Opinion: Time to rethink Homewood’s development plans
By Rochelle Nason
Tahoe’s West Shore is an icon of California’s natural beauty. Emerald Bay is one of the most photographed spots on Earth. The entire stretch of shoreline and forest, from Camp Richardson to Tahoe City, with its lake vistas and abundance of public lands, provides inspiration to millions of visitors as well as to its tiny local population.
Unfortunately, the area suffers from terrible traffic congestion and air pollution. Evidence of the poor decision-making of the past is obvious everywhere: A huge landslide scars Emerald Bay because of road construction. The watershed continues to suffer from past mining practices. Forests and meadows are degraded by logging and grazing. Extensive overdevelopment abounds, even on fragile soils and steep slopes.
Rochelle Nason
Is our society capable of making better decisions today? Some are hailing a proposed expansion of Homewood Mountain Resort as part of the solution to the West Shore’s environmental problems. But we at the League to Save Lake Tahoe (known for our motto “Keep Tahoe Blue”) believe this proposal must be downsized and improved to protect and enhance the watershed, scenery and other environmental features and to avoid worsening traffic congestion.
We recognize the challenge facing the developer. When JMA Ventures purchased the property at the height of the real estate boom in 2006, it assumed expensive legal and moral obligations to stop the property from polluting the lake and to reduce wildfire risk. But we are deeply concerned at its proposal for a host of rule changes to squeeze hundreds of condo and hotel rooms into this small community. Further, changing the protective rules at Homewood could lead to similar transformative changes throughout the Lake Tahoe Basin – yet no analysis of such dramatic changes has been done.
The developer argues that, if it must abide by the limits in effect when it purchased the property, it will have to either sell the property or shut down the ski resort and find another use for the land. However, there is no persuasive evidence that a smaller project could not be economically feasible.
A better vision for Lake Tahoe would direct intensive development to sites near transportation hubs, housing and existing infrastructure. We have helped make this model a success on the South Shore. But today, piecemeal planning is resulting in large project proposals that move development from urbanized casino areas to less appropriate areas – a sad step backward in land-use planning.
The League is urging the developer to work with the community, conservation groups and regulators to create a vision for the resort that all can support – one that does not sacrifice long-term conservation for short-term economic benefits.
More fundamentally, we are asking the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency to consider: How much additional development can the West Shore of Lake Tahoe sustain? What development rules should apply to the basin as a whole? What is the big-picture plan to save the lake? We owe it to future generations to plan carefully to keep Tahoe blue.
Rochelle Nason is the executive director of the League to Save Lake Tahoe.
Size doesn’t matter and once again Rochelle thinks she’s the one with the answer, but she’s wrong again. The TRPA has enough regulations to choke the lake and all its residents, we’re doing fine thank y you bay-area residents Rochelle and your belief you are the only one who really knows how to protect the lake, the only thing you care about protecting is your piece of the lake, your personal view of the lake and well yes there’s your job you want to keep so you convince people who don’t seem to know any better that you alone must have the answers. Those of you in Berkeley need to listen to the experts, the scientists and those who’ve developed the technology to actually protect the Lake, the water in the lake. You see, it’s not the size of the buildings or the number of condos or hotel rooms that impact the “blueness of the lake,” Rochelle. Go read how scientists around the world, not just here in Tahoe, have improved construction techniques so that regardless of the size of one’s building or footprint in the sand, it is the impact to the water out there that matters so that is where we should move the debate.
How much runoff is currently on the site now, what does it look like and how much does it impact the lake? Compare that to the proposed project and its run off and is it better or worse? Maybe the project is a model for development showing how well it is able to utilize space and a showcase of design ideas using new technology that has little impact on its surroundings.
The false belief the region can only handle a certain number of hotel rooms and limited coverage has led to discussions far removed from the cause of what keeps Tahoe “blue.”
It’s time to make the League prove a project harms the lake before they are allowed to stop new ideas and development. Rochelle bring your scientific evidence, not your opinions. Stay in Berkeley and let the rest of us protect the Lake. Between the TRPA and government regulations here, the lake will be just fine.
Good letter Frank. Maybe that’s how things should be changed for the agencies: Assume a project is innocent until proven guilty, instead of the other way around.
This opinion piece would have credibility if the League/Ms. Nason would just once! say what kind of development they’re for!
She did: a smaller project.
Correct Lou! But that’s what the League always says-“We’d be for project X if only it was smaller or more environmentally sensitive, etc.” I don’t recall the League ever saying, “We for this particular project!” in regards to any specific project?!
Well good morning all, here we go again, just a few points:
1) Parker, the League actively supported the construction of the Redevelopment hotels and the gondola at South Shore. Those hotels took out deteriorated sprawled development sitting directly on the same highways serving them, and their water quality systems served large swaths of Community Plan area, not just the hotel sites themselves. (We did not actively support he Convention Center after reading the think tank study cautioning municipalities not to build these things, but we didn’t oppose it either because we support the concept of building shoulder-season patronage rather than building more capacity for peak periods).
2) Frank, what the League is looking for is an effective plan to restore Lake Tahoe and protect its watershed. If we are going to rely exclusively on development to get water quality projects done, just how much development will we need? Until we see the plan, we think it is unwise to sacrifice limits on watershed coverage (which protects many values besides clarity including nearshore water quality, vegetation, scenic, etc.).
Finally, why attack me personally for splitting my time between Tahoe and the Bay Area, as so many Tahoe people do? We need to get past this “us vs. them” mindset if we are ever going to find solutions that are broadly supported.
Absolutely LAUGHABLE Ms. Nason.
She actually wrote “A better vision for Lake Tahoe would direct intensive development to sites near transportation hubs, housing and existing infrastructure. We have helped make this model a success on the South Shore.”
Please explain:
1.)What exactly is “direct intensive development”? Was the “Hole in the Ground” an example of that theory? I’m a really average commoner, and those words don’t really speak to my level of vocabulary. Either stop using bureaucratic, politically-correct terms or start using language the average person can understand.
2.)In what parameters has any development been successful on the S. Shore? Again your words condemning any development away from the casino corridor seem to suggest support for the “Hole in the Ground”. In my book, that particular effort receives an ‘F’.
3.)What data can you supply to support your contention of the west shore traffic complaining that “the area suffers from terrible traffic congestion and air pollution”?
I can offer personal visual proof that on both occasions which I drove to Squaw Valley on locals days in March & April, that neither day “suffered” from any traffic problems. In fact, my entire Jeep-load of passengers and I were amazed at how deserted the roads were, and how quickly we arrived at our destination. Maybe the earlier LTN article that reported the negative news that ski resort visits were down 12% this year proves that point for me. The actual life on the streets seems to contradict your “opinion”.
Finally, one last question Ms. Nason. Since you are the expert on development. I need to know what job the League is going to create for me. Let’s make this personal. I’ve been a Tahoe resident for 10 years. I currently have only a part-time job, no benefits. Fortunately, it pays the bills for now. I am single, but would like to meet a nice girl and make her my wife, then raise a family here with her. What project do you support that will help create full-time, permanent jobs, so that young single males like myself can realize their dreams?
The League to Save Lake Tahoe may be environmental extremists, but so what? They have every right to advocate for their point of view and by all accounts, they follow the rules in doing so.
In contrast, the TRPA does not even follow its own charter, nor does the SLT city council, while we have seen both of these deeply flawed public agencies engage in shameful personal attacks on Rochelle Nason and the League.
In the case of this article, Ms. Nason raises valid concerns about the impact on lake clarity, based upon the additional vehicular traffic this project will generate. The League has offered a compromise, based upon size, while we hear nothing from the other side on what their solution is for reducing the impact of all that extra traffic.
Do we really need another casino, like the TRPA just approved? Are we supposed to trust or support the SLT city council, when a grand jury says they have committed crimes and those crimes have never been addressed?
Like it or not, the League and Ms. Nason are about all that stands between us and the continued trashing of Lake Tahoe by the TRPA, city council, and redevelopment agency.
Mr. Himes (?), the League has never been a promoter of either the convention center or airport expansion, and in fact has urged the whole Tahoe Basin to consider alternative public investments in economic development (e.g. incubation of small and unique businesses attractive to tourists, and better connectivity to Reno/Tahoe Airport).
My point was to explain to Parker that the League SUPPORTED the gondola and the redevelopment hotels (Embassy, LTVR & Marriotts), and DID NOT OPPOSE the convention center, all for environmental reasons.
We are all well aware of South Lake Tahoe’s economic pain and take it very seriously. The League has long warned of the perils of an economy too dependent on gaming and second-home construction – both inherently unsustainable activities.
I am sorry to hear about your employment issues and wish you well.
I think the best advice I can give you is to give up the idea that the League or anyone else is going to create a job for you – try to think actively in terms of what you can do to make yourself essential to an employer (and/or what you can do to create a business for yourself.) Best of luck.
P.S. Don’t judge West Shore traffic and pollution by a ‘locals day’ in March or April. Check it out on a hot summer weekend. Not a happy scene!
