THIS IS AN ARCHIVE OF LAKE TAHOE NEWS, WHICH WAS OPERATIONAL FROM 2009-2018. IT IS FREELY AVAILABLE FOR RESEARCH. THE WEBSITE IS NO LONGER UPDATED WITH NEW ARTICLES.

Whole Foods redevelopment project squandered


image_pdfimage_print

By Kathryn Reed

In what was touted to be a signature project to showcase how redevelopment can work to benefit the environment and the economy, and how competing agencies could work together is now the ultimate example of Tahoe drama that has collectively cost taxpayers and the would-be developer nearly $1 million.

South Lake Tahoe entered a contract with Pradip Patel, owner of the Knights Inn on Highway 50, in February to purchase the property for $6 million. This was $1.5 million more than the appraised value. The city was going to recoup the difference by selling the commodities tied to the parcel.

(The transaction would have skewed the real estate market if the sale were to be above the appraised price; making comps for future sales a sticking point.)

The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency in an attempt to curtail development assessed a value to things like commercial floor area, tourist accommodation units and coverage. More recently they developed a pilot program – which has not been used – where bonus units are available if stream environmental zones are restored. All of this plays into this project and in some ways is partially to be blamed for the demise of it.

The blame, though, for why this project is dead in the water can be shared by nearly everyone who ever had anything to do with it.

This is what the Whole Foods in South Lake Tahoe could have looked like.

This is what the Whole Foods in South Lake Tahoe could have looked like.

In the contract between South Lake Tahoe and Patel was a contingency that the deal was dependent on $4 million from the California Tahoe Conservancy. The money would have been used to fund the environmental work, including daylighting the stream that is now diverted through an underground culvert and reducing sediment reaching Lake Tahoe by 10,000 pounds per year.

But the Conservancy board never got a chance to vote on this expenditure of Proposition 1 dollars because Executive Director Patrick Wright wouldn’t put it on the agenda. Tom Davis, the city’s rep on the Conservancy board, said he is going to demand the issue be heard in December – even if it’s too late.

The city started working with the CTC last October when it initially applied for funding. At the eleventh-hour the city was told to rewrite the application. City and Conservancy staff have differing opinions about why the paperwork had to be done, but those outside the agencies point to Wright as being the difficult player in all of this.

He wanted a larger say over what the project looked like. He wanted those bonus units from the TRPA.

The Conservancy has one of the largest pools of commodities in the basin. With the agency no longer flush with cash from the state, it has been resourceful in how to sustain itself. Selling commodities is one way.

The Knights Inn collects about $100,000 in transient occupancy taxes a year. Photo/LTN

The Knights Inn collects about $100,000 in transient occupancy taxes a year. Photo/LTN

What got lost in battle between the city and Conservancy was the final outcome. All involved agree that what was proposed was so much better than what is there now.

While there was going to be some stream environmental zone (SEZ) restoration, ultimately this was more of a stormwater project. The more SEZ that was to be restored, the more bonus units that could have been procured. The Conservancy wanted an SEZ project.

It didn’t pencil out for all the development to be solely on the southwest corner. In part this had to do with how much parking Whole Foods required.

While fine-tuning of the project, it was obvious that to build a viable commercial area that the SEZ was going to be redeveloped, not entirely restored. This didn’t sit well with the Conservancy.

To have made the SEZ numbers pencil out the city needed to include the two CTC parcels adjoining the hotel property in the back.

A Conservancy staff member told Lake Tahoe News one thing holding up release of Proposition 1 money was that the city had not completed the CEQA document. City officials said they first heard the CEQA argument from LTN, never from the CTC. That environmental document, which cost a couple hundred thousand dollars, is done. But for it to be circulated it had to be tied to a project and currently there is no project.

Proposition 1 dollars that were to be used for this dictate that the project must be multidimensional – which this would have been.

The Conservancy kept changing its reason for why Proposition 1 funds were not appropriate for this project. The city contends it did everything Wright wanted when it came to applying for the money. Only the board can actually allocate the dollars, but it has never had a chance to say yes or no.

The Conservancy wants the city to study the site more; the board awarded a planning grant at its September meeting. The city has yet to accept it. The city believes there has been enough planning and that now it is time to develop. The city had hoped to break ground next spring.

Hindsight shows that bringing in all the players sooner may have resulted in a different conclusion. Better communication may have helped to avoid what became an insurmountable disconnect.

