River restoration, golf course move OK’d by state board
By Kathryn Reed
MEYERS – Tears of relief. Gearing up for the next hearing.
Those were the reactions from the two sides in the divisive Washoe Meadows State Park, Upper Truckee River, Lake Tahoe Golf Course issue.
On Friday, before a crowd that at times numbered more than 100 people, the California State Park and Recreation Commission unanimously approved staff’s recommendation to accept the final EIR for the river restoration project, and to swap land between the park and Lake Valley Recreation Area to allow the golf course to be reconfigured.
State Park and Recreation commissioners on Oct. 20 get an earlful. Photo/Kathryn Reed
It was Cyndie Walck, State Parks hydrologist who after the vote was taken, broke down in tears. She had no idea how the six commissioners would vote. She has been working on this project for five years, attending dozens of public forums.
“I’m surprised,” Walck told Lake Tahoe News after the vote.
On the opposite side are members of Washoe Meadows Community. They don’t want undisturbed parkland on the South Shore to be developed into nine holes of golf. They have been working just as hard as Walck – but for a different outcome.
“We revise our strategy and we get ready for TRPA,” Lynne Paulson said outside Lake Tahoe Golf Course as to what is next for her group.
(On Dec. 7 at 9:30am, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency APC votes on the EIR at the Stateline office. On Dec. 15 at 9am, the TRPA Governing Board votes on certification of final EIR at the Stateline office.)
Fifty people spoke during the 2½ hours of public testimony. Thirty-one were against the preferred alternative 2 in the environmental impact report, 17 in favor, and two were in the middle.
The reach of the Upper Truckee River that flows through State Parks property is called one of the worst. Banks are eroding, causing sediment to plop into the river and be carried into Lake Tahoe – which is said to be helping to maintain that body of water’s clarity loss.
Most of the opponents to alternative 2 are in favor of river restoration. What they opposed is moving half of the 18-hole course into the park.
Each side disputes how much pristine v. disturbed land will be affected. Each side gives tours that are very different and show their respective realities.
Ultimately, though, the commissioners know that if they don’t fix the sediment issue, Lahontan Water Quality Control Board will level the hammer. While they had issues with Washoe cultural sites being covered in dirt as a way to preserve them, it wasn’t enough to vote against the project.
Commissioner Elva Yanez echoed LTVA Executive Director Carol Chaplin’s comments that the triple bottom line is crucial – the economic, environmental, and social needs.
“It’s very clear river restoration has to happen,” Yanez said. “I’m moved by the notion that millions of dollars are generated by the golf course.”
But alarming to many is that Goldman Sachs and Starwood Capital own American Golf Corporation, the concessionaire of the Meyers course on Highway 50.
Jeff Perry, with American Golf, said the Meyers course generates $2 million a year in revenue, of which the State Parks receives one-quarter of that figure. His firm is interested in bidding on redesigning the course.
(Any concessionaire will pay for moving the holes, which will likely mean a smaller annual fee to State Parks. But in the end the park system owns the upgrades.)
Huey Johnson, California secretary of Resources from 1978 -82, gave the commissioners a book about how Michigan put together a trust from oil serverance taxes to fund its parks.
Some questioned how the parks people could think about spending millions of dollars on river restoration when dozens of parks are slated for closure in 2012. Officials said the money for restoration would come from grants, while the concessionaire pays for the golf course.
It’s another sad time for the residents of South Lake Tahoe. Not just because of the vote by the commissioners, but because the voice of more than 1500 people who signed petitions in opposition to expansion of the golf course were ignored.
The commissioners demonstrated a clear lack of understanding of the issues; scientifically, economically, and socially. What Elva Yanez stated at the end in terms of finances was fictional.
The decision was made by the commissioners before the meeting as they declined to take a tour with the Washoe Meadows Community, who represents the vast majority of the citizens.
For persons representing “groups,” they were given 4-minutes to speak. Everyone else 2-minutes. The paid attorney for the Washoe Meadows Community was cut off at 2-minutes and they refused to let him finish. Quite a bias.
Right before the vote, one of the commissioners made reference to documents he read before the meeting and used them in a very condescending manner towards the citizens to justify his vote. Another commissioner did say he would do the will of the people, but became a “sheeple” in the end and voted with the other commissioners.
Norma Santiago “popped” in for about 3-minutes, which was a great disappointment that she was not there for her constituents.
Of the 17 people who spoke in favor of Alternative 2, the vast majority (If I recall correctly, all but 4) were agency representatives and not private citizens.
Comment on what you wish; it doesn’t matter whether you are in favor of or against the golf course expansion. The purpose of this comment is that we “the people” have no say in what happens in our lives in this community.
Our elected officials don’t even care enough to show up.
State employees and commissioners are immune to litigation.
It’s a wonderful democratic republic isn’t it?
Have a good day.
Extremely well said Mort. It was a travesty of big government stomping on the little people. Shame on the commissioners who said they had an open mind and then voted in lockstep against the will of the people.
It was informative watching the government circle its wagons as the citizens launched their offensive of logic and rationality. The government then erected its famous ultimate weapon, the “ignore shield” which totally overwhelmed the disgusted citizens.
It’s disconcerting that the State hydrologist seems so invested in maximum development – the river’s erosion problems would be addressed no matter which alternative was approved. And the lake’s main obstacle with clarity is the ever-growing amount of man-made effluents flowing into the lake, creating more bacteria and algae (ALL sediment settles eventually). It seems like the “public comment” of this process was for show only, but hey we can’t stand in the way of Goldman Sachs and endless development can we?
Now let’s watch clarity decline and sensitive land formerly preserved get developed. This failed program operating in the name of lake clarity is unbelievable. Has any project of this nature ever been deemed a success or demonstrated benefits as a result? Where is the science to support it? Nobody knows what they are doing… Keep wasting our money… This is a joke…!
These are two separate issues… restore the river… NO PROBLEM … but leave the golf course where it is. There will be no revenue until the developer gets back every dime he puts in. The state will not see a dime for a decade and we will never get the park back.