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 *******.
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 standard 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 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.
There’s no words to replace and undo what’s been done ,and the Hole was a over blown pyramid scheme that blew up because the inside wall street banks screwed us all.
The city was dumb enough to believe we get something for nothing.Come on we got screwed to with upping trash rates,garage balloon payments,having to see the hole collect beer bottles,nothing really happening cause courts and money take for ever to solve the bad karma in business.
I would much rather read this ladies comments than any from the quack Julie ,Jeff, at the TRPA.
THEY SHOULD PUT A PROJECT HALT ON ALL BIG PROJECTS TILL THE OLD ONE ARE FIXED OR COMPLETED.
There’s a need for more public open beaches than ever than large corporation coming in buying every open lot planning a sky scraper,time share,high retail.
We need more open spaces in the basin that the people can actually use without keep out signs,private beach.
Excellent post Satori.
hmmm…what would you people have to do if you couldn’t kick around the League and Nason? Maybe you should get a hobby or do some volunteer work. The League has a mission statement, as does TRPA – what’s yours?
I do stand corrected Ms. Nason! But will restate that the League has not supported a project in at least the last 10 yrs.
And I will say, while it’s not my view, I have no problem with an organization that takes an extreme view in regards to the Lake. I really don’t! All kinds of views should be welcome in our Country and in regards to what’s best for Lake Tahoe. It’s just how the League goes about it! Rather than just coming out and stating what the League is for, the League plays games!
Many times something will be open for environmental review and the League won’t voice its objections until the last minute! They’ll say they’re not opposed to the project, but just one or two or three issues with it. But the last second objections cause delays that in effect can kill a project. Or even if it’s not last second, rather than just declaring opposition, it’s a matter of, ‘we’re not opposed but just want it adjusted.’ Thus resulting in more delays, that again really can serve to kill the project which obviously was the League’s goal in the first place!
But hey, I guess you’ve got the money for the lawyers and the lobbyists to play that game. And Satori, if you’ve got your facts straight, then I guess I should just say, “I defer to Satori!”
Thanks, Parker and Carl:
It is not about deferring to me – it’s about offering a unique agency a way to justify its’ ‘uniqueness’ – after all, it has Tahoe as part of its’ namesake. . . and unique shouldn’t have to be “high-maintenance”.
It’s about getting more serious in a world now intent on wanting to rely on considerably less than “good enough for government”, for which we will all suffer. . .if it can’t be ‘good enough for all’.
And, for Parker, the ‘facts’ are correct: there are many examples “out there” to draw from, if Lake Tahoe were not so ingrown about itself. . .
Tahoe’s specialness should be a cause for celebration, not a millstone around our neck. . .
Remember League, you are not needed, and have not been called upon to voice the concerns of the citizens, you only speak for your private few, whom we’ll have to guess, do not live here, and face the struggles of our community. It’s easy to spout crazy half thought up, non-science based, or over kill ecological concerns from your arm chair, it’s over
We will take care of OUR lake :)
My opinion only. I think we need the league as well as the TRPA. The TRPA needs to go back to keeping the lake blue but they need to tone down their heavy handed tactics. Right as Joanne took over I wrote and delivered a letter to them how I was treated when I recieved an award for my building back in 2008. Most of my suggestions were given in a speech by Joanne two months later but one critical aspect was left out. TRPA needs to build a building, go through the process to actually see what a pain they are and overall hinderance. They are still taking over a year to do any “fast and streamlined” process, ask any contractor that has had to deal with them in the past year alone including a council person. I dealt with over 25 agencies through them. The actual personnel were very helpfull but they were overwhelmed by the sheer rules and regulations that have been created and were just as lost as I was. Joanne, look up 1089 Magua, South Lake Tahoe, El Dorado County and contact me, it might open your eyes. The League actually serves a purpose up here, they have the money and time to fight the battles of overdevelopment. I mean why build 200 crimeshares when 50 will do. I have bagged on both in the past and will continue to do so in the future but I (my opinion only) feel we need them, TRPA needs to get out of the construction business and the League needs to fight the big battles and get out of the little homeowner ones. The city and counties can run themselves.
What about the plan pending to pour chemicals into the lake to kill the weeds. That is why somebody, somewhere has to pay attention, we need a reasonable set of rules everyone can follow. Not more bureaucracy.
Lots of research and planning has gone into the plan to kill the weeds in the keys. It is actually not as bad as you might think it is.