Three members from the Conservancy and three from the city met again on Oct. 4. Davis was there as the bridge since he is the city’s rep on the CTC board. Davis said it didn’t go well.

The area in green represents the area South Lake Tahoe wants to acquire, while the gold are is the "southwest corner" property at Ski Run and Highway 50. Map/South Lake Tahoe

The area in green represents the Knights Inn parcel, while the gold are is the southwest corner property at Ski Run and Highway 50. Map/South Lake Tahoe

The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and League to Save Lake Tahoe told LTN they are still hopeful a project that benefits the environment and economy will come to fruition – it just might take different players. It will be necessary that everyone’s vision is stated at the get-go so compromise can come before contracts are signed.

Ironically, the city ended up not needing the Conservancy’s money. It had $5.1 million from Halferty Development, $800,000 from Placer County from the sale of onsite tourist accommodation units, and the city contributing $100,000.

But the contract the city had with the hotel owner was so poorly written that not only did it give the city an out, it gave Patel an out. He exercised it and said he would not sell.

Even so, the city at its Oct. 18 meeting is likely to have closed session items pertaining to potential litigation involving Patel allegedly breaking the contract and possible litigation with the Conservancy. Patel never told the city why he is not selling. He didn’t ask for more money.

Patel is now talking to a developer from the Bay Area. He wanted to work directly with Whole Foods, but that company already had a deal with Halferty. Plus, Whole Foods requires an ingress/egress to its stores where a stoplight exists. This could have worked via the southwest corner site. Caltrans has said it won’t allow a light at Herbert Avenue, which is at the western edge of the hotel complex. This means Patel can’t have his Whole Foods.

Patel chose not to talk to Lake Tahoe News. His attorney, Mike McLaughlin, also did not return a call.

About a decade ago Patel was in negotiations with the Conservancy to sell the property for about $8 million. No formal offer was made by the state agency.

Patel has little incentive to sell. Real estate 101 says no one is going to sell if they don’t have to. He has two kids in high school, so he wants to stay here. His family’s home is on the back of the property. Plus, he’s making a decent living operating the 100-plus room hotel. That is not to say if the price is right, he wouldn’t start packing.

Halferty Development out of Southern California has been waiting patiently to develop that site in conjunction with the neighboring parcel known as the southwest corner at Highway 50 and Ski Run Boulevard. The firm has invested hundreds of thousands of dollars. And today the cost to build is much greater than what it was just a couple years ago.

Halferty is in escrow on the corner lot, which is expected to close in the spring. Those close to the deal believe the sale will go through even though the greater vision has been eclipsed by circumstances outside of Halferty’s control.

Insiders say Halferty could still recoup what it has paid out to date and make a profit with a project on the corner.

Chris Peto, COO for Halferty, would not talk to Lake Tahoe News about the company’s plans for the southwest corner nor would he confirm that his company is now looking at other property on the South Shore to develop.

Halferty had Whole Foods lined up to open one of its new concept grocery stores. Other possibilities had been REI and Trader Joe’s. Because the latest plans were to build on both sites, what becomes of the southwest corner remains to be seen.

image_pdfimage_print

About author

This article was written by admin

Comments

Comments (11)
  1. Robin Smith says - Posted: October 6, 2016

    Carl…where are you? Are these the worthless TAU’s you were commenting on the other day??

    Is this the same bunch responsible for the HOLE mess at Stateline…

    The city has straightened out it’s $million$ problems right?!

    Or are you boys and girls in the HOLE and still digging?

  2. Carl Ribaudo says - Posted: October 6, 2016

    Like I have said many times TAU’s are the root cause of many problems. This is just the most recent example. There are many projects that would enhance this community and the environment the public never hears about and many that investors never even propose because they take one look at the mess this place is in and walk away. This TRPA policy is ruining this community and is also a big time obstacle to environmental improvements. In essence the TRPA board is failing to improve the environment because of its own policy. The most ridiculous policy of this type anywhere in the United States.

