Compromise advanced in Tahoe pi8 controversy

Brendan Riley

Thursday, Aug. 24, 2000 | 8:40 a.m.

SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, Calif. - Adversaries in a long-standing fight over three prominent Nevadans' pier-building plans at Lake Tahoe agreed Wednesday to consider a compromise.

The compromise was advanced by Terry Giles, the California governor's appointee to the bistate Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, which met to consider a private $500,000 pier in Glenbrook Bay.

Instead of a separate pier sought by liquor merchant Larry Ruvo, casino lobbyist and attorney Harvey Whittemore and casino-winery owner and lawyer Don Carano, Giles suggested what amounts to their own extension running off an existing community pier - now the only one in the bay.

Both sides agreed to promptly discuss the suggested compromise, although the would-be pier builders were more enthusiastic than representatives of a homeowners' group in upscale Glenbrook that has been fighting the original proposal.

The plan has resulted in litigation and even reached the Nevada Legislature in 1999 when Whittemore slipped in an amendment that could have helped the pier-building effort.

The "Piergate" amendment was approved in the state Senate but was stripped out in the Assembly after The Associated Press disclosed the attempted revisions.

Pressed by Giles for some expression of support, Glenbrook Homeowners Association attorney Mark Gunderson hesitated at first but finally said, "I think it's got the makings of a deal I can recommend."

Doug Jones, president of the Glenbrook Homeowners Association, said the proposal would be presented to homeowners at a Sept. 3 meeting, but he couldn't promise acceptance.

"The homeowners have a right to see what the proposal is, with the details of the proposal and its implications," Jones added.

Whittemore said discussions have been going on for years with no resolution, but he was still "cautiously optimistic" and promised to have the proposal written and presented to the homeowners in a week.

Larry Hoffman, lawyer for the pier proponents, tried to get a straw poll of planning agency members to see if they liked the compromise.

Panel members balked at a poll, on the advice of their legal counsel. But they did say the proposal could be handled as an amendment to the existing pier application - meaning quicker processing, possibly within 60 days.

Main elements of the proposed compromise include: