City, TRPA at odds over what potential Y tenants need to do
By Kathryn Reed
South Lake Tahoe officials are being vague about what the boarded up Mikasa-Miller’s Outpost site might be turned into. At the same time, they are frustrated with TRPA allegedly being obstructionists to getting tenants into the Y retail center.
“The biggest stumbling block is the required traffic study and air mitigation fee,” City Manager Tony O’Rourke told Lake Tahoe News. “Nowhere else have I run into something like this.”
Work is going forward to fill in the blank sign at the Y. Photo/LTN file
O’Rourke said it’s unusual for a property zoned for retail to have to go through the types of studies the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency is requesting when the use is not changing.
Based on the bi-state regulatory agency’s 1987 Regional Plan, any building that has not been used for 90 days in a two-year period must go through this sort of analysis.
“It’s standard throughout California for any new business to offset their traffic impacts and that’s why a traffic analysis is needed for the property. Taking a fresh look at potential traffic impacts going forward is actually in the best interest of the new business to make sure any mitigation costs are based on reality during this down economy versus being tied to a textbook formula,” explained Julie Regan, TRPA’s chief of external affairs.
O’Rourke said the air quality fee could cost the entire center about $160,000.
To this, Regan said, “The cost estimate of $160,000 for a traffic study seems on the high side to our planners so perhaps there’s an opportunity for our transportation team members to assist in making the project less expensive for the applicant.”
City Councilman Tom Davis at a South Lake Tahoe Lodging Association meeting last week told that board, which he is a member of, a company out of London that has stores in Southern California is looking to move into the Y location. He reiterated his frustrations with TRPA at today’s City Council meeting.
He said the tenants are proposing about $1 million in improvements. Davis said four businesses may occupy the center that was last anchored by Miller’s Outpost and Mikasa.
O’Rourke said a few potential tenants have been speaking with the Garfinkle family, the property owners. This rendering is what was proposed at one time for the area.
What the area would be transformed into remains to be seen. Because a community plan has not been done at the Y, any redevelopment is limited. However, the Tahoe Valley Community Plan is expected to be discussed in a work session by the South Lake Tahoe City Council on April 19.
“TRPA supports economic revitalization of the Y area, especially since the old Mikasa site is nearly 100 percent covered with asphalt which affects water quality,” Regan said.
O’Rourke isn’t convinced, stating TRPA’s rules are killing redevelopment and in these competitive economic times roadblocks and added costs could send potential investors elsewhere.
Gotta love the TRPA and mouthpiece Julie Regan. They are not even denying that they are being an obstructionist orginazation and quickly shifted the focus to how they might lower the fees. What $160k down to $120k? Thats doing our local economy quite the favor and scaring the heck out of anyone who might want to invest here.
It also raises the question of whether this same air and traffic study will have to be reconducted at the “hole in the ground”, the empty used car lot on Hwy 50 (there is an office there), the empty retail store by SATO, the old tire store by Kragen,etc. By the way, did McCarthy have to conduct such a study when he purchased the old LTVA offices off of Ski Run Blvd.?
I’m all for protecting the lake, but why can’t TRPA see the struggling economy and lack of jobs in this community? For retail spaces could provide jobs, income, additional shooping, and a boost to the economy that an empty Millers Outpost building is not. It seems like TRPA isn’t in favor of anything that doesn’t directly earn them $. Can we pull their heads out of their …. fast enough to save this town?
Good arguments dryclean
This is ridiculous… These studies and processes are killing timely opportunities. U bring in water quality as an issue, but have yet to stand up to any commercial areas that really need BMPs. The TRPAs whole water quality program is laughable. You drive around this town, see cruddy water and subpar buildings. Wonder what the heck they have been doing for the last 30 years? Pathetic.. I dont think this Regan person has a clue!
I consider myself to be an environmentalist. I have taken classes at LTCC and I think I understand what the TRPA and the League to Save Lake Tahoe are trying to do. I am also a realist. I live in South Lake Tahoe in the year 2011, with an unemployment rate above 15% and a soaring commercial vacancy rate. There is a saying in the environmental restoration community, “the project is the fix”. If a property owner is allowed to rehabilitate or replace an existing property they can fix some or all of the environmental issues associated with that property. BMP’s, energy efficiency, ‘green building’, ADA access, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, snow removal, signage, etc. can all be addressed. Sometimes the TRPA and the League are their own worst enemies. Their complicated, some what outdated rules and policies only alienate the very people they claim to serve. Not all progress is bad. Progress means ‘to move forward’, to advance. The TRPA and the League must allow property owners to move forward. Rather then spending money on exorbitant fees, allow property owners to make real improvements to real property, here in the basin. During his campaign for President, Bill Clinton understood ’it’s the economy’, he understood that a robust economy could pay for everything else he wanted to do. The State of California, El Dorado County, City of South Lake Tahoe and all of the regulatory agencies in the basin need to focus on reviving our economy. MOVE FORWARD.
Just level it and make it a park. A true entrance to So. Tahoe!
Can you say LAME!!!!!
It’s amazing that TRPA personnel are actually paid for failure.
Examples are TRPA’s caving in to modify their zoning rules so vacation rentals are allowed in single family residential neighborhoods, their failure in enforcing their own deadlines for the residential BMP program, their hiding from loud cigarette boats speeding near the shoreline
Traffic study for what Ms. Regan? There once was a retail store there, if you don’t block this chance there will be again, that will bring about the same amount of traffic as before, there’s the study. What’s the purpose of the study? To see if there will be impacts? Sure if the ground was empty, but what is the COMMON SENSE HERE? DUH, the shoppers will actually park and shop hopefully rather than the little art shows.
Marchetta said she was going to bring common sense to planning so here is your chance to put your words into actions. It’s COMMON SENSE PLANNERS that traffic that was approved for the retail store that was built will be about the same or less than it was, which was already approved because the TRPA allowed them to pave the entire lot, not very environmentally friendly but it’s already there. There are NO WORSE impacts than were previously OK at the site.
This is where TRPA gets everyone annoyed. Your missson, should you ever choose to accept it, TRPA, is to protect the lake – hello, focus on the lake the lake the lake. People are NOT going to come to Lake Tahoe to shop at this store, there will not be any worse impacts to traffic. Hopefully though, a whole lotta folks might not drive off the mountain to shop which would reduce the number cars and traffic on the road and reduce the road stuff into the lake. TRPA, the lake the lake the lake. The air would be improved, the roads and road dirt, car flakes just might not make it into the lake if more people stayed up here and shopped.
The fee, we know, is simply for your budget that Marchetta already said is down due to less construction. Maybe if you’d focus on your mission, to protect the lake, instead of stopping construction and taking the few dollars the developers have to improve the place and put in BMPs. Tell the developer to use the “fees” to reduce the amount of asphalt and call it even.
TRPA, this is where you go wrong. You don’t get the things you want because you keep developers from improving the community which sends shoppers and their money off the hill which gives you a smaller budget and the circle is endless. Focus on your mission and keep it simple.
Kae, we, the readers would appreciate a direct comment from Ms. Marchetta; not one of her mothepieces. Please keep us abreast of all attempts you may take to get her talk canmddidly. The verbiage and tone of the replys warrants it and the comments will get worse. I sense the town is fired up on this one. Go Kae Go.
TRPA should have been thrown out year’s ago. A bunch of money grabbing Idiots that don’t care about anything but there salaries
Jonathan and Frank, thank you for your comments. I couldn’t agree more and I USED to be someone who actually supported the TRPA and their environmental efforts. I no longer believe this organization is serving anyone or anything besides themselves.
I can only agree with the preceeding comments. As far as Ms. Regan, don’t shoot the messenger. The TRPA has no interest in this town’s success. Like all bureaucracies, they end up only concerned with their survival. Their original purpose has been lost in regulations years ago. Now they are worthless, and everyone knows it. When an organization’s leadership turns to lawyers, the game is over. The more trouble and legal action, the more the lawyers make. The damage without TRPA is far less than the damage with TRPA. It is time to defund and eliminate TRPA.
Anyone think to ask Tom Davis to name the four tenants that are proposing the $ one million in improvements.
What type member is Tom Davis of the company out of London. Are there any other members is SLT.
Costco is a membership company.
It seems funny all this ranting on one side of the lake. You should see what’s going on over here.
Bonanza Editorial on Boulder Bay.
Sure blame TRPA–it’s cathartic for all our downtrodden spirits–but is it possible that the agency has two separate rule books? I would look further than all our bad memories of “TERPA.”
Heh Julie Regan! It’s up to a business if they want to do a traffic study. Not you, or the government agency of which I pay your salary. Your FIRED!! Maybe it’s time to see if what Kubby said was true regarding the City of SLT having not to comply with the TRPA. Only guidelines, right Mr. Kubby?