Heavenly master plan to get second hearing

After a tense start on Wednesday, the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency Governing Board agreed to once again hear arguments surrounding the future of Heavenly's embattled North Bowl at their next meeting in April.

<hr>

<b>Want to add to this story? Click here for the Tahoe Notebook</b>

http://www.ourtahoe.org/addnotebook.php?url=310

<hr>

Three board members' request to reconsider the Feb. 28 decision approving the construction of a new high-speed quad through a stand of large red fir trees was a driving force behind the board's decision to re-hear the plans. A statement issued by three basin environmental groups questioning the validity of last month's meeting was also a factor.

Reasons behind the board members' reconsideration request included the lack of full board participation in the vote and technical difficulties experienced by board members taking part in the meeting by phone.

Following talks with TRPA's legal committee prior to Wednesday's meeting, Mara J. Bresnick, a board member behind the request to scrap the decision said she would be satisfied with a rehearing.

"We will withdraw our request for reconsideration on the condition that the motion for rehearing passes," said Bresnick.

The decision, at least for now, avoids a possible lawsuit stemming from Sierra Nevada Alliance, Tahoe Area Sierra Club Group and League to Save Lake Tahoe's claim that February's meeting violated California's public meeting law, known as the Brown Act.

Although TRPA legal counsel Joanne Marchetta hinted the Brown Act may not be applicable to an agency that has generally been subject to Nevada's open meeting laws, she recommended the board members approve Bresnick's motion.

"I am recommending to the board that you re-hear the Heavenly master plan as a courtesy and accommodation to the public," Marchetta said in a press statement.

The month it would take for a TRPA rehearing, compared to the years of litigation that could ensue if environmental groups pursued their assertion concerning the legality of February's meeting, was also preferable to Marchetta.

An unsavory position TRPA board members often face concerning legal actions was highlighted during the meeting before the vote was taken.

Governing Board member Jim Galloway called Heavenly officials up to the microphone at one point to see if the board wasn't setting itself up for legal challenges from Heavenly in calming the potential litigation from environmental groups.

Since Heavenly's master plan had already been approved by the start of Wednesday's meeting, Galloway was concerned that the way in which the board decided to rehear the resort's proposal could also come under legal scrutiny.

Blaise Carrig, chief operating officer of Heavenly Mountain Resort, remained confident in the merits of the master plan amendment and wasn't interested in getting "hung up on the process" surrounding the document.

"We would support any decision the board makes," said Carrig.

Supportive of this particular Governing Board decision, environmental groups have reason to celebrate, at least for the time being.

"We think it's great that the board has shown it's committed to have fair and open public meetings," said Autumn Bernstein, spokeswoman for Sierra Nevada Alliance. "We're happy the board is taking it seriously."