TRPA Regional Plan court decision appealed
By Kathryn Reed
Earthjustice, which represents the Sierra Club and Friends of the West Shore, waited until May 7 – the last day possible – to file an appeal regarding the U.S. District Court’s decision upholding the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency’s Regional Plan update.
“The agency’s strange strategy to protect Lake Tahoe and its surrounding landscape from the damage caused by excessive urbanization over past decades is to promote even more development,” Earthjustice attorney Wendy Park said in a statement. “We will continue our fight to protect the lake from the misguided actions of the agency charged with protecting and restoring its environment.”
The TRPA’s Regional Plan is headed back to court. Photo/Kathryn Reed
The Regional Plan was approved by the bi-state regulatory agency in December 2012, five years after the previous one was supposed to be null and void. Countless meetings were conducted, comments given and bickering between the two states over the document that almost resulted in Nevada’s pulling out of the bi-state Compact.
Two months after the Governing Board approved the plan the lawsuit was filed. U.S. District Court Judge John Mendez on April 7 said the agency could keep the document in place. Last June he had handed TRPA a partial victory by saying the Regional Plan update does not violate California law by allowing local jurisdictions to have more authority. That was one of the items in the lawsuit.
It will now be up to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to make a decision.
“TRPA is confident the Regional Plan will accelerate Lake Tahoe’s restoration and support sustainable communities,” TRPA Executive Director Joanne Marchetta told Lake Tahoe News. “While the appeal makes its way through the legal process, we will continue to put the substantial environmental benefits of the plan into place.”
The environmental groups believe the environmental impact statement for the RPU failed to analyze how the document will have negative impacts on soil conservation, water quality and air quality. Their contention is the plan promotes more growth, including in areas not already developed.
“TRPA has abandoned its core mission to restore and protect Lake Tahoe’s environment,” Laurel Ames of the Sierra Club said in a statement. “It’s a fallacy that the environmental damage caused to Lake Tahoe by the over-urbanization approved by TRPA can be solved by further intensifying urbanization, and this demonstrates just how far the agency has strayed.”
Time will tell what the “substantial environmental benefits of the plan” are. From what I hear the first project allowed by the rpu will be new development right next to the lake at Edgewood. I can’t see how new development right next to the lake could be characterized as an environmental benefit. Come clean Joanne and call this new development in rpu what it is.
The mitigations that are in place for the Edgewood Companies involved are why it COULD be characterized as an environmental benefit. Edgewood had to purchase all sorts of other ‘rights’, that were on town properties, build a sort-of-PARK, etc….NONE of which are on the Edgewood lakeside property. That means properties won’t be developed, built a park, etc. I doubt the Edgewood-built hotel, etc., will be any sort of eyesore.
I think that Edgewood, well, the Park brothers, are one of the best for this town. I have seen NOTHING to cause me to question their stewardship.
Judge Mendez did not determine that “the Regional Plan update does not violate California law by allowing local jurisdictions to have more authority.” He determined that the issue was not ripe for judicial review because TRPA had not yet delegated authority to any local jurisdictions through the area plans. It was dismissed WITHOUT prejudice. Sierra Club has so far decided not to pursue this issue, although they may be waiting for a local jurisdiction to approve a project of merit before raising the issue again.
Also, the Edgewood Project was approved in Fall 2012, prior to adoption of the Regional Plan Update (i.e., under the “old” rules). It has no real relevance to the RPU.
i do believe that the development at edgewood was submitted to the trpa way before the compact was finished. it is my understanding that this project involved many things that decreased the amount of fine setiment going into the lake. so in the end there is suppose to lessen what is going into the lake than what is currently going into the lake.
also i dont think the Park Brothers are involved with edgewood anymore since the company being split with thebrothers getting the ranch in the valley and the horrizon and the rest of the family getting edgewood, friday station and mont bleu
I checked LT News for the most recent story, which describes the Edgewood Companies and holdings, and split-up. Here is the link. I stand corrected.
https://www.laketahoenews.net/2013/10/park-family-splits-tahoe-valley-holdings-horizon-hotel-casino-revamped/
” Laurel Ames, of the Sierra Club has her’s and wants no one else to have theirs.
Hard to understand, you are absolutly wrong about laurel ames and should just go crawl back under your rock.
While I’m not a member of the Sierra Club I do happen to know Laurel Ames to be a champion protector of Lake Tahoe. She’s given most of her adult life to her cause.
This RPU isn’t about “accelerating Lake Tahoe’s restoration and supporting sustainable communities” …..
