League files suit over South Lake Tahoe’s General Plan
By Kathryn Reed
It was a matter of when, not if the League to Save Lake Tahoe would sue South Lake Tahoe over its recently adopted General Plan.
On Friday the League filed a complaint challenging the city’s General Plan that was approved in May. At that meeting the League’s attorney threatened to sue if the city went through with approving a plan that was inconsistent with the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency’s Regional Plan.
“It’s not a surprise,” City Manager Tony O’Rourke said of the complaint. “I think the council did the right thing. Unfortunately, this is the tactic the League has used historically. We have wanted to sit down with them, and hope we still can, but that process takes longer than filing a lawsuit.”
In a statement released today, League Executive Director Rochelle Nason says, “From a planning perspective, the city is putting the cart before the horse, because it is prematurely trying to adopt a new General Plan before there is a new Regional Plan. This is a clear violation of the TRPA code of ordinances.”
Although the city knowingly adopted items that are out of compliance with TPRA, there is essentially an asterisk by each of those items that prohibits such things like increased density from taking place until TRPA adopts its next Regional Plan – which is more than a year away.
“We knew they would probably sue us,” O’Rourke told Lake Tahoe News. “They say they want to be partners, but then they revert to litigation. Actions speak louder than words.”
O’Rourke stands by what the council approved – a document long in the works before he was hired nearly a year ago and the majority of the current council came on board last fall.
No injunction has been ordered by a judge, so the General Plan stands for now. But it is possible the League could ask a judge for the city not to implement certain aspects of the General Plan or all of it until a court rules on the entire case.
The League takes issue with the environmental document associated with the General Plan as well.
“We need plans that reduce traffic and boost restoration efforts,” Nason said. “The urbanization proposed by the city will not only diminish the region’s draw as a serene and beautiful place for residents and visitors, it also violates regional, state and federal environmental laws. The sensible solution would be for the city to wait until the TRPA adopts a new regional plan.”
The General Plan cost the city more than $775,000 to create. What a lawsuit will cost would be purely speculative at this point. How long the document will be tied up in court is too early to tell.
“Just because they filed a suit doesn’t mean they are right,” O’Rourke said.
I presume the city will file a countersuit for costs to defend their right to implement a city plan.
“Just because they filed a suit doesn’t mean they are right,” O’Rourke said.
Doesn’t mean the city right either,which in a rare case it’s usually not!!$$
Hey it gives the council something to do!
“Spend more money” no skin off their noses.
I guess the league figures the money the city will use for this lawsuit will help increase the runoff into the lake because we will not be able to fix the streets and storm drain isses. The dirtier the lake the easier for the league to raise funds.
Will the league next sue mother nature for the large amount of snow? Have you seen how much silt is coming down from the high meadows area via cold creek, trout creek, etc. The water looks like chocolate syrup.
Nice straw man criticism. I am sure they are liable to do anything we can think up.
Did Mr. O’Rourke or someone in the City try to arrange a sit down w/ Ms. Nason or someone else with the League? And did the League rebuff the overture?
If that’s true and the League then is just casually filing a lawsuit practically as a reflex, then that should illustrate to all what the League is about!
Or then Ms. Nason is Mr. O’Rourke not telling the truth?
I’m starting a new league that will save me from the League to Save Lake Tahoe.
Its hard to take any city plan seriously with the Ta-hole still gracing the tourist area here. The city is still run by good old boys. who would cut down the last tree and find something to build on the last viewpoint of the lake. If it weren’t for the conservationists, we wouldn’t have enjoyed living here for 40 years. I say this town seriously needs active watchdogs.
I think a group should get together to sue the League. Afterall they only want to stop growth in this area. Not to mention their spending my money which could go towards our local roads instead of fighting a frivolous lawsuit.
This is the prime example of the flaw with our system. Our elected officials are not running this government the courts are. If the Keep Tahoe Blue stickers contribute to this group i hope to see them less and less. As long as this continues as the norm for every planning document nothing will change. New question of the week idea. Do you feel that the League to Save Lake Tahoe does good in the community or is a hamper to progress.
Those darned Keep Tahoe Blue stickers! When we moved here we used to laugh that they were the official “I’m LOCAL” sticker. Especially since if you see an old Subaru with smoke belching out the back of it, invariably it’ll have one on its bumper. People don’t think about what they are supporting when they sport those stickers. It’s classic herd mentality.
herd mentality. like religion.
Any Tahoe retailer who has “Keep Tahoe Blue” stickers on their counter should be shamed. The LTSLT is a self serving corporation that makes it’s money from fear-mongering.
Haha, again, like a church (also a 501c3).
Bongo, no fear in my church. Joy. And we are not a herd. We are individuals who choose to worship together. You need to learn the difference between “religion” and “faith”. Very different. Maybe then you can stop attacking people of faith all the time.
Unfortunately, the TRPA has been unable to approve it’s next 20 year plan, even though they began the “Pathway 2007” process in what seemed to be plenty of time. Is the City just supposed to wait and also be out of compliance with it’s requirements?? I think instead that the city is being proactive and responsible. Once the new TRPA plan is approved, the City can make adjustments accordingly.
Rochelle and the League are just using this, once again, to stir up fear in the public and to stall any kind of redevelopment or reinvestment in our community. Shame on you League – take a look around at the blight in South Lake Tahoe – there is an opportunity to rejuvenate our town and bring in more tourist dollars – clean industry – which would also bring in more money to make environmental improvements and install protections. But you’d rather just block all projects period – even those that would benefit the environment in the long run. Isn’t that so??
