TRPA OKs S. Tahoe’s blueprint to revitalization
By Kathryn Reed
STATELINE – A sense of hope filled the packed room Wednesday as the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Governing Board unanimously approved South Lake Tahoe’s Tourist Core Area Plan.
Of the 16 people who spoke Nov. 20, only Jennifer Quashnick representing the Tahoe Area Sierra Club and Friends of the West Shore was against the plan. She represents the two groups suing the TRPA over the Regional Plan that was adopted nearly a year ago.
Nearly every person who spoke after her later mocked Quashnick, who said she had the support of the more than 2.4 million Sierra Club members. The speakers then said how many people they represent.
South Tahoe officials want more of the town to be visually appealing like Heavenly Village. Photo/LTN file
Even Governing Board Member Bill Yeats, who is an ardent supporter of the Sierra Club and has been the group’s attorney, said he was pretty sure not every member was in lockstep with her.
He went on to say, “I find it difficult to agree with (the Sierra Club), but find no problem with this plan.”
Coverage and height issues have been some of the concerns with the plan. These are some of same concerns people raised as the Regional Plan was being updated. Today’s thinking is that if there are town centers, then people will park once and walk to places. The goal is also have mixed uses in these areas.
“No new coverage can be created,” Hal Cole, South Lake Tahoe’s rep to the board, said. “Since 1987 we have been trying to repair the damage done since the 1960s.”
1987 was when the first Regional Plan was adopted. While it limited growth, it also was a stumbling block to redevelopment. The 1960s brought shoddy construction, an abundance of hotel rooms for the Winter Olympics that were at Squaw and unprecedented development without any concern for the environment.
South Tahoe’s plan complements the area plan approved earlier this fall for Douglas County’s commercial area at the South Shore.
While the area plans do not have specific projects associated with them, they do provide incentives for private landowners. Part of this has to do with swapping land coverage from sensitive areas to the town centers, streamlining the permitting process, and access to commodities like commercial floor area and tourist accommodation units.
The South Lake Tahoe plan covers the same area as the community plan adopted in 1994 that went from Stateline to Ski Run Boulevard. The area plan is a new tool that TRPA wants jurisdictions to use in conjunction with the Regional Plan.
Hilary Roverud, who runs the city’s planning department, told the board since the 1994 document was approved more than 1 million square feet of coverage have been removed from that area, vehicle miles have been reduced, and stormwater runoff has been captured so not as much sediment is reaching Lake Tahoe.
“Without redevelopment, today we are looking toward the Tourist Core Area Plan to help create public-private partnerships,” Roverud said.
The city on this same day took a major step in stimulating cash flow from that area. The $7 million parking garage bonds were refinanced Nov. 20 at an average interest rate of 4.94 percent. The 30-year bonds have a 5.1 percent interest rate. The old rate was more than 7 percent. This means a more than $250,000 annual savings to South Lake Tahoe.
The area plan will come back to the City Council because TRPA made some changes. One item deals with strengthening coverage reduction and stream environmental zone restoration strategies, and another centers on improving total maximum daily load coordination. Here are the area plan modifications.
The City Council has one meeting in December – on Dec. 10.
It would have certainly helped to report what the main elements of the plan are and what was objected to by the Sierra Club representative that resulted in being “mocked” – “mocked”. Really? So I am to think “mocking” means enlightened rebuttal?
Redevelopment is the reason that the City is having money problems
it started in 89 with the Ski Run (Hole in the Ground)
more Town Centers will only cause more problems
sediment is not what is causing the Green Gack to grow along Cow Pie Beach
the Loop Road will get approved with the tourist core plan (more problems)
I support Jennifer Quashnick and the Sierra Club, sounds like the reporting is from a high school paper and the people speeking against Jennifer have no rebuttal worth hearing. Why did’nt you list how many people they represent? I support a slower plan with more conservation of the environment than economic progress. If you can’t hack it in Tahoe then you need to go to the big city. This place has already been developed enough over the last forty eight years I have been spending time here..let’s make sure we protect the lake, ecology, environment first, then your ever precious economy will follow..
Are lawsuits really helping?
JTC you are right, and the Sierra Club is right. And you are both very wrong as well. Overdevelopment from the past is the problem, but constricting the rules on what can be done has only ensured the pollution continues.
A slower plan with more conservation and less thought about a stable economy was already tried. The Sierra Club’s approach has a 25-year track record since that was the first plan that was just changed.
JTC and the Sierra Club seem to be looking at this through the misperception that it’s one or the other. The truth is we can’t have a healthy environment nor a resilient economy without making it a goal to have both. There is no public funding to fix this. We need to be able to pay for it ourselves.
And there is no growth in the plans. That is a stinky red-herring the club is using to raise financial support for the lawsuit.
I also laughed when I heard the “1.4 million” comment. All due respect but that 1.4 million is comprised almost entirely of flatlanders that don’t live here.
Imagine a group of Tahoe locals attending city council meetings in San Fransisco telling them how to run thier city, get it?
Trifle, check your facts. There is MUCH growth in the new Regional Plan. Hal says the City’s plan doesn’t add growth or coverage. This may be technically true because the City Plan relies on TRPA’s new Regional Plan, which does add MORE growth and coverage (pavement, buildings). The City Plan just doesn’t add any more than TRPA approved last year. Check it out – 4 stories at the Y, 6 stories on both sides of 50 at Stateline, more tall buildings at Ski Run and 50, and the 3 shorter casinos can all GROW to the same height as Harrah’s and Harvey’s. The new zoning would also allow 4 story buildings around where Denny’s is, and up by the DMV. This was all approved in the new Regional Plan in December 2012. Disagree with the concept, but check the facts before you make judgements.
Go Sierra Club!
endless pressure, endlessly aapplied
Kody, I thought about it a bit and I am wondering where the room rights would come from for the buildings? Larger buildings are one thing, but I thought Tahoe had a development right system that kind of makes commodities out of the right to create new uses.
I am still checking on some of the facts about this, but it looks like there aren’t any more hotel rooms allowed, so if the casinos want to add three more floors, they have to tear down a hotel somewhere else. It might be important to understand structural engineering too if we are thinking more stories are going to pop up on top of Horizon.
If someone wants to build four stories next to Denny’s where are they going to get the rights to fill the building? Removing ramshackle motels or houses built on bulldozed wetlands and stacking them up next to Denny’s might not be a bad idea if Tahoe’s ecosystem improves. Right?
Wasn’t the old Colony Inn behind Raley’s torn down like that?
Trifle, 2600 new residential allocations. 600 new bonus units & TRPA can add more bonus units later. One 300′ motel room can be torn down & rebuilt into one 1200-1800′ sq. ft. room all with the same 1 allocation unit & development right. There is no shortage of more units and more floor area to build.
TRPA keeps putting out new articles about how great the Plan is but their messages are just playing on words. TRPA never says NO growth. They say the growth RATE is LESS THAN the 1987 Plan. We were here when the first Plan was adopted and there was supposed to eventually be a cap on new buildings in Tahoe.
Add the Loop Road and watch our business customers and their money go straight to Nevada while those of us still in the City get to deal with the traffic and pollution from tourists driving through town to NV. Did you know our esteemed City recently voted to make it easier to transfer development out of the City to NV? Plus we will get to subsidize the affordable housing for Vail and Edgewood employees being paid minimum wage. Think NV will help with affordable housing? Our STR rates will probably go up again too. Good times are a’comin’ to Tahoe, my friend.
Kudos to those trying to stop it but chances are that ship has sailed.