South Tahoe proceeds with tourist core plan
Stormwater and height issues prevented South Lake Tahoe Councilwoman JoAnn Conner from voting for two items related to the tourist core area plan.
“My biggest concern is they have not addressed stormwater,” Conner told Lake Tahoe News after the item was discussed last week. “And people don’t want three-, four-, five-story buildings down the highway.”
Others voiced similar concerns. Laurel Ames, a long-time city resident, does not believe the plan addresses the threat of floods. Jennifer Quashnick, representing the local Sierra Club chapter, wants a visualization of what the height rules could look like.
The tourist core plan goes from the state line to Ski Run Boulevard. Photo/LTN file
The other person expressing concern about the plan was Shannon Eckmeyer with the League to Save Lake Tahoe. She said the League wants a connection between the area plan and the total maximum daily load requirements.
The city’s Hilary Roverud told the council the flood component is the same as what South Tahoe has been using with past plans that are mandated by the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency.
Maximum height of buildings in the plan area fluctuates between 36 and 95 feet, with the higher number being in the main tourist area. And while those are maximums, staff and council do not have to approve that amount – it could be lower.
The six other speakers from the public spoke in favor of the plan.
The council voted 4-1 for the plan as well as for the environmental negative declaration. Conner was the dissenting voice both times.
South Lake Tahoe and Douglas County staff worked in unison so the respective plans will complement one another. The goal is that locals and tourists will not see the state line when it comes to aesthetics, walkability and other basics.
The TRPA Governing Board has approved Douglas’ plan and will discuss South Lake Tahoe’s on Nov. 20.
— Lake Tahoe News staff report
I watched the October 1st City Council meeting online and very closely watched and listened to Public Hearing Item (b), Resolution Certifying an Initial Study/Negative Declaration and Consideration of an Ordinance To Adopt the Tourist Core Area Plan. While JoAnn Conner went on ad nauseam about her concern for the potential heights of future structures and the impact that could have on the “little guy citizens” she never said that stormwater was of concern and certainly never made it known to the viewing public or to the other Council Members or City staff that her “biggest concern is they have not addressed stormwater”. The very noticeable concerns she expressed during that meeting were: 1) that the staff neglected to put street names on a map of the Tourist Core Area Plan and kept forgetting how hard it was for her to look at a map with no street names; 2) the potential heights of buildings and the little guy citizens getting stepped on; and 3) the plastic bag ban ordinance and the harsh scolding she dished out to the Sustainability Committee Members for not doing what she’d told them to do. JoAnn Conner does not get to rewrite history.
With regard to flooding, Hilary Roverud told the City Council that the Tourist Core Area Plan had not altered the City wide regulations that were adopted from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) about flood plain management and flood zones and that when (and if) FEMA changed the flood zone designations it would be appropriate for the City to address that.
Anyone who wants to be informed about this just needs to watch the City Council meeting online by clicking the following link and then clicking on City Council October 1, 2013 Video.
http://www.cityofslt.us/index.aspx?NID=84
Am currently spending a few vacation weeks in Colorado at Telluride and Aspen. There are a few observations for basic improvements that I think should apply to the new South Shore core, as these towns know how to do mountain resort destinations in a most appealing way. South Lake Tahoe should not become a duplicate of these as an entire town, but the core would do well to emulate there strong points (which are many) as much as possible if it intends to be a top flight destination.
Some of these things I’ve mentioned here before, but visiting these great Colorado towns just reiterates it in my mind, from a visitor standpoint. They are reasonably simple and not novel ideas, but deserve emphasis:
1. Signage within the core walking areas: should be large typeface and very appealing (ski resort style often is the best) and help direct people at many junctures to all the important areas like plazas, retail centers, the lakeshore, restrooms, etc. On-street signage in the core area should be more than the basic Caltrans boring green and brown signs too.
2. Trail signs should be of similar design and high quality along the expanded trail network, and at all junctures. Lots of walking and biking trails through scenic portions are absolutely necessary to making the town core lively, and easy to get some exercise right outside your door.
3. A large attractive town board made out of high quality materials, and calling out the South Shore area features with a 3-D styled map that shows town attractions with a close-up map and all local trails (with names) should be placed in several locations, including plazas and gathering areas. It should also show directions to more remote attractions and trails like Camp Richardson, Emerald Bay, Sand Harbor, etc.
4. New buildings in the core should be carefully designed to have a degree of consistency but not necessarily identical with the current architecture of Marriott and the old Embassy Suites building quality. It is key to have the new built environment in the core having a high quality of mountain architecture, to match the natural beauty.
5. The whole area needs to be walkable walkable walkable and bikeable bikeable bikeable. I can’t say enough how great it is in both Telluride and Aspen to walk out your door and in minutes be at dozens of restaurants, stores, coffee shops, trails, and parks. It should also try not to rely on retail chains so much, but also not bring in local businesses that cannot survive off season doldrums. This is tricky. Seasonal food trucks in plazas might cover some of this. Food needs to be more than just junk hotdogs and chips, but better cuisine with a California fresh twist.
6. More and better festivals. Telluride and Apsen both have long developed, hugely attended and high quality festivals such as bluegrass, brews and brews, classical outdoor music, jazz, wine, film, races, photography workshops etc. etc. South Shore could try to leverage events passing through the bay area and bring some of the same performers up to the lake in similar timing. The snow globe, hot august nights, stand up paddleboarding, and Harrah’s concerts, among others are good starts, but so much more can be done once the core is further developed.
Again, the idea is not to become just a visitor destination, but to amp that up in support of the entire town becoming more economically vibrant and keeping its history as both a tourist center and a regular town.
Not Born on the Bayou:
Thank you for sharing your observations related to these two very successful Colorado areas and your excellent suggestions for basic improvements which should apply to the new South Shore core. I would add that South Lake Tahoe’s having the incomparable amenity of Lake Tahoe and the adult entertainment that Stateline offers should provide a huge advantage for us. I believe that the Tourist Core Area needs to be considered a business core area where a majority of individuals visiting our community can easily recreate from and spend their time and their money, monies which would be new revenues coming into our town and not just monies being recycled from one business to another.
I also agree that signage in that Tourist Core needs improvement from that basic boring Caltrans signage but as long as Highway 50 runs through that Tourist Core that’s all that will be allowed. Changing that signage to a more appealing typeface to direct visitors would mean that the City has to control that section of roadway and that means some type of Highway 50 realignment. I so often hear (and read) of many locals saying they “don’t and won’t frequent the Heavenly Village Shops or Stateline Area businesses because that’s for the tourists”, so why not really make it what tourists want so they’ll be more inclined to coming here and spending their money which can then create more revenue for our local businesses, for our local residents, and for the City.
I find it very unfortunate that some of our local leaders are lacking the ability to see the forest before the trees and have no vision. Some are so busy being bent over looking at the nickels and dimes down on the ground that they don’t see the folding money blowing right over their bowed heads.
The fact is that our town is not very tourist friendly. Witness the recent installation of paid parking, with inadequate marking or warning, which is only needed to take money from the unwary.
I was recently in a town in France which did the same thing. I paid a 17 euro ticket which I got because the paid parking was poorly marked the the kiosk was down the block out of sight. I left with a bad impression of the town as I am sure our guests will have of Tahoe after their ticket. I am unlikely to ever be in that area again but we are trying to attract repeat visitors and this seems like a very poor way to do it.
I got my $50 ticket at the Tourist Core and will not be back to make another contribution.
They have areas of paid parking in these Colorado towns too, along with some unpaid. As long as you have enough desirable attractions, I’m not sure how big a deal that is. Big city dwellers are used to it anyway.
But it helped that Telluride had a little flyer that along with a detailed map of the town, marking paid and unpaid street parking areas. These free flyers are excellent – with the street by street maps, also showing all local walking and bike trails, plus business services on the back, they’re very helpful to visitors. Aspen’s map guide flyer was even larger, with drawings of buildings and names of many businesses next to them right on the map. Don’t think I’ve seen one of these nearly as complete for South Shore. They update them annually here each year too.
Both towns also seem to serve both tourists and locals fully in the entire town, within the walkable streets – unlike South Lake which as 4mer said seems to repel some locals from the Heavenly village area. Bringing more businesses and attractions to the core that make it desirable for both visitors and locals makes for a better environment. This seems more difficult in the long spread out SLT than in the compact, rectangular towns in Colorado though, where the commercial core is closer to most people who are either residing or visiting.
Mountain Village above Telluride is the newer mostly-resort condo area and is pretty quiet right now off season. But a free gondola still runs between the towns from 7 am to 12 am daily, closing only for a few months in late October through mid Dec. plus Spring off season I think. Lots of trails at the top in addition to the town features.
They’re in off season here now too (but with blazing fall colors), and some restaurants close for a few months. The main towns still seem pretty active with locals and some visitors, however.