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 THE WEBSITE IS NO LONGER UPDATED WITH NEW ARTICLES.

STPUD booster station plans upset Tahoe Paradise residents


image_pdfimage_print

By Kathryn Reed

An industrial facility in a neighborhood on the outskirts of South Lake Tahoe has brought cries of concern from people that are being heard by utility district officials.

A last-minute meeting was convened Wednesday night and another one is set for Saturday at 10am at the project site. Residents in the Grizzly Mountain area off North Upper Truckee Road will be able to meet with South Tahoe Public Utility District board members and staff about the booster pump station that is planned for the area.

The proposed booster station on Grizzly Mountain Road may look like this one on Apache Drive. Photo/Provided

The proposed booster station on Grizzly Mountain Road may look like this one on Apache Drive. Photo/Provided

At the April 21 public hearing on the issue, one neighbor spoke out against it, while others sat in the audience.

Concerns for many of the residents who have spoken with Lake Tahoe News are how the process works, why this location was selected and what the structure will look like.

What irks people is the district was looking at the property last fall, and closed escrow in January after the board approved the $146,000 purchase at the Jan. 6 meeting. What neighbors want to know is why they weren’t informed about STPUD’s plans before the land was bought. Many have said it seems meaningless to ask for input now.

John Thiel, principal engineer, acknowledged at Thursday’s board meeting he could have done a better job getting the message out – and will next time.

Lynne Paulson, who lives about 400 feet from the proposed site, didn’t get noticed about the 30-day comment period because STPUD only sent letters to residents within 300 feet.

(The comment period was supposed to end today, but has been extended to April 25. Comments are being taken on the project – even though the land has been purchased for this use without public input.)

Paulson read the following into the record, “ … the purchase of the land prior to project review and approval combined with the planned contracting for the pipeline to this location has resulted in the impression that the booster station project is being steam rolled over us. This doesn’t provide the transparency and accountability needed for open government processes.”

She intends to submit a more detailed letter in the next three days.

For Russell Paul, who lives directly across from the project site, his voice is filled with frustration.

This is the view from Russell Paul's residence. Photo/Kathryn Reed

This is the view from Russell Paul's residence -- the lot where the booster station would go. Photo/Kathryn Reed

“I just feel they operate under this cloud of the good for all and move forward with projects. You can question their moves, but you can’t be part of the process. There is no process,” Paul told Lake Tahoe News.

He questions whether the lot below him is part stream environmental zone, which would preclude it from being built on.

Thiel, at the meeting, said only a small portion in the back is designated SEZ. He said this view lot has 3,584 feet of allowable coverage, so something much grander could have been built there.

Concessions have been made since the neighbors started making calls to STPUD in the last week or two. Thiel said the building will be smaller. The design will look more like a residence than what was originally planned. Initially, the district wanted it to look much like the booster station on Apache Drive in Meyers.

While residents initially could not understand why the station was being put in when it didn’t affect their neighborhood directly, the district has explained the need to have better water flow when the next wildfire strikes the South Shore.

Elevation is one criterion for where it goes. Tying into certain service areas is another.

The staff report explains, “The project consists of the construction of a new booster pump station to improve the primary water service to approximately 3,000 existing homes in the Flagpole and Twin Peaks water zones. The project increases water reliability to the Flagpole and Twin Peaks water zones by providing a second source of water to the area currently served by only one pipeline form the Arrowhead water zone (located in Meyers).”

Thiel explained to the board the redundancy is needed in case the first booster station is taken out in a fire.

The board is expected to vote on the matter in May.

At the end of the hearing on Thursday, STPUD board President Dale Rise said, “We will try to get through this. We will satisfy the public, but the public as a whole – the 10,000 water customers. We will try to mitigate this and make you happy.”

Click on information to read more about the project. Funding for the more than $1 million project comes from matching funds for a Fire Protection Partnership Funding/USFS Forest Health Fund grant.

image_pdfimage_print

About author

This article was written by admin

Comments

Comments (9)
  1. Julie Threewit says - Posted: April 22, 2011

    Guess I’m confused. Wouldn’t the view have been blocked if a private citizen bought the property and built a house? Doesn’t STPUD have to conform to the same building standards as the rest of us? When are neighbors ever informed of movements in property?

    Noise issues I can understand completely and I’d want to know what to expect from the pump station too. Will it be any louder than a family occupying a private home?

    And yes, I often feel STPUD gets the short end of the stick in this community.

  2. lou pierini says - Posted: April 22, 2011

    This is a public safety issue, and helps everyone. Look at the Lake Valley Fire requirements and those could even require the added flow. STPUD is ahead of the curve on this issue. Does anyone ever tell you their putting a fire hydrant or house next to yours? their not because you don’t own the land but you could have bought the lot.

  3. Mick says - Posted: April 22, 2011

    If a new booster station wasn’t installed and their neighborhood went up in flames because of the lack of water pressure, you can sure bet that STPUD would be the first to be blamed. Suck it up – its for your own good.

  4. k9woods says - Posted: April 22, 2011

    The mission and the goal is a public safety matter, I agree.
    However, with all of the barren landscape to choose from why this one where tree removal and reduced soil stabilization will result?

  5. Rich Kahn says - Posted: April 22, 2011

    It seems ill planed to put a pump at the top of a hill as fire moves much faster up a hill. It would be less expensive to build on flat land than on a hill side. However it seems to be a done deal as the property was bought and (over) paid for. That is how government works. STPUD did address our concerns of noise and appearance. There is a significant loss to the views for all who drive there but as STPUD indicated there could be a larger house on that lot. We will get over it but it is a loss to EVERYONE as it is on a public street.

  6. dumbfounded says - Posted: April 22, 2011

    NIMBY.

  7. Mick says - Posted: April 22, 2011

    “It’s on a public street”??? As opposed to being back in the woods, unaccessible, requiring STPUD to cut down even more trees to put in an access road to maintain it?

  8. Ajctahoe says - Posted: April 22, 2011

    STPUD did a decent job of building a “houselike” pump house (with exception of their garage door). They have also been reasonable with keeping their construction noise/inconvenience to a minimum. Their parking abilities leave something to be desired, but hopefully we can see an improvement on that in the future. A blind curve is nowhere to park your car in the road (let alone 5-6 trucks). If a resident were to do that during snow conditions we’d be towed. Seems the double-standards still rule in this case.

    Also the building of the pump house didn’t require removing nearly as many trees or disturbing the dirt when compared to the monstrous house next door to it. Thanks STPUD for trying to keep the public’s safety in mind.

  9. Greg Jackson says - Posted: November 29, 2011

    As a result of the booster pump coming on line we suffered a water leak to our home as a result of an increase in water presure. Our claims to the district have been denied and are forced to file a small claims action to recover some of our damages.

    Was never against the project but critizied the communication