Sierra Colina housing project prevails in court over League
By Kathryn Reed
Just more than two years to the date of filing a lawsuit to stop the 18-acre Sierra Colina project in Stateline from progressing, the League to Save Lake Tahoe lost its battle.
The winners are Steve Kenninger and Gail Jaquish who own the property and want to develop it, as well as TRPA.
The League had sued the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency – citing transfer of land coverage as its main issue.
Sierra Colina, outlined in orange, in Stateline won in court on Aug. 30.
U.S. District Judge Robert Jones in Reno on Tuesday ruled in TRPA and Sierra Colina’s favor.
“Judge Robert C. Jones’ decision heralds a significant victory by allowing responsible development which invigorates the economy and creates jobs to advance in the Lake Tahoe Basin without frivolous lawsuits tying up environmentally beneficial projects,” Kenninger said in a statement.
Rochelle Nason, executive director of the League, did not respond to a request for comment.
“We were confident throughout the whole process that the Governing Board made the right decision with the approval of the Sierra Colina project,” Julie Regan, spokeswoman for TRPA, told Lake Tahoe News.
The board approved the project in summer 2009.
Regan elaborated that the bi-state regulatory agency is extremely pleased the judge cited the numerous environmental benefits of the project in his 25-page decision.
The decision released Aug. 30, came 29 days after both sides gave testimony. At that time the judge wondered why the lawsuit was filed. Jones in his ruling cites much of what the final environmental impact statement says in terms of quantities of pollutants that will no longer enter Lake Tahoe if the project is completed, how the project goes beyond the environmental requirements, how bike-pedestrian trails will be improved, and the reduction of disturbances in stream environmental zones.
“The court spent a great deal of time walking through the various environmental benefits of the project and that was a factor in the decision,” Regan said.
Kenninger and Jaquish did not wait for the judge’s decision to begin environmental improvements. Work on Burke Creek is under way.
With the Lake Tahoe Basin having a limited time frame when dirt can be moved – May 1-Oct. 15 – the soonest ground could be broken is next year because building permits still need to be secured and the economy needs to help indicate when would be the time to build.
When built, Sierra Colina will include 41 market rate dwellings and nine moderate-income deed restricted places. Forty-two units will be in 21 townhouse-style duplexes, with eight being single-family homes.
The goal is to be the first neighborhood in the basin to have all units meet state of the art green sustainability criteria.
Here is the court ruling.
Imagine if all the money wasted by the League in court was instead used to put environmental improvements on the ground. There are plenty of good environmental organizations to choose from today (Trust for Public Lands, Nature Conservancy, etc.) who have a better business model.
The league sued to stop a project that had significant environmental benefits, is LEED certified, provided affordable housing, provided connective bike trails and permanent open space and a United States Federal Judge dismissed their suit in its entirety. Those that are league members or display their sticker should be shaking their head and asking is this what their dues should be going to?
The League is a classic tool for rich NIMBY’s with the classic, “I’ve got mine, screw the rest of you” attitude. While they’re keep the best of Tahoe for themselves and the riff raff out, they convince themselves that they are “working” (throwing money around) to save the environment. While hobnobbing with the fashionable set on illegal piers.
I wouldn’t want to go to work for an agency known to sue people for a living. Very creative of you, League.
Gee I don’t know maybe we already have enough development in the basin. Wow, nine affordable housing units, that will completely transform the affordable housing situation in South lake Tahoe.
If anyone has any doubts about the League’s hypocracy and duplicity claiming to protect the environment while just destroying people’s ability to live here and delaying great environmental gain now is their opportunity to find the truth. Just read the ruling on this law suit brought by the League.
The League to Sue Lake Tahoe.
Follow the money. Trpa rules apply only to those who can’t afford to fight them. Does moderate income mean that all the jobs created by redevelopment will meet that standard, then what is the cost of that moderate income unit? And the cost of market rate units is? What were the outside legal fees for TRPA. for the case?
Hi Mike, I’don see any green benifit to 9 units that 5 people getting min. wage can’t afford, and allowing more coverage on bare land is a new green to me.
