Opinion: Why is Timber Cove Pier charging for access?
To the community,
I went to Timber Cove Pier to watch the fireworks last Sunday night and “they” were charging to go out on the pier to watch the show. Then we sat on a bench and half an hour later we were informed by a large family that the bench we were on was reserved for them and “didn’t we see the caution tape” indicating the “reservation” they had made through the Bistro restaurant manager?
What the heck is going on? Is it a public pier or privately owned and selling “views” to the highest bidder? We checked with someone at the Bistro and they didn’t seem to know anything about it.
What’s the story on Timber Cove Pier?
Denise Upton, South Lake Tahoe
The new owners must not know Ca. law or the deed restrictions. The Ca. law says the public easement is below 6228.87 ft.above sea level, its at 6226. apx. now so in some places thats about 15 to 20 ft.of beach for the public. The deed restrictions say 7 parking spaces and public access to the beach. CaLL city to enforce this law and deed restrictions.
Does the access have to be from the land side? I thought it was only from the water. It may be because of the deed restriction since I don’t think anyone except property owners in the Tahoe Meadows can access their beach from the land.
This raises a question. If a property owner builds a pier from their beach and the walkable area is always above 6228.87, does everyone have the right to be on that pier even though it is many feet out into the lake?
I like the advocates question.. Also, how can piers be private property if they go out on public property? How far out into the lake does their property extend?
This is a public access pier and the public access issue was litigated by the City. The benches may belong to the restaurant so therefore may be private but they should not be able to charge a fee to access a public pier. Call the City to enforce the settlement agreement.
Any part of the pier that rest on supports that are below 6228.87 ft. above sea level IS public.
So that says that anyone can pull up a boat to any privately owned pier around the California side of the lake and use it.
My guess is that the pier is private property on public property which is either leased, licensed or both from the state. As private property, they may restrict the public from it’s use. The CA beach that is below the high water mark is public property which cannot be restricted from the public usage. Because the high water mark is not clearly marked, it may be difficult to identify it’s true location without a professional surveyor.
TA, The area your talking about is for people not boats, so boats can’t stay. Jim, Any part of the pier thats below 6228.87 in elevation is public and the supports below that elevation are public. It is the law no kidding.
The beach was always a city park before and the hotel should have no rights on the beach beyond their property line. We’ve used the public beach there for years. City workers clean and empty the trash. I certainly hope that we didn’t lose access to this public beach.
The pier came with the hotel purchase I believe and businesses pay rent to the hotel. There are a lot of private piers around the lake so not sure what water marks have to do with a pier.
The City of South Lake Tahoe has done a poor job clearing this confusion in the past. We have the same problem at Tahoe Beach and Ski Club which is a public beach area as well
The city should place a sign on beaches such as this one, to make clear, what the publics, rights of use are.
It shouldn’t be so confusing, that one could get turned away from a public area, and have to launch into a big investigation to find the truth.
Whenever it’s so confusing, and private owners of the area try to deter people from use, a sign should go up.
TRPA is supposed to enforce the public’s access to the public trust portion of the beach below the high water mark, but prefers not to get involved in such a controversial matter.
Anybody denied access to the public trust on the California side of Lake Tahoe should contact the State Lands Commission in Sacramento, who will take the complaint seriously and investigate. Last year they ordered Tahoe Keys to remove a fence extended illegally at Lighthouse Shores.
Steve, can you point to some document that gives that responsibility to TRPA? Why would TRPA be involved in enforcement of a state law? Its not their ordinance.
Timbercove also had a fence that went beyond 6228.87 above sea level and after a city council apperance on the issue it was removed, about four years ago. Nevada law is not the same, it should be, so their rights go to natural rim, 6223 ft. above sea level, and maybe lower who knows its only been below that 4 times in the last 40 years.
The dam height in tahoe city is set by the water master via federal decree at 6229.1 above sea level. The dam height goes to 6324 and if the water went that high their would be no beach anywhere.
Lou, did you get that dam height number mixed up? I don’t remember that dam being 95 feet high.
All very interesting! Public info like access rights should be on the City’s website-database of FAQ re public access. The City Police Dept should be able to access this quickly when access is denied so it can be resolved anytime with a phone call to PD Community Service.