In my travels around the country to the cities Tahoe competes with for tourism, Tahoe is way behind the rest of them. Drive down the highways here and look around, it is sad. I believe the fear factor that all the agencies give the local business comunity is really showing. Why would anyone want to try and upgrade thier comercial property with the red tape associated. It is a vicious cycle that is circling the drain. We all want to keep Tahoe blue, but if it is going to be that hard to do business we all loose, as does the lake. If Tahoe got back the sense of community it used to have things would move forward, but with out it I feel things will continue down. Let them redevolop and move forward for the sake of the community and the lake. Make the rules standard and the same for everyone. Stop all the costly lawsuits
First let me start by saying thank you to the League for the many times they have called the TRPA to the floor for not following the TRPA’s own mandate, to maintain and improve lake clarity. The TRPA is a political organization first and as such needs to be watched and held to task as politics override organizational objectives.
That said, at what point do we all sit down and realize that the old days of Casinos bringing money and jobs in with constant real estate growth may well be over? We have many homes sitting empty and waiting to be sold while at the same time our Governing bodies are pursuing large construction projects financed by outside entities who will dump these projects the minute they can rather than maintain these properties over the long haul. Who is going to buy these properties down the road? Why not develop projects that put our many local contractors to work improving existing structures and the overall appearance and function of our towns?
There are too many Gorillas in the room for this discussion to get anywhere without leaving one perspective or another scratching their heads. If you have money and can pay the fines the TRPA will likely let you build. Yes, you may need to buy additional land, tweak your build and find the right inspector but this is established building practice. The average local home owner is threatened to not build too much or face the consequences while the latest mega home gets built across the street with 80% coverage. We are taught in our local schools how the entire basin was cut to the ground and lake clarity largely recovered and yet if one tries to cut a tree down is treated like they have assaulted their neighbors children. Our clarity issues are more related to cars and roadways which are absent from the discussion most of the time. Too many contradictions, this whole process needs to be scrapped!
Locals are not as dumb as we are presented to be. We know we need jobs and businesses to survive. We also realize that the natural environment that brought us here is what will ultimately be what brings others here as well. If Businesses, Governing bodies and the watch groups that oversee our activities can not present a reasoned, moderate and consistent approach to how they interact then, like children, we Locals will continue to largely ignore what rules we can, skirt the ones we have too, and laugh at the lot of you who think you are doing anything constructive.
We need our natural environment to bring people, jobs and money.
Rochelle, you have a 1960-70s way of looking at things, you lack knowledge on substantive solutions to real environmental issues and how to help the lake. Yes, it matters that you live in Berkeley, does it matter that we live here? We living here everyday, day in and day out, know this lake better than you, we know what happens when
rain pours through run down buildings, when there is no money to improve how we look.
You simply do not have adequate understanding of environmental benefits and sustainable development maybe that’s because where you live, Berkeley, the cities are essentially built out. What you see day in and day out in large urban environment is not what we see everyday. Developers in your area may not be as educated in sustainable development as those who build here are required to be.
Satori is spot on reminding others your “broken record laments” are evidence of lack of understandng.
What you’ve come against of late is a more educated, informed, and exhausted public. We, yes those who live here, we know the economy matters and your efforts to stop us from improving the appearance of commercial buildings are a weak and veiled attempt to simple shut down the entire lake. We are too exhausted from trying to survive here to put up with your efforts to prevent us from bettering how we present ourselves to tourists, these old-age arguments of yours are merely an attept to convince your membership you have some value to them, they who primarily don’t live here, and you want to keep things looking run down so you can visit without crowds when you get here (as said in your post).
If you really were truly an organization that wanted to save lake tahoe, start putting your money to help developers include more sustainable development. Provide grants to developers who come up with the best idea to showcase green building standards, support and fund projects that bring people from around the world to see how sustainable living really does help the environment. Be the League that showcases, promotes and champions efforts to save the lake for generations by providing opportunities for millions more to live, visit and recreate here in order to apprepriate its beauty. Oh, but if the League did that, they’d need a new Director since you only know the old ways of old to stand in the road and shout “stop.”
Get out of the way, sustainability has run over your old thinking.
Excellent post Frank W. The league does not accept the concept of the triple bottom line (a balance between the environment, the economy and the community), the see it as a corporate concept. As such, they do not understand what many other environmentally sensitive areas understand the concept of sustainability.
Regulation not planning is all they know, its very old school.
Carl, Could you be more bias?
Lou everyone has a bias and opinion. Does rochelle not have a bias?
But Lou, Carl is used to being paid for his bias opinion$.
Here you get it for free!
What a deal, huh?
Well spoken Frank!