September hearing set in South Lake Tahoe general plan lawsuit

By Heather Gould
The League to Save Lake Tahoe and the city of South Lake Tahoe are engaged in a tennis match worthy of the U.S. Open. A volley of charges and counter-charges have been flying back and forth regarding the League's recent lawsuit againt the city over the city's recently adopted general plan.
The plan guides overall growth and development within the city.

The League contends the city's plan runs counter to environmental standards on the local, state and federal levels and will increase degredation of the natural environment in several areas. "The city's general plan violates (the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency's) TRPA's current regional plan and proposes illegal increases in development height, density, coverage, commercial space and hotel rooms," states a League press release.
Specifically, contends the League, the general plan includes more than 1,000 new, high-density residences spread over 100 acres, and does not adequetaly mitigate its impacts on the enviroment.
The city disputes these assertions. "The general plan is not a project, it's a plan," said city spokeswoman Nancy Kerry. Inclusion of options for development contained in the plan doesn't mean automatic approval, stated a press release from the city.
Any actual projects must go before the council and TRPA for approval at which point members of the public and interested and affected parties will have the opportunity to provide input, stated the press release.
Although the general plan does not conform with some of TRPA's requirements, acknowleged the city, it was required by state law to adopt a complete document covering all aspects of planning and development. Where the city's plan comes in conflict with TRPA's plan, TRPA's requirements and regulations will prevail, according to a press realease from the city. Any project put forth that does not meet TRPA requirements is "not approvable," said TRPA spokeswoman, Julie Regan.
TRPA has been "working closely" with the city on its general plan to attain "cohesion and unity" between the two, said Regan, but the agency does not actually dictate or approve the general plans of the various municipalities around the basin.
The League wants the city to wait until the TRPA adopted its new regional plan, slated for December 2012, so its general plan could conform to the TRPAs plan.
To wait, said Deputy City Attorney Nira Feeley, would require the city to start from scratch and throw out several years and millions of dollars worth of planning and study, as state law prohibits the adoption or inclusion of "stale" studies and information in local general plans. The city was already two years behind in adopting the general plan, said Feeley.
In an email, Feeley said the city originally intended to wait until after the adoption of TRPA's regional plan to formualte its own plan, but when TRPA extended its deadline, the city chose to move forward as time was running short.
The plan also mitigates its impacts under the California Environmental Quality Act, according to Feeley. In May, the city council adopted a CEQA document which outlines measures to counter the impact of the plan on the environment, Feeley said.
Taking its own shot at the League, the city suggests the League spend its money not on lawsuits but on actual improvement projects.
In response, League spokeswoman Amanda Royal said her organization has been instrumental in bringing $1.5 billion in grants and funding to the basin over the years through its lobbying efforts,
far more than the League's operating budget itself could provide.
As the "lead environmental group in Lake Tahoe," said Royal, it has a responsibility to review plans and projects to make sure they pass environmental muster. "Government is not going to continue to invest in Lake Tahoe if they see environmentally irresponsible projects."
Prior attempts to resolve these issues between the city and the League have been unsuccesful, with both claiming the other has refused to meet.
A hearing on whether the suit can proceed is scheduled for September 12 in the federal California Eastern District Court.