John-
According to Barbara Dugal, chief of the Land Management Division of the California State Lands Commission,
“Everyone has a responsibility for ensuring that the public trust is enforced,” “It’s not just the State Lands Commission. It’s the responsibility of all agencies and the public.”
“…The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, the Department of Fish and Game, the Lahontan Water Quality Board and the Army Corps of Engineers, in addition to the State Lands Commission, are all agencies that hold an obligation to enforce the public trust…”
Source: North Lake Tahoe Bonanza, August 10, 2007, “Public access rules vague where lake meets land in California”, http://www.tahoebonanza.com/article/20070810/Region/108100039
Thank you for this opportunity to clarify.
At the time the Timber Cove Lodge was proposed, locals came out in droves to oppose the development because that beach had been the primary beach within the City. The developers (HKM Investments – aka Hoseit, Kowelyn and Maloff) assured the City officials and the community they had no intention of depriving the public of beach access.
Shortly after the development was constructed, Timber Cove went into the City Planning Dept. to request a sign change and proposed the sign include a reference to “private beach”. The City’s Planning Dept. denied the request. This was a case of the developers making a promise to get what they wanted, and then slowly over time working to undermine the agreement.
Later, the City and HKM Investments were involved in litigation to resolve the beach access issue. The El Dorado County Superior Court issued an order that the beach is public. My recollec-tion is that that determination covered the period from Memorial Day to Labor Day.
I see that the Timber Cove folks have removed the upper part of the City’s sign that used to indicate it was a City of South Lake Tahoe beach — now all that remains is the lower portion of the sign indicating “No dogs, alcohol or overnight camping”.
Just because the motel has an interest in making it a private beach, that does not mean it is so.
The City needs to address this issue immediately to protect and preserve the public’s right to use this critical lake access point.
Well this conversation is all well and good however the City has failed to address this issue in the past.This problem has come up several times in the past few years with some of our visitors as well as locals thrown off local beaches. I would suggest we start calling the city and or our local officials to address this issue, Otherwise this is just more talk and really does not accomplish anything.
The City has been contacted.
Steve, okay I get what she is saying. TRPA isnt going to go out and write a ticket because a hotel is hassling someone on a beach. TRPA makes sure the projects they permit don’t infringe on the public trust. I have no idea how Lahontan gets drug into this. But anyway, they are not supposed to police this.
The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency’s Shorezone plan, a proposed general plan that would regulate piers, buoys and Tahoe’s shoreline over the next 20 years, incorporates regulations that would enforce the public trust through the design and permitting process of new structures, Regan said.
“Making sure that piers are designed correctly to ensure public access is where we have the ability to help the state” enforce the public trust, Regan said in a phone interview.
The new East Coast owners of the Timber Cove Lodge, apparently follow the now-in-vogue idea of “it’s mine – I own it”, which back in the day was more or less non-existent – and for good reason: access to Lake Tahoe was a ‘given’, as the treasure that it is. . .and is legally & fundamentally the case.
We are a two-state Lake: the real estate laws are different in each state; Nevada has no public access included in laws that go back to the 1860’s; California does include public access, troubling though that may be to those exercising the “it’s mine; I own it” mindset – which should be banished here, as most visitors don’t like it either. . .and will vote with their wallets (aside: I believe this attitude has already downsized Tahoe’s economy.
An ongoing example would be the two Conservation Districts in the Basin – one cannot function and is not enough in an environment with two sets of real estate laws – as they are answerable to each state legislature to follow legal precedent, as each property owner should do as well. That some are getting away with this attitude does the Lake Tahoe visitor-base no good, especially since the majority of properties are on the CA side – and should be made clear in no uncertain terms – to benefit our, and their economic interests. . .
Being in the middle of town, this will set a humorless precedent that will sour most, as they apparently think that they operate in a vacuum – they do not. . .
By the way, the same should be said about ‘fences’ – most are used to establish “territorial imperatives” – and always come across as mean-spirited.
I should also say that BTCL or BM (before Timber Cove Lodge or Before Maloff), that pier was a free-standing business known as Koenig’s pier, where they had to encourage the public to visit to make a go of it. . . not as an appendage to someone’s idea of owning an exclusive, private resort/retreat.