  3. Carl Ribaudo says - Posted: October 6, 2016

    This is just another example of the dysfunction of these agencies and organizations. This dysfunction continues to feed into the cynacism that local residents have about those in charge which breeds further distrust and anger. They continue to lose legitimacy.
    I find it interesting that if it’s a project these agencies want it seems to get done. It doesn’t matter if you want to rip up every road around Lake Tahoe. Want to rip up a river and redirect it? Go for it. Could you imagine if a private business wanted to redirect a stream what would happen. Look how fast the Cave Rock project was approved and done. Contrast that with just about any private sector project? The double standard is unacceptable. It is the private sector projects redeveloping the existing built infrastructure that bring with them the most sophisticated environmental controls that will reduce erosion and sediment loss. But those projects are not proposed by an agency. Heads should roll.

  4. Passion4Tahoe says - Posted: October 6, 2016

    I agree with Carl. And the problems are not just limited to TAU’s. The transfer of coverage should be called into question as well.

    Lots that were previously determined to be environmentally sensitive and “unbuildable” are now suddenly being built out with McMansions.

    I guess all you need is money to sprinkle over a sensitive site – then you can build what you want.

    Back in the ’90’s my mother said that TRPA would turn this town into a rich man’s paradise, and she was right. Only large corporations with a lot of money have a chance at development in this environment.

    And there was a time the Conservancy had my unwavering trust and support. That is no longer the case.

  5. Cautious and Skeptical says - Posted: October 7, 2016

    Placer County purchasing the TAU’s is lost in this article. Placer is buying TAU’s in hopes to over-develop a hotel on 1.3 acres which would afford 56 units. Instead they are packing 10lbs into a 5 lb sack and proposing a 118 unit hotel.

  6. steven says - Posted: October 8, 2016

    If the Whole Foods building was to actually look as pictured, I’m glad it fell through, just another McMansion-retail style! Just another big, over priced retailer to satisfy tourists.
    I have heard comments for years and years about the Forest Service and CTC, coming up with projects to keep themselves employed. This screams of that with the lack of CTC funding from the state and Patrick Wright wanting bonus units to sell later, just hoping to keep his paycheck coming.
    “The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency in an attempt to curtail development…” What a joke. Curtail what developement? There is building going on everywhere, mostly illegal hotels in our neighborhoods, so called McMansions !
    Lake Tahoe is a National Treasure, the goal of far too many people is to get rich off of Tahoe’s treasures and in their quest they are killing Lake Tahoe. Stop Developement, stop advertising for more and more tourists, make do with what we now have. Soon, tourists will become fed up with hours and hours waiting in line to not only get here but to just buy an ice cream. And then go elsewhere.

  7. Robin Smith says - Posted: October 8, 2016

    Lake Tahoe is and ALWAYS has been a seasonal location. The people and animals come here in the summer to eat and warm up/or cool off and then they go back to the wood/or valleys and the skiers come up for some recreation and ski and go BACK from whence they came….horses and cattle to the valleys, the peeps to wherever they came from.

    Any of you people ever hear of ‘shoulder’ seasons? Shoulders are the vacation times for the ‘locals’.

    The ‘locals’ take care of the second homes and their owners when they are here. A very nice and comfy home base for some…however a limited number of these ‘locals’ are needed for their knowledge and expertise. The second home owners appreciate them therefore a symbiotic relationship is built.

  8. Carl Ribaudo says - Posted: October 8, 2016

    The concept of “stop development” is fundamentally flawed if you want to improve lake quality, especially within the existing envelope of the built environment.
    By redeveloping i.e., knocking down the old and building the new the most advanced environmental design and technology is used to reduced sediment run off and loading. By leaving the corner of highway 50 and ski run as is 11,000 lbs of sediment just flows into the lake. How is that good for protecting the lake?
    That project would have provided some needed jobs which strengthens the local community and improves run off which impacts the lake.
    I respectfully disagree with the position that building= bad for the lake. It’s just the opposite the status quo preserves the mistake of the past.

  9. Robin Smith says - Posted: October 8, 2016

    Building does not necessarily mean bad for the Lake, however, just building, so some developer can make a few $MILLION FEDERAL DOLLARS$ and leave the “locals’ holding the bag won’t work either.

    The infrastructure…within the existing built envelope.. needs to be ‘cleaned’ up/refitted to be more suited for today’s standards. PotHOLES?….how’s that for a start?

  10. Lou pierini says - Posted: October 8, 2016

    27 years and this is the best they can come up with?

  11. Robin Smith says - Posted: October 8, 2016

    11,000 pounds of whatever going into the Lake per year for 27 years = ? For real? Somebody do the math.