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 THE WEBSITE IS NO LONGER UPDATED WITH NEW ARTICLES.

League, TRPA spar in court over Stateline project


image_pdfimage_print

By Kathryn Reed

A federal judge on Monday seemed a bit bewildered why the League to Save Lake Tahoe brought forward the case against the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency to stop the Sierra Colina development in Stateline from going forward.

Sierra Colina is the name of the project Steve Kenninger and Gail Jaquish are trying to develop on the 18-acre bare parcel between the Lake Village housing area and the old Nugget building on the south side of Highway 50.

TRPA approved the development on the second anniversary of the Angora Fire – June 24, 2009. This is a bit significant because the League in its arguments Aug. 1 said adding an ingress and egress to the 325-unit Lake Village complex was irrelevant. Fire officials have said otherwise.

Sierra Colina's future is in a judge's hands.

Sierra Colina's future is in judge's hands.

Right now there is only one way into that development. Sierra Colina would provide another way in and out in the case of an emergency.

What the League is suing over is the transfer of land coverage.

Douglas County agreed it would provide the land coverage for the linear public facilities in exchange for public rights-of-way. The League contends there is not enough public benefit of the trail system, that it only benefits those who will in Sierra Colina, to warrant the coverage transfer.

The League did not challenge the project permit, subdivision permit, intersection permits or environmental documents.

However, at the various hearings two years ago, League representatives spoke in opposition to developing a barren piece of land. But that is not what is being argued in court.

Rochelle Nason, executive director with the League, did not respond to an inquiry from Lake Tahoe News for comment. She was in court, but missed nearly the first half of the 90-minute session.

Project proponents reached out to the League before TRPA issued the permits two years ago.

In the nearly two years since the lawsuit was filed, more than 11,000 pages of documents have been given to the court.

Sierra Colina would be giving 10 acres of the project to Douglas County as open space. The project would connect paved bike trails in the Lower Kingsbury Grade area to Round Hill on the north side. That is where the coverage becomes a sticking point.

Douglas County’s master plan includes this trail as a public asset. Creating trails also plays into TRPA’s recreation goals and desire to have people use alternative forms of transportation.

U.S. District Court Judge Robert Jones at the end of the day Aug. 1 gave the League 10 days to prove his court has jurisdiction over the matter. The TRPA Compact says the venue could be state court, but does not address jurisdiction. However, it’s federal court where TRPA lawsuits are usually resolved.

Jones will then decide if his court is the one to rule on the TRPA-League lawsuit.

“The court was very well prepared, had a very clear grasp of issues and the facts and concurred with the environmental analysis demonstrated,” Lew Feldman told Lake Tahoe News. Feldman was hired by TRPA as outside counsel to represent the bi-state regulatory agency in court.

However, he would not comment further.

Kenninger would only say, “Sierra Colina looks forward to receiving the decision of Judge Jones.”

If Jones rules with history and decides federal court does have jurisdiction, it could be anywhere from a couple weeks to 90 days for him to decide to rule for the defendant or plaintiff.

If TRPA wins, and in effect Sierra Colina, the project could break ground next summer. The housing market would play a huge role in when the developers would proceed. Financing would be another issue – just like it is for the stalled Tahoe Beach Club at the end of Kahle Drive.

Sierra Colina would create 41 market rate dwellings and nine moderate-income deed restricted places. Forty-two units would be in 21 townhouse-style duplexes, with eight being single-family homes.

Another large aspect of the project is environmental improvements. Part of this is reducing 28 to 70 percent of the current volume of sediment from reaching Lake Tahoe. The lake is walking distance from the project. Helping improve Burke Creek is also part of the project.

Environmental improvements have started despite the lawsuit. In fact, Douglas County commissioners will be discussing Burke Creek at their Thursday meeting.

What was pointed out at the hearings two years ago is the area is zoned for a single-family residence and no environmental improvements would have to be made.

image_pdfimage_print

About author

This article was written by admin

Comments

Comments (19)
  1. 30yrlocal says - Posted: August 3, 2011

    I wish Steve and Gail all the best with this latest hurdle to jump. They’ve but so much heart and soul (and tons of money) into preparing this project to please all requirements and much more. I went to a presentation of theirs before the hearings 2 years ago and found it well planned out so that everyone wins.