Ski Run Marina is now closer to this idea, as the famous ‘bridge-stairway’, now gone (it should have been saved as a historic piece) – was access to “Seagrave’s beach” by literally thousands of college students every day, all summer, for many summers – a vital part of the local scene.
In those days, Harrah recruited on college campuses all over the west, which accounted for the fresh-faced employee base that made a significant part of their reputation – no ‘poverty with a view’ then. . .
To Lou Pierini/Bigger Picture:
Fanny Bridge is controlled by the Federal Watermaster (part of the Justice Department, of all things) as Lake Tahoe’s upper “6” feet is considered a reservoir: the upmost two feet (or more ++) above the statute limit set is Federal, giving the FEDS control over the amount let out, the 2 feet below that refer back to the state it’s in, and the 2 feet below that reverts back to each county, as in the “community knows best” how to handle their own resource issue . . .
In drought years, the Feds cannot usually do much to let water out, for obvious reasons, but they have to also consider the ongoing (100 years now) Truckee River Operating Agreement. . .
The dam max elevation is 6234ft. above see level, mistakes come with age. The legal limit is 6229.1. Mr.Bowen, The truckee river operating agreement is about 10 years old. I went to D.C. for the settlement agreement in 1990 that was before Sen. Bradley, who was head of the oversight comm. for the Dept of Interior. The watermaster takes his orders from a federal judge not the justice dept. Your two ft. #s I have never seen in print. Your other statements I think I’ve addressed in previous post. Lou
The upper limit of the gates is 6247 ft. above sea level if they are at the top of the rails.
Mr. Bowen. I worked at Ski Run Marina in the early 60’s. I’d long since forgotten forgotten the name Seagraves beach. We used to call it “Beer Can Beach” from all the empty beer cans. I was only 8 years old in 62′ and saw stuff there that probably shouldn’t have been seen by someone so young. But heck they were paying me a dollar a day! Billy Wilson, a retired Quarter back and his Retired coach Y.A Tittle were the owners of the property at the time
Yes that “bridge stairway should have been saved! Lots of memories from that place. take Care, Old Long Skiis
The historic bridge became a hazard and was not ADA approved.
I was sorry to see it go too.
But please enjoy the new bridge in front of Riva and make new memories.
It is made up of recycled plastic bags and is wide enough for two wheel chairs to pass.
God bless
Elie, owner Ski Run Marina.
Hi Elie. I will try and make it down to my old stompin’ grounds and check out Ski Run Marina. I can tell you what it was like 50 years ago and you can show me what it’s like now. So if you see a kinda big guy with long hair, a little grey in the the mustache and walking with a limp, that would be me. Come up and introduce yourself and who knows, maybe I’ll rent a a boat slip.
Take Care, Old Long Skiis
Old skis,
I look forward to welcoming you and getting your’perspective on the marina. 50 years is a long time. I will be out on September 19 come visit. Let me show you around.
Meanwhile check our website. http://Www.Skirunmarina.com. Click on the lake and hear me talk about the transformation.
Meanwhile let’s hear it for Kae for making this medium of communication possible.
The name of the Beach and pier where Timber Cove is now was previously called Surf and Sands beach and Marina
Before Surf and Sands wasn’t it Globins? Could be wrong on that one.
Old Long Skiis
Globins pier was located off Lakeview ave Near the end Sacramento street
Ej
Thank you for the clarification on Globins pier. I remember it now! It was one big long pier that was falling apart at the end. Longest pier on the lake at the time as I recall. When I was a kid I used to go to the end and fished for tagged trout. $1.00, $5.00 and if you were lucky a $10.00 trout.
Send the tag into Fish and Game or whatever the agency was called then, fill out a simple form and you got a check in the mail. Getting paid for catching a fish! Boy, those were the days.
Take Care and go fishing! Old Long Skiis
I thought public access to the beach, which is being denied is the issue.
There is a great picture of Globins pier in the Al Tahoe walking history map at the Museum.
Sorry Lou ,
I got swept up in the whole nostalgia thing as I so often do. But I will say that its been contentious for many years on lakefront property as to whats public and whats private property.
There is little enforcement and the laws are often ignored or misunderstood.
It would be nice to have a simplifacation of existing laws so we know where we can stand, or not stand as the case may be.
Old Long Skiis