What if they City’s General Plan Update and the supported EIS actually proved that no harm would come to the Thresholds, and that the Plan would in fact help bring Threshold standards into compliance. Would everyone be happy then? But the real question lies in the proposed urban growth (not extending the urban boundary, but increasing population densities within the City limits); can it actually improve Lake Tahoe’s environment, or will more people in the Basin just harm the Lake?
My guess is that the City is going to try and get Vail to buy that hole somehow. not sure how they’ll do it but I would be willing to bet that they’ll end up “making the City a deal they can’t refuse”. Watch for it.
Please forgive me: I copied my own earlier comments, as apparently the League didn’t have enough time to either read or follow-through before filing yet another suit. I add a ‘bracketed’ comment later on, but add this first: the League should herald new building, in the hope that more existing “grandfathered” properties will be built better.
The sheer number of ‘long-in-the-tooth’ projects here actually contribute and are the culprit to “near-shore” pollution, along with the reluctant attitudes still prevalent here.
Built to better standards, almost any new building leads to less impact than what exists now. . .
[[[[[[[[[[[ Below: From the other day ]]]]]]]]]]]
The key issue in all of this is TRPA’s, and especially the Leagues’, need to re-educate themselves on what the principles of sustainable development actually are.
The ‘master mind of sustainable development’ William McDonough constructs projects where water coming out is always much cleaner than when it went in – regardless of whether it is a man-made or natural source.
A worthy goal for anything to be built here from now on. . .
Transect zoning, which TRPA is trying to use, includes a deeper look at what constitutes vibrant neighborhoods, and smaller (impact) footprints. In short, more (human) density on the same set of parcels has much less impact than does the ideal ‘nuclear’ family: 2 adults, two kids, a dog, and here, a snowmobile.
Both Whistler and Aspen have thrived with downtown projects that use the first floor for retail, the second for ‘professionals’ and the third for living space, which encourages economic vibrancy and appropriate foot traffic.
Perhaps this fits with SLT’s recent adoption of 45 feet as a height standard, but no one notices, just *******.
[[[[[[I add this comment, after noting the “bitching”, but also to exemplify the “broken record” comment below and to make the additional comment about sustainable development in a transect-zoning context:
walkable, livable communities always have the additional life-giving force of art, towards the idea of vibrancy. Music also – if you have ever been to Boulder, CO on a Friday afternoon, they “roll up the sidewalks”, close downtown to cars, and an amazing amount of energy ensues – people, in the form of entire families, come out and actually talk to each other.
What a concept !!! . . . }}}}}
Ms. Nasons’ laments are “broken record” absent a better understanding of why green building and the concepts above are designed solely to make better & healthier living environments, as they actually leave more open space than before, but with more people, not less.
The idea that somehow things will simply get better leaving “as is” is counterproductive, as leaving existing structures, built without any particular standards over decades, is at best naive.
Environmentalist rhetoric that does not take into account contemporary design elements will end up defeating its’ own purpose. If Ms. Nason spends a lot of her time in Berkeley, she should go to Builders’ Booksource on 4th Street and hone her skills on alternative energies, sustainable architecture and development.
And she might take some of TRPA’s staff with her, so they will know what they’re justifying to their Board, as they also need to fortify what they think they’re doing. It’s all so “expedient” now, in wasting time explaining things to folks that don’t think they need to know anything other than what they already do.
Give up the threshold ’shoehorn’ as well.
Mr. Kubby seems to give the League lots of credit for following “rules”, when not only have the rules changed, they now render all of this political dialogue moot.
Sustainability trumps environmental law, if done right.
Tahoe will get where it wants to go by working much smarter, not slapping trendy thinking about in terms of justifying just themselves & their own charge. The liabilities will not become assets without someone knowing what they’re doing – not proceeding as they are now.
Tahoe is much more important than either they or their chosen ’stake’ in the scheme of things. Raise your sights. . .
None of these discussions, about Boulder Bay, about Homewood, or about the (Galina Creek ?) housing development at Stateline, NV a year or so ago, have done an adequate job of informing the public about their green benefits, which are substantial – but that appears to be additional fallout from TRPA’s image – the developers’ become so intent on proving themselves to TRPA, given their reputation, that the project benefits, while the ultimate constituents do not – still overly mired in the overall political mumbo-jumbo. . .
Can’t finish without a look at “traffic” – Tahoe does not have traffic. . . anyone been to Rancho Cordova about 8-8:30, or approached the Bay Bridge at about 11:00 – this is traffic.
That we have certain ‘bottlenecks’- (approaching Fanny Bridge any early afternoon will do) – are merely adjustments that require better planning when up for retrofit.
Whistler more-less broke can’t afford upkeep maintenance after the winter games left.WE DON’T NEED MORE MAINTANCE COST PASSED ONTO THE LOCAL TAXPAYERS,WE CAN’T AFFORD WHAT WE GOT.
We can’t even afford streets that are smooth or allot regular community infrastructure norms.
You can’t count on WASHINGTON for grants no matter how much you lobby,hey dude ,the country damn near broke and recovery another UNCLE BENS fantasy.
Raise your sights?
Hell, lets start with normal residents needs, then think about Tourist, fun&games, popcorn for the kids, and a strip club for the Grown ups.
It got be better than what going on right now.
Council tired..give us a break,they been putting all this towns resoures into a hole with a crook and we are still rubbing our -utts and tax lost damage.
Excellent post Satori
NOW THE CITY KNOWS WHAT A PAIN IN THE ASS IT IS WORKING WITH THE TREE HUGGERS.