    Another round in court for the League…who woulda thought?

  2. Just Wondering says - Posted: August 3, 2011

    Kathryn ~

    The article says “That is where the coverage becomes a sticking point”, and then goes on to briefly describe the transfer but you don’t identify what the ‘sticking point’ is for the League.

    Can you clarify?

    Thanks.

  3. admin says - Posted: August 3, 2011

    Douglas County agreed it would provide the land coverage for the linear public facilities in exchange for public rights-of-way. The League contends there is not enough public benefit of the trail system, that it only benefits those who will in Sierra Colina, to warrant the coverage transfer.

    Kathryn Reed, LTN publisher

  4. Just Wondering says - Posted: August 3, 2011

    So the League is arguing that the County shouldn’t be allowed to provide the coverage?

  5. dumbfounded says - Posted: August 3, 2011

    Obviously, the developers should hold a fundraiser for the League and support the arts in Tahoe. This will give them a free reign to do whatever they want. Oh, also they should simply say that they were not personally involved in the property that they own. The League will then drop the lawsuit and decry any attacks on the poor developers.

  6. lou pierini says - Posted: August 3, 2011

    Kae, Is this the same steve that was involved with redevelopment project 1?

  7. westshoreskier says - Posted: August 3, 2011

    The only thing the League attorneys are concerned about are billable hours. Pubic benefit, lake clarity, the environment are all just an easy excuse to litigate.

  8. Eric Taxer says - Posted: August 3, 2011

    Sierra Colina would be a great asset to our community in so many ways: infill development, trails, stream restoration… Too bad the project has been hijacked through unnecessary (and frivolous) litigation.

  9. lou pierini says - Posted: August 3, 2011

    I think the last project the principles were involved in, in ca. filed BK.

  10. 30yrlocal says - Posted: August 3, 2011

    They have spent millions on the project so far, satisfying all requirements for the environment, TRPA, county, etc.

    I found some solid companies Kenninger is involved with Lou (even found an old Tahoe casino exec with one of them!).

    Plus, sometimes, bankruptcy isn’t the evil the “hole” project has become.

  11. Carl Ribaudo says - Posted: August 3, 2011

    I am bewildered too. As I understand it coverage transfers don’t require a finding of public benefit.

  12. John says - Posted: August 3, 2011

    Carl there are upper limits for coverage transfers and the limit is increased somewhat for public benefit transfers. Its all based on land capability.

  13. lou pierini says - Posted: August 3, 2011

    It’s who hires the best lawyers and pay experts for their bias opinions on any subject the developers want. Lew, not Lou, has lots of experiance at this. He is the attorney for Randy Lane i.e. the hole project, and richard hodge for the hole at ski run and hy 50, in 1989 to 1996 and now the TRPA hires him? NICE!

  14. Mike Bradford says - Posted: August 4, 2011

    I would hire the best professional, too. Would it be better to hire less skilled counsel?

  15. lou pierini says - Posted: August 4, 2011

    Hi Mike, It looks like, “if you can’t beat them, the developers, then join them
    “. I see the TRPA has done just that. lou

  16. Skibum says - Posted: August 4, 2011

    Sierra Colina has done everything asked of them by the TRPA when they first started this project years ago. They were required to put up that fence with another access at the rear for the power company as there is a main back there. They were also required to clean up the entire 15 acres by going in and removing all the dead trees, bushes, downed wood and anything bigger than two feet in length. They had to have it done by hand as they would not allow vehicles in there. They have done everything asked of them and more. The plans call for a complete area with a clubhouse also (last time I saw the plans) as well as access to the creek. Last time anyone tried to do something there was Wayne Newton and he left in frustration. They have a good plan for that area and the League To Starve Lake Tahoe is being petty as they are not big doners to their cause.

  17. dogwoman says - Posted: August 4, 2011

    Skibum, that’s SOP. It doesn’t matter how far any developer goes to accommodate environmental demands, once an enviro-legal organization sets its sights on you, you’re done. Even when they settle in court, the legal group will always come back with more till you’re completely worn down. It’s been done on the central coast repeatedly.

  18. Skibum says - Posted: August 4, 2011

    Ain’t that the truth

  19. lou pierini says - Posted: August 8, 2011

    Are they the best?