication before they break ground. I will try to do what I can on my end (i have indirect access to one of the developers through a relation of his}. Respectfully, Guy Ayers, Architect www.dguvavers. com 12/2/ 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- Applicafion for amendment to the Alpine County General Plan for the Beaz Valley Vi]lag... Page 1 of 2 Sarah Simis From: Charlie Michaeis [[EMAIL REDACTED]) Sent: Monday, November3D, 2009 1:31 PM To: Sarah Simis Cc: [EMAIL REDACTED] ' Subject: Application for amendment to the Alpine County General Plan for fhe Bear Valley Village Project To the Board of Supervisors of Alpine County: ' Hello, my name is Charles Michaels, and my wife, Doris and 1 are the owners of the property at 10 Lake Road in Bear Valley. We wish to wholeheartedly support the Alpine County Planning Commissions' recommendation for approval of the application. We are looking forrrard to: IJew buildings to replace the dilapidated existing structure housing the lodge, shops and restaurants. New attractive residential dwellings A high speed chair lift from the town to the mountain New return ski trails Empfoyee housing for 50 Proposed parking structures A pedestrian plaza and bridge Additionally, we like the other suggestions in fhe plan We think this project has been very well thought out. We believe it is vital that it goes through as the resort desperately needs to make itself attractive to generate vacationer interest to support itself. It is frightening to think where we would be headed if we did not make progress on moving Bear Valley forward with updated infrastructure and facilities. I wish you the best of luck in getting this amendment passed Regards, Charles Michaels ChaAes F. Michaels, President Sierra Global Management, L.L. C. l26 East 56~' - 18~' Floor, New York, New York 10022 cfrnichaels•'a~ sierraelobal.com p: 212-207- 3041 t 232-486- 5307 11/30/ 2009 ---PAGE BREAK--- Application for amendment to tha A3pine County General Plan for the Beaz Valley Viilag... Page 2 of 2 Thrs message may contain confidential and/or privileged injormatron. Ifyou are not the addressee or aaz[horized to receive thisfor the addressee, you must not vse, copy, disclase or take arry actian based on this message or arry irformation herein IJ , you have received lhis message in error, please ¢dvise the sender immediately by to this email and deie7ing rhis ~ message. Thank youfor your cooperation. , This message may contain con£ idential and/or privileged information, and should be treated as such. zf you are not the addressee or authorized to receive this for the addressee, you must not use, copy, disclose or take any action based on this message or any herein. This is not an offer or solici[ation o£ an offer. If you have received this message in error, please advise the sender immediately by replying to this email and please delete and destroy all copies immediately.. Thank you Eor your cooperation. I 1/ 30/ 2009 MI ! ---PAGE BREAK--- W~ INBERG ROGER & ~OSEIV~ELD 4 ~ vxCOrt~~. umm~ onm awa APROFESSSONALCORPORATTON wreFrcexe~oxna. enmm~ ww..~ w~ a• 1001 Marina YAage Parkway, Suite 200 Cntl'~eT ~LU~cM~. A Alameda, CA 94501-1091 an~ TM~~ N TELEPHONE810.33~. 100~ ° a~t~ n vamiewa~ FAX 510 7023 3$7 1dlEYK9~0A. ya~ FAMC.RIRbNAp(%+ mP MTRI:UAOPNE ILJYTIT.UM1MY. WCtlIbM l0. LWOa~+'/ Mtl91W.L. MilWH~ MZmF~ eNLrtem B~ RVP RE p~ 411KE~' uMWA CEIVED N~ eMao0lANr. l~ e~ iMe! C O L M1/ BX BMAII. AND US MAIL BOARD OF3UpEp~pRS DecetnbEr I, 20D9 Board of Supervisors ofAlpine Co~. mty 99 Water 5treet P.O. Box 158 Mazkleeville, CA 96I20 tian Peters, Directoz ofPlanning AIpine County Planning Depazhnent 50 Diamoad Valley Road Marklec~ilie, CE19612Q 530)694- 1878 [EMAIL REDACTED]. gov Re: Heaz Valley Viliage Draft Envirotunental Impaet Report SCH ~io. 2007032U09 Honorable Members of tkte Aipine County Boazd of Supervisozs and Mr. Peters; I ann writing on behalf of Carpexrters Loca11789 ("Locall? 