What the RPU IS about – is large scale corporate development for profits and sustainability fees for the TRPA, Conservancy and the Sustainability Collaboratives.
Neither the TRPA, Conservancy or the Sustainability Groups (corporate developers) could give a damn about the lake or residents at this point.
Take a look at the 250 acres (Fridays Station ) adjacent to Mont Bleu people and admire its openness now – before long it too will be developed into high density recreational and accommodations ( as it was quietly approved in the RPU ) There are more big ones planned.
These large scale corporate developments are just a start – all under the phony cloak of environmental improvement. NOTHING from these big projects will benefit anyone living here and the tremendous new land coverage and additional tourism will further pollute the lake.
The TRPA slammed residential construction by 57% in the RPU – using it as a tool to “appear environmental”.
This represents $300-$500 million lost revenue for locals around the lake, and the environmental impact of those home constructions are a tiny drop in the bucket compared to what you’re gonna see now with this big corporation development.
Just for once – Answer to your statement Joanne Marchetta !
“WE MUST DEVELOP LAKE TAHOE IN ORDER TO PROTECT (or destroy) IT” has been the motto since 1860.
Hard to Understand. The “theirs” is “mine” argument ended the second the Cavalry refused to let the Washoe Tribes return to Lake Tahoe and the land handouts around Lake Tahoe began. Anyone that really knows Laurel Ames, knows that she wants to protect what is left of Lake Tahoe for future generations.
Where you’re wrong, Toxic Warrior, is that TRPA doesn’t care about the Lake and the community. TRPA’s STAFF cares deeply about those things. That’s why you’ve seen about half of them quit since the RPU was approved. Seriously, compare a staff roster a year ago and look at it now. People are fleeing in droves, even in a terrible economy with minimal job prospects. Kae, you should track those folks down and get the real story.
When the RPU was passed, we were told over and over again how great it was for our economy and the Lake by the ongoing, careful crafting of public messages by the agencies. 18 months later, we have seen what it really does for us – just ask Meyers, Kings Beach, Tahoe City, the Y…it goes on and on. And that’s just what it does to our communities.
The lawsuit is about how it will make our lake worse too. It’s a lose-lose situation for us and for the Lake. The only winners are the big corporate developers who will make their money and run, leaving ruin in their wake. And of course the high-paid consultants that are making bank with all of the planning dollars (from our taxes) to promote these projects.
Paul, you are right. TRPA staff DO care and your suggestion to Kae is a good one. The management is responsible for the decisions they make, for the PR they spew out, and the carefulness with which staff must always speak. Maybe that’s why TRPA wants to bring in more expensive, national planners now, because those staffers may not care as much about the Lake and are easier to retain.
Toxic Warrior,Yes, the TRPA has definitely changed course over the years. When it was first formed, sorry don’t remember the year, it was very controversial. Nobody around here wanted to be told what they could and couldn’t do on their their own property. Then came in the ground coverage rules. Then the Conservancy was formed and was given authority to deem some parcels un buildable. The whole thing seemed heavy handed and unfair. People putting up a storage shed in their backyard were told, “no, you’ve exceeded your coverage”, adding a couple of feet to a deck? “no”. So while the TRPA was going after regular folks doing home improvement they started allowing more and more big development to go ahead with huge projects in environmentaly sensitive areas.
So somewhere along the line the TRPA has become an agency that okays huge projects destroying natural habitat, cutting trees, a lakeshore hotel and building in areas not wanted by local residents thru out the Tahoe Basin. OLS
How much funding does the TRPA receive and where does it come from? A friend recently rented a car here in South Lake Tahoe and had to pay a $5.50 per day TRPA fee. What right does TRPA have to charge fees on tourist? Are hotels also collecting fees for TRPA? Does some of the TOT go to TRPA? Just wondering?
Old Long Skiis,
Been here 38 years when it was CTRPA and quite frankly haven’t seen any attitude change in that agency ever.
Back then their role was actually pursuing their original mission to protect the lake because of the building boom at the lake. Their role was warranted.
Today they should literally throw out their mission statement now that they’ve become all about themselves and agency sustainment. It would be interesting to conduct an investigation regarding their ties and private dealings with consultants and developers.
If you go to the agency meetings now it’s quite evident the agencies and sustainability groups are all conspiring and feeding off each others needs and at the expense of Lake Tahoe.