Lou, the land was zoned for residential development. If you dont like it buy them out. This is the problem with Tahoe. Investors buy land that is zoned for developement, the price of the land reflects that it is zoned for development. Then the investor has to jump through hoops? Why do they have to do anything green? Where is that in the Code or Plan Area Statement. Why is it okay for these investors to be put through this? Why would anyone else get involved here?
The environmental benefit does not occur with 9 units, the environmental benefit occurs with a a reduction in sediment runoff from that lot. A review of the range of project benefits include 9 affordable units, erosion control, dedicated open space, bicycle connectivity, leed certified building. The project also serves as a blue print for future redevlopmet projects that when implemented will also bring new environmental mitigation technology and practices which will further reduce sediment run off.
Their track record is not very good, check it out.
Great to hear that at least one judge can see the facts and not the League’s twisted “logic”.
Please read the ruling. The facts are clear and overwhelming in favor of the project benefits across many measures.
The projects is LEED certified, provided affordable housing, connective bike trails and created permanent open space.. uhhhhh what’s the problem? There are 40 acres up in Blackwood the USFS is exploding while importing 10s of thousand of yards of non-native, unconsolidated material in the name of restoration with not a BMP in site in the floodplain! League! Please go reprioritize your projects for lawsuits. Responsible development can mimic preexisting hydrology which is the basis of Low Impact Development (LID) design. We can restore our community and the environment at the same time. The rest of the nation is decades ahead of us on this concept.
Mike, why does the project have to have benefits? The land was zoned for development. All the developers should have had to show is that the project does not have negative environmental impacts. And where there are impacts the developer should be required to mitigate those impacts.
Requiring Sierra Colina to create some open space, bike paths and clean up some past damage makes a whole lot of sense. But the rest of the hoops are just incredible. Again, why would quality investors want to get involved in Tahoe if this is what they are going to have to through?
Blackwood canyon!! League, youwanna have a positive impact on the lake? get out there and monitor their project… Clarity is sure to be compromised… Citizens.. Get together and stand up to these stream destruction projects!
This is what the League to Save Lake Tahoe sent to Lake Tahoe News today:
“The Sierra Colina project represents the first time in nearly 40 years that the TRPA has approved a new residential subdivision without counting its road coverage. The League challenged this approval because excess coverage is a prime cause of Lake Tahoe’s declining clarity.
“We may be able to provide further comment once we have thoroughly reviewed the decision. We will not make any decisions regarding an appeal until after that review is complete.”
Amanda Royal, communications coordinator
What the league did was to try and stop a project that according to water quality specialists, scientists, TRPA staff, the advisory planning commission, the TRPA board and a United States federal judge agree would provide a net benefit to the environment. The league with no scientists, no specialists in hydrology,soils,engineers etc. thinks it knows better.
The league (who professes to be for the environment) needs to answer why they are against a project that is a benefit to the environment, the community and the economy. Please tell us Amanda the community is waiting……..
Yes Carl you are so right if only we could develop every last sq. ft. think of the plethora of erosion control devices we could employ! Guess we should build even more developments, think how the lake clarity would improve! Except that it’s effluents and dredging that destroy the lake’s clarity, not sediment.
Carl, The judge did not rule on benefits to the lake.
Lou, you are absolutely right.
I personally question the statements that the developers make regarding local economic benefit regarding the construction of this project. We all know that the majority of these large subdivisions get done by a non-local workforce, especially when using Union workers. It’s crap, b/c the majority of Tahoe carpenters do not belong to the Union. And I know a lot of carpenters and General Contractors.
I’ve also noticed that quit a few of these projects propose pre-fab construction, which also usually doesn’t use local carpenters.
Why should a business be FORCED to use union labor? Or even local labor, for that matter? If we aren’t competitive, it’s our own fault.
I think we are splitting hairs; the judge approved the way in which TRPA had properly analyzed all the environmental impacts of the project. The project itself includes significant environmental improvements. If there was a problem with the environmental elements/benefits I imagine the judge would not have the same conclusion.
