Site search
sponsored by
News
Sports
STATELINE, Nev. — After more than eight hours of discussion, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency's Governing Board on Wednesday approved the construction of a six-acre, 50-unit subdivision in Stateline.
The development, known as Sierra Colina Village, has been lauded for its environ mental and moderate income housing elements and loathed for what oppo nents say is harmful encroachment on undevel oped land.
When completed, Sierra Colina Village will include 21 duplexes and eight single family homes off Lake Village Drive near Burke Creek in Stateline.
The project will be the first LEED-certified neigh borhood in the basin, include easements for bike trails, dedication of the stream environment zone that goes through the project parcel as permanent open space and include a project with Douglas County to ease storm water runoff prob lems from nearby areas.
LEED-certification measures a construction project's envi ronmental responsibility.
The environmental com ponents of Sierra Colina exceed current requirements say proponents, who have labeled the project a proto type for future development at Lake Tahoe. “People see this as a hope for the future of Lake Tahoe,” said Gary Midkiff, former TRPA executive director and a consultant on the project. Midkiff said he has strong feelings about the potential positive impacts this type of project could have on the lake's health.
“It's important to us all,” Midkiff said, his voice wavering.
But creating additional land coverage in the Lake Tahoe Basin at a time when the lake's clarity is still in decline didn't sit well with some people in the audience at Wednesday's Governing Board meeting. With studies showing fine sediment particles in urban runoff need to be reduced 71 percent from 2004 levels for Lake Tahoe to reach its historic 100 feet of clarity, several people felt approval of Sierra Colina is a step in the wrong direction.
“That means we have to uncover land, not cover it,” said Roger Rosenberger, chair of the Tahoe Area Sierra Club Group.
How effective the pro-j ect's storm water filtration system will be at removing fine sediments from runoff was a source of contention at the meeting.
Although there is still some uncertainty about how much of the sediment will be kept out of the lake by the project, the water quality components at Sierra Colina make it a “model project” for protecting, and even improving, water quality in the basin, said Brent Wolfe, a consulting engineer on the project.
Monitoring the system is key to determining its effec tiveness and was a concern of several Governing Board members on Wednesday.
Although monitoring will take place to make sure the filtration system is com plying with TRPA require ments, funding is still need ed to monitor the perform ance of the Sierra Colina fil tration system. It could take $500,000 to monitor the overall performance of the system over three years, according to one estimate at the meeting.
During the meeting, the developers of the project volunteered $75,000 to pay for performance monitoring of the filtration system, up from the $25,000 they had previously offered.
“I appreciate that, but as far as I'm concerned it does n't go far enough,” said Governing Board Member Mara Bresnick, who approved the project “with reservations.”
Bresnick contended per formance monitoring of the system is a “missing piece” and is crucial to making sure the extensive mitigation measures in the project are effective.
The inclusion of nine moderate-income housing units in Sierra Colina was also a topic that attracted a lot of attention at Wednesday's meeting.
The units, which would cost no more than $337,000, would be ideal to keep the resort's mid-level managers living local, said Andrew Strain, Heavenly Mountain Resort's vice president of mountain operations.
“I urge you to approve the project,” Strain said. “It's good for the economy, the environment and the com munity.”
Mike Bradford, CEO of Lakeside Inn & Casino, also said the project would be beneficial to local workers. If a project with this level of environmental consideration didn't get approved, the message is “daunting” to those who want to invest in the basin, Bradford said.
“This is exactly what we've been looking for and it's something more people need to do,” Bradford said.
Governing Board mem ber Norma Santiago noted the possibility of a large estate being built on the par cel “weighed heavily” on her mind in approving the proj ect.
A consultant on the proj ect, Sydney Coatsworth, noted it was “very unlikely” no construction would pro ceed on the site, even if the board approved the 50 unit development. A large estate that was analyzed in the environmen tal document was the “most likely” outcome for the Sierra Colina parcel, if the board denied the project, Midkiff said at the meeting. Existing plan area state ment regulations would allow such an estate to be constructed without Governing Board approval.
Construction on the homes in Sierra Colina is not expected to begin for several years, Midkiff said at the meeting. Wednesday's discussion also revealed the tenuous sit uation the board is in when it reviews projects because the agency lacks an updated regional plan. A update to the existing plan was originally sched uled for completion in 2007, but has been repeatedly delayed. Board members expressed concern that they are bound to comply with current planning agency ordinances that don't go far enough to protect Lake Tahoe.
Governing Board Member Steven Merrill con tended more stringent requirements should be placed on the Sierra Colina development because the current ordinances haven't been proven effective in pro tecting the lake. But TRPA legal counsel Nicole Rinke noted it was “probably not legally defensible” to require projects to go above and beyond what is currently required in the code. “Were on thin ice doing this without a regional plan,” Merrill said. Merrill, and board mem ber Byron Sher, voted against the Sierra Colina Village project. Both noted doubts about the effective ness of the TRPA's monitor ing requirements and the filtration system in the proj ect in their reasons for denial. Even if they felt current requirements were ineffec tive, Rinke urged the board not to apply additional requirements on a project by- project basis.
TRPA Executive Director Joanne Marchetta told board members it would be inap propriate for them to take up policy discussion on the matter because it was not on this month's agenda. “If this board wants to take up the issue of not hav ing a regional plan on proj ect approval, we need to take that up at another time,” Marchetta said.