Leon. I would check the TRPA car Rental Fee; could be a hoax. TRPA is 95% Funded by Federal, California, Nevada and Private Sources. It was created by Reagan and Laxalt in 1969 after rampant development of Lake Tahoe began.
OLS. If the TRPA were to vanish tomorrow, what would replace it? And please don’t tell me we could go back the pre 1969 model.
rock4tahoe, call a local car rental agency and they will tell you there is a TRPA car Rental Fee. Call Entrprise. The fee is waived for locals.
rock4tahoe, Good point! Pre 1969 was pretty nuts around here development wise. The destruction of the Truckee Marsh to build the keys, Heavenly Valley given the green light by USFS to continue cutting more runs contributing to more silt running into the lake, Casinos going hi-rise, new neighborhoods going up all over…and that’s just part of it.
When the TRPA arrived on the scene I thought, good! Maybe we can protect some of what’s left of Tahoe.
Started out that way but soon it became obvious they were just another layer of Govt. to go thru and pay before you build. There’s more big projects underway or planned now than I’ve seen in quite awhile.
What to replace the TRPA with? An agency with oversight comprised of experts in every field, everything from erosion, water and air clarity, traffic, sewage and water capacity, a local economy that can actually pay a living wage, affordable housing, an attractive place to visit or live amongst the pines and next to one of the most beautiful lakes in the world!!!
The TRPA started out touting some of these goals in their infancy but that train went off the tracks a looong time ago. Now it’s back to “build, baby, build”.
South Shore has already been hacked up, with Meyers next on the chopping block. Now they’re starting on North Shore in Martis Valley and other areas soon to follow.
Oh well, no stopping progress! This is progress , right? Cutting down trees, putting up more buildings that will soon be vacant due to departing tenants leaving them in dire need of repair. Obscured lake views of a polluted lake (thank you tahoe keys!). Just my opinion, Grumpy OLS
Leon. The only official fee I could find on the budgets or web site for TRPA was Boat Inspection Fee.
OLS. Remember the Modern golden rule… he who has the gold makes the rules.
Same thing happened in Southern California near San Pedro/Palos Verdes years ago. There was a commission formed to “save” the area known for growing strawberries etc. Save PV I think it was called. It ended up being known as Save PV for the rich because Donald Trump ended up with title and he built condos.
Remember. By 1935 the Federal Government had already said Lake Tahoe was TOO developed for National Park Status.
“Call someplace paradise, kiss it goodbye.” Don Henley of The Eagles.
rock4tahoe, I’ll counter with Joni Mitchell’s, Big Yellow Taxi. “They paved paradise and put up a parking lot, they cut all the trees and put em in a tree museum and charged the people a a dollar and a half to see em. Don’t it always seem to go, you don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone, they paved paradise and put up a parking lot”. An oldy but a goody. OLS
Toxic Warrior; Do you think Fridays Station has anything to do with the loop road?
leon, the TRPA does not get any tot that goes to the city or county. Rock leon is correct about the TRPA car rental fee.Though i think you are mistaken about Trump building his condo golf course on open land, that land was a amusement park kind of like Sea World(can t remember the name something land)
Relo. I think Marine Land (Bubbles the Whale) was another project. The main point was that Save PV lasted about 20 years until the price was high enough.
I will see if anyone at TRPA can tell me about the Rental Car Fee and why it isn’t in the posted.
OlS. “What to replace the TRPA with? An agency with oversight comprised of experts in every field, everything from erosion, water and air clarity, traffic, sewage and water capacity, a local economy that can actually pay a living wage, affordable housing, an attractive place to visit or live amongst the pines and next to one of the most beautiful lakes in the world!!!”
Are these people elected or selected? By whom? California, Nevada or USA? The devil is always in the details.
Reloman, the amusement park was called Marineland and was farther north than the cliffs that trump has ruined in pv. I grew up there and usto ride my horse to the cliffs where trump has his spread. It was a beautiful wide open field and cliff area until the trump payoff. Very sad. Now only gazillionaires can afford that zip code.
Rock,
The trpa is a redundant agency. The public is already served by city or county building departments.
rock4tahoe, Appointment or election for a government agency overseeing developement in Tahoe? That is a conundrum, isn’t it? Both, with plusses and minuses. Maybe a combination of both. I’ve never much cared for appointed folks but then electeds are sometimes not what they say they are, and then after they’re in office they sing a different tune. I wish I had an answer, but I will give it more thought.
