Tahoe residents: Northstar project is 'urban sprawl in the forest'

A proposal heralded a year ago as a milestone offering a major plus for the environment while allowing for limited residential development near a popular Sierra ski resort is the focus of increasing concern by conservation groups who insist changing plans are putting Lake Tahoe's environment at risk.

Developers insist a proposed residential project near Northstar California remains a shining example of how development can proceed with mutual benefit to the environment and economy and urge critics to allow details to fall into place with the coming release of government studies of their plans.

"We think it's the ultimate win-win scenario for the region and for future generations," said Blake Riva, senior partner of East West Partners, which is pursuing the project along with landowner Sierra Pacific Industries.

Others beg to differ.

"It's a terrible project. It's urban sprawl in the forest," said Ann Nichols of the North Tahoe Preservation Alliance.

The debate comes after the September 2013 announcement of an agreement dubbed the "Martis Valley Opportunity," a pact reached after years of discussions between landowners, developers and conservation groups regarding the future of a swath of forested terrain between Lake Tahoe and Truckee near Northstar.

Under the agreement, Sierra Pacific Industries agreed to surrender rights to develop a portion of more than 6,300 acres of open private land located east of California 267. Keeping that land undeveloped would link some 50,000 acres of contiguous open space between Martis Valley and the Mount Rose Wilderness in a move one conservationist supporter described at the time as "really the last big piece of conservation vision" for the area. Existing zoning could have allowed Sierra Pacific to seek approval to develop as many as 1,360 residential units and supporting commercial development in the area.

Instead, East West Partners – builder of the Village at Northstar, the Ritz-Carlton Lake Tahoe and other nearby developments – would focus development plans to the west across the highway adjacent to Northstar. The plan would allow construction of up to 760 single-family or multifamily units on 775 acres, with the landowners retiring rights to build the other 600 units.

No one is questioning the value of protecting the thousands of acres east of the highway from development, but concern is mounting over what might happen on 112 acres of the southernmost portion of the project area to the west – scenic ridgetop terrain just within the watershed of the Lake Tahoe Basin. East West Partners proposes construction of up to 112 units there.

Placer County officials will review and decide on the bulk of the project nearest Northstar. Lake Tahoe's primary land-use regulator, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, will decide on the fate of the 112 acres within the Tahoe Basin. Draft environmental studies from both entities are expected to be released in January.

Critics lash out at plan

As the planning process evolved, so has concern by critics like Nichols, who said the proposal underscores the need for stronger rules to protect pristine ridgelines in the area.

"This is a different project than what was originally proposed," agreed Laurel Ames of the Sierra Club. "You can see that ridge from many places in the basin and it will be quite the scar."

Also concerned is the League to Save Lake Tahoe, arguably Tahoe's preeminent environmental organization. The league is withholding support unless it can be demonstrated the project would come with a net environmental gain for the Tahoe Basin as required under TRPA's new regional plan, adopted in 2012. The league is also concerned because the project lies outside an existing urban area where new development is supposed to be concentrated.

The league is awaiting details over how developers plan to remove existing development on sensitive land elsewhere in the Tahoe Basin to offset new construction planned by East West Partners, a condition also required by the new regional plan.

"If they can show there's substantial retirement of sensitive land, it could be a step in the right direction," said Darcie Goodman-Collins, the league's executive director. "Otherwise, perhaps the basin isn't the proper location for their project."

Even some of the conservationist groups that backed the original Martis Valley Opportunity are taking a step back from the project as it's now proposed. Among them is Sierra Watch, an organization formed in 2001 to oppose wider development proposals in Martis Valley, including construction of a new ski resort on some of the land that would be protected under the arrangement now being discussed.

While development of the Tahoe Basin property might be contemplated sometime in the future, it should be removed from those plans now under review, said Tom Mooers, executive director of Sierra Watch.

"It's possible some day that might make sense but it doesn't seem to make sense right now. We think it jeopardizes the entire Martis Valley Opportunity," Mooers said. "This has not surprisingly run into a brick wall of opposition."

Perry Norris of the Truckee-Donner Land Trust, also involved in discussions over affected land since the beginning, agreed plans to develop in the basin have significantly complicated a proposal he said was otherwise "moving swimmingly."

"I think it has taken what was a relatively simple idea to something else altogether. I would say we're almost starting from scratch again," Norris said. "Including development in the basin has added a layer of complexity to it that nobody ever anticipated."

Looking forward, Norris said, developers should consider either withdrawing the Tahoe Basin property from current plans or face the likelihood of a "rather long litigious process."

Developer: Wait for studies

Riva said he is confident East West Partners can demonstrate they can produce solid environmental gains for the Tahoe Basin, in part by replacing existing sub-par units located on sensitive land. The development will also involve substantial improvements in stormwater treatment, reducing the amount of sediment now entering and polluting the lake, he said.

Riva said concerns the development will be highly visible from places like Tahoe Vista on the lake's north shore are being overblown and that the new homes will be blocked from view there by hillsides between the two areas.

"Folks at Tahoe Vista are not going to be looking at rooftops," Riva said. "It's going to be fairly well shielded from the north shore."

Critics should wait until more details emerge and many questions will be answered and concerns addressed by the studies soon to be released by TRPA and Placer County, Riva said. Actual construction wouldn't commence until the summer of 2017 at the soonest, he said.

"We're hoping people will wait for the formal studies to be issued which will allow them to make decisions based on actual facts," Riva said. "This will be a very thorough review from a scientific standpoint. Of course we know there are certain people who are not in favor of anything in the basin."

Riva said a plan that offers many positive benefits for the environment should receive a fair consideration by all.

"This has always been a combined conservation and development plan, which is very unique," Riva said. "We're still hopeful we will be able to reach that collective goal."

By the numbers

6,300: Acres protected from development east of California 267.

775: Acres that could be developed west of the highway.

760: Residential units potentially developed to the west.

112: Acres proposed for development in the Lake Tahoe Basin.

112: Number of units proposed in the Tahoe Basin.

Source: East West Partners.