The development, known as Sierra Colina Village, has been lauded for its environ mental and moderate income housing elements and loathed for what oppo nents say is harmful encroachment on undevel oped land.
When completed, Sierra Colina Village will include 21 duplexes and eight single family homes off Lake Village Drive near Burke Creek in Stateline.
The project will be the first LEED-certified neigh borhood in the basin, include easements for bike trails, dedication of the stream environment zone that goes through the project parcel as permanent open space and include a project with Douglas County to ease storm water runoff prob lems from nearby areas.
LEED-certification measures a construction project's envi ronmental responsibility.
The environmental com ponents of Sierra Colina exceed current requirements say proponents, who have labeled the project a proto type for future development at Lake Tahoe. “People see this as a hope for the future of Lake Tahoe,” said Gary Midkiff, former TRPA executive director and a consultant on the project. Midkiff said he has strong feelings about the potential positive impacts this type of project could have on the lake's health.
“It's important to us all,” Midkiff said, his voice wavering.
But creating additional land coverage in the Lake Tahoe Basin at a time when the lake's clarity is still in decline didn't sit well with some people in the audience at Wednesday's Governing Board meeting. With studies showing fine sediment particles in urban runoff need to be reduced 71 percent from 2004 levels for Lake Tahoe to reach its historic 100 feet of clarity, several people felt approval of Sierra Colina is a step in the wrong direction.
“That means we have to uncover land, not cover it,” said Roger Rosenberger, chair of the Tahoe Area Sierra Club Group.
How effective the pro-j ect's storm water filtration system will be at removing fine sediments from runoff was a source of contention at the meeting.
Although there is still some uncertainty about how much of the sediment will be kept out of the lake by the project, the water quality components at Sierra Colina make it a “model project” for protecting, and even improving, water quality in the basin, said Brent Wolfe, a consulting engineer on the project.
Monitoring the system is key to determining its effec tiveness and was a concern of several Governing Board members on Wednesday.
Although monitoring will take place to make sure the filtration system is com plying with TRPA require ments, funding is still need ed to monitor the perform ance of the Sierra Colina fil tration system. It could take $500,000 to monitor the overall performance of the system over three years, according to one estimate at the meeting.
During the meeting, the developers of the project volunteered $75,000 to pay for performance monitoring of the filtration system, up from the $25,000 they had previously offered.
“I appreciate that, but as far as I'm concerned it does n't go far enough,” said Governing Board Member Mara Bresnick, who approved the project “with reservations.”
Bresnick contended per formance monitoring of the system is a “missing piece” and is crucial to making sure the extensive mitigation measures in the project are effective.
The inclusion of nine moderate-income housing units in Sierra Colina was also a topic that attracted a lot of attention at Wednesday's meeting.
The units, which would cost no more than $337,000, would be ideal to keep the resort's mid-level managers living local, said Andrew Strain, Heavenly Mountain Resort's vice president of mountain operations.
“I urge you to approve the project,” Strain said. “It's good for the economy, the environment and the com munity.”
Mike Bradford, CEO of Lakeside Inn & Casino, also said the project would be beneficial to local workers. If a project with this level of environmental consideration didn't get approved, the message is “daunting” to those who want to invest in the basin, Bradford said.
“This is exactly what we've been looking for and it's something more people need to do,” Bradford said.
Governing Board mem ber Norma Santiago noted the possibility of a large estate being built on the par cel “weighed heavily” on her mind in approving the proj ect.
A consultant on the proj ect, Sydney Coatsworth, noted it was “very unlikely” no construction would pro ceed on the site, even if the board approved the 50 unit development. A large estate that was analyzed in the environmen tal document was the “most likely” outcome for the Sierra Colina parcel, if the board denied the project, Midkiff said at the meeting. Existing plan area state ment regulations would allow such an estate to be constructed without Governing Board approval.
Construction on the homes in Sierra Colina is not expected to begin for several years, Midkiff said at the meeting. Wednesday's discussion also revealed the tenuous sit uation the board is in when it reviews projects because the agency lacks an updated regional plan. A update to the existing plan was originally sched uled for completion in 2007, but has been repeatedly delayed. Board members expressed concern that they are bound to comply with current planning agency ordinances that don't go far enough to protect Lake Tahoe.
Governing Board Member Steven Merrill con tended more stringent requirements should be placed on the Sierra Colina development because the current ordinances haven't been proven effective in pro tecting the lake. But TRPA legal counsel Nicole Rinke noted it was “probably not legally defensible” to require projects to go above and beyond what is currently required in the code. “Were on thin ice doing this without a regional plan,” Merrill said. Merrill, and board mem ber Byron Sher, voted against the Sierra Colina Village project. Both noted doubts about the effective ness of the TRPA's monitor ing requirements and the filtration system in the proj ect in their reasons for denial. Even if they felt current requirements were ineffec tive, Rinke urged the board not to apply additional requirements on a project by- project basis.
TRPA Executive Director Joanne Marchetta told board members it would be inap propriate for them to take up policy discussion on the matter because it was not on this month's agenda. “If this board wants to take up the issue of not hav ing a regional plan on proj ect approval, we need to take that up at another time,” Marchetta said.