Any suggestions anyone? Afterall, this is the future of Lake Tahoe we’re talkin about!!! OLS
I hope locals show support this time for Earthjustice as it struggles in the courts to retain some sort of environmental protection here at the lake. Otherwise, each and every battle (Homewood, Truckee, Meyers, Stateline, etc, etc) will have to be fought by an independent group of concerned citizens. This is difficult and expensive and that’s if someone has the time and skills to get an opposition going. If the TRPA is allowed to move forth with protecting Tahoe by developing it, then we will get a town of large land-gobbling resorts that employ locals at minimum wage. Earthjustice with the Sierra Club and Friends of the West Shore can, if they prevail, keep some semblance of sanity in what goes on here. Think about it.
You will find no truer or more knowledgeable advocate for the lake than Laurel Ames.
I have and will continue to support the efforts of earthjustice and the sierra club. Laurel is a hero in my book…
I want to see Laurel give up here private property rights and restore the land under her house back to high quality Stream Environment Zone.
Come on Laurel, quit being a hypocrite.
Moral Hazard, you are confused about land ownership in this country (and elsewhere since we largely inherited concepts from England). It is best described as a bundle of rights and ownership is not (nor has it ever been) absolute.
If you wish to become more informed read the attached review.
http://lawreview.vermontlaw.edu/files/2012/02/johnson2.pdf
Rick
Yeah thanks Rick, I am a CPA, former member of the KPMG real estate team and a partnership taxation expert. I think I got it sport.
What you are missing is that the extreme environmentalists like Laurel file lawsuits to block development / redevelopment with an effort to increase costs to project proponents. They do this when we have laws, zoning and plan areas, that they failed to get changed under normal processes.
Case in point, lets look at the victory at Sierra Colina. The development is going in with no trails, with a gate, with no moderate income housing. All because Laurel and her minions decided to jack up the costs of the project. Why do they do that? Because they don’t have enough people to actually change zoning or plan areas. They are marginalized.
Now lets look at Laurel’s consistency here. She fought Sierra Colina tooth and nail based on impacts to an SEZ, yet her house sits in an SEZ right by the Upper Truckee. Is she being absolutely consistent with what she wanted for the property owners at Sierra Colina who also had a legal right to build on their property?
No, she is not, and we call that a hypocrite.
Moral Hazard ftw!
Moral Hazard:
I was not taking a position either supporting or not supporting the Sierra Clubs consistency in these matters. Simply that land ownership is not absolute and you do not have the right (nor have you ever) to construct what you want. Zoning laws, environmental laws, etc. have been sufficiently upheld in court in principle so this point is not debatable (until such time the courts rule to the contrary). What becomes debatable is misinterpretation of these guiding laws (not the laws themselves for the most part) or overreach by the regulatory agencies in interpreting their rules.
I am in the industry of preparing environmental documents and as such, I am sufficiently familiar with how various stakeholders use and abuse the system. Sometimes there comments are quite valid and sometimes not.
I am not familiar enough with the developments you cite to render an opinion as to which side I believe more accurately describes reality – suffice it to say, both extremes believe they talk directly to god and more often then not, reality lies somewhere in the middle.
Rick
Moral. So, you are saying that a single family home has the same environmental impact as say a ski resort, a casino, a marsh drained for multiple homes/marina or a four lane highway? I think not.
Total Recall. We had the same agencies, city and county building departments, in the 1960’s and prior and look the mess we ended up with? The 1960’s development model is not viable.
OLS. This might help…
http://www.trpa.org/about-trpa/governing-board/
As you can see, some are elected some are appointed.
Moral hazard, your rock is calling, dog is getting looney, I mean lonley…
Moral Hazard, oh to count the facts you have wrong in your statements here. But I will just look at one:
One existing home built over 40 years ago – BEFORE we knew better, versus a 50-unit subdivision approved on unbuilt land (not sued by SC, BTW), two massive scale corporate resorts misleadingly referred to as “redevelopment”, and at least 3 NEW massive corporate resorts to be built on natural unbuilt land per the RPU…all when we DO know better scientifically? Not exactly comparable situations.
As for your apparent uninformed criticism towards Laurel Ames, too bad we didn’t have enough people like Laurel around to stop the Tahoe Keys. Someone tried – not because he wanted to jack up development costs, but because he knew it would be bad for Tahoe. He didn’t succeed because like now, the governing agencies were focused on the big developments, and look what’s happened.
If you think that no one would devote their time and energy to protecting Tahoe solely for the purpose of protecting Tahoe, perhaps you should spend more time outdoors. You might even be surprised at how much better you will feel.