89") w comment on the Draft and Final EttvirozamentaE Impact Reports ("EIR°} prepared pars~aa4 to the Ca.lifomis Enviroz~mental Quality Aet ("CEQA") for the Beaz Valley Village Projoct (SCH No. [PHONE REDACTED]) Project'~. After rer7ewing the extensive comments already submitted by Califamza Deparmient of Transportation Calaveras County Public Works Depariuxent, Cala~eras Council of Govemments, Cenbral Sierra Environmental Resource Center, and others, it [s clear that the EIR prepatetl for the Bear Vailey.Project is woefully inadequate , and that a new Elit is requixed to be prepared and recirculated. In particalar, the E1R suffers fox the following szgnificant omissions, among others: ' TRAFFIC 1MPACTS: Tfic EI~t fails to adequately anetyu or mitigate the Project's h~ affic impacts in Caiaveras County, wltich wiJ4 rec~uire ZS miles ofnew passing lanes. Nor does the EII~ analyze the impaets that these passing lanes may themselves pose to the emironment. SEWAGE 11bIPACTS: Z'he EIR fails to propose any adequate mitigation £or the inadequate sewage treatmeni capacity at the Bear Valley Watei District. TheI' roject wi11 dramadcally increase the am.ount of sewage flowiug into a sewage plant tl~ at is alTeady LOSANGFIE3 ~FlCf SaCqanExrO oFFlCe HOKOWLU OFHCE 3435viBehre9wW.ore, 3~ re620 ~ 9a9vea~, SNro520 lbBAlaXe63,roa1, 9Wef6Ai loa Mgetee. CA gp01619~i 9eaemenro, G BSB11-T3E1 Hmauh~ NI 96B1a~dfi[ IO fE1.270. 38G?~ PalII1d9Y1. 10BB T^ cL9lsdagg5~ FR% 018. da107N lE7.B00.,~ QB. BBB1 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Sarah Simis From: John Mallard [[EMAIL REDACTED] Sent: Thursday, December 03, 2009 12:02 PM To: Sarah Simis Subject: Bear Valley Attachments: Bear Valley.doc; ATT00001.htm Alpine County, Page 1 of 1 RECE{VED DEC 0 3 2p09 ALPINE COUPITY CLERK Please find integrated into this email and also attached as a word document giving our support of the improvement project proposed for Bear Valley. nr Alpine County: I am resident of Bear Valley. I work for the Ski Area as a Professional Patroller and am part of the volunteer Fire Department in Bear Valley. I am very excited about the proposed project and look forward to a strong vibrant village that can sustain local permanent jobs and yet maintain our family oriented community. This pioject is vital to the community. The current plan represents a viable opportunity to generate a sustainable economic communiry in Bear Valley and neighboring Calaveras County. The proposed project is absolutely required for the future growth and sustainability of the Bear Valley Village and the Bear Valley Mountain Resort Ski Area. The current facilities at the village and the resort are out of date and are not competitive within their class. The lack of upgraded infrastructure and service improvements if not adequately revitalized will not meet the needs for guests, homeowners and will negatively impact Bear Valley and neighboring communities. The town will suffer under limited and/or no improvement plans. The EIR and the steps being taken around the EIR assures possible impacts to the envirorunent and the quality of life we enjoy in Bear Valley are and have been taken into account. I am strongly recommending that the Board of Supervisors move forward and approve the Master Plan and Zoning changes under review. John and Julie Mallard Home Owners, Bear Valley 12/3/ 2009 ---PAGE BREAK---