From the TRPA News release 30 August 2011.
“In their lawsuit, the League to save Lake Tahoe challenged the adequacy of TRPA’s Environmental review. In his order dismissing the League’s claim US District Judge Robert Jones of the District of Nevada agree with TRPA that the project was consistent with restoring, maintaining and improving the quality of the Lake Tahoe Region for visitors and residents of the region..” and that “it would be built to TRPA design codes and with the land use regulations set for the project area.” He concluded that TRPA acted appropriately in approving the Sierra Colina Permit and that the agency had properly analyzed all environmental impacts.
The judge also went to considerable lengths pointing out the community and environmental benefits of the Sierra Colina project including promotion of energy conservation programs, using LEED construction techniques, improving water quality and standards and meeting Total Maximum daily Load (TMDL) requirements, creating public access bike and hiking trails, promoting alternative transportation, reducing carbon emissions, providing moderate income housing as well as the conveyance of 10.7 acres of the parcel for public use and open space.”
David I disagree with your comment I am not in favor of any additional development outside the envelope of the built environment. This project sits between a condo development and a shopping center and the improvements that come with the project will provide environmental improvement. I am in fact in favor of reducing the south shore footprint by removing all the unuseable lodging that exists, I have previously written we need to reduce the available lodging inventory by 5o% in doing so improve sediment run off an the lot and road level.
Sorry David… you are way off course… Carl pretty much nailed it… The problem to lake clarity is particles less than 16 microns in diameter that stay in suspension. This affects clarity and the near shore. Reducing this total load by 30% supposedly can achieve the baseline condition as measured from 1968-1972 of over 90 feet clarity. Whether you agree with this or not $10 million in science was used in the development of the TMDL which is the new policy driving this forward. This nearly impossible to meet and unfunded task is supported by all regulatory agencies.
Back to this project.. The use of Low Impact Development (LID) concepts and techniques are being completed all over the US and being successful in restoring pre-development hydrology, even in areas with minimal infiltration rates. Some even benefit the environment. If you investigate this, you can see that a project done in this manner will have virtually no impact on the environment and therefore support responsible development. Do we want to develop the lake? Heck No! But when a parcel that is capable of being developed is done so in this manner, there is minimal impact. Do I support development? “No”. Do I think this concept can be applied regionally to all areas needing redevelopment? “Absolutely!” If we were able to redevelop in this fashion and relaxed the regulations top allow people to invest in our community in a time sensitive manner, we could then restore the community and the environment at the same time. Problem is many are out destroying stream zones in the name of restoration, of which those agencies are not even part of the TMDL, so no matter how much impact we have with reducing pollutant loads, the loads associated with a project like Blackwood are going to negate all our efforts. Sierra Colina will have 1000x’s less impact than the disturbance going on in Blackwood.
In all of the comments pro or con, not one has dealt with the innovation model of Sierra Colina. . . as one person who braved a sea of League supporters to testify @ TRPA on behalf of this project,with LEED Platinum experience under my belt, allow me to enhance the decision.
Sierra Colina is to be a LEED Platinum Neighborhood project, of which there are very few in the U.S. I testified on its’ behalf because the Tahoe transformation so often talked about needs at least one project to follow, otherwise we will end up with the same “patchwork” and “piecemeal” approach that plagues not only Tahoe, but the entire nation.
One comprehensively-built neighborhood is easily worth the 18 acres of raw land, versus all the existing ‘ramshackle’ abodes that exist all over town, especially Al Tahoe.
New construction will be hurt absent too many more McMansions (good riddance), but the largest category of construction in the immediate future will be “LEED EB” (existing buildings), meaning that the “near-shore” will benefit from better performing buildings that will help the Lake. Not a moment too soon. . .
The existing LEED Platinum building in the Basin is running at 45% energy usage of a typical building its’ size, all the more amazing given the ‘energy burning’ laboratory within. . .
Kudos to Gail & Steve for hanging in there. . . and prevailing for themselves and Tahoe, too. . .