Locals give S. Tahoe officials earful about Al Tahoe area
By Kathryn Reed
While the consultant in charge of the Harrison Avenue project in South Lake Tahoe said the purpose of Tuesday night’s gathering was to exchange information – the city saying what it wants to do and locals saying what they want – some wondered what the point really was.
One person said how four years ago the city agreed there would be no one-way streets in that area. Now some people are miffed that maps show one-way streets.
Bob Albertazzi, right, talks Oct. 9 about South Lake Tahoe's plans for parking in the Al Tahoe area. Photo/Kathryn Reed
Another meeting-goer brought up how a year ago a vocal group was adamant that parking permits in neighborhoods, especially Al Tahoe, was a bad idea. That idea is back on the table at a proposed cost of $25 per household a year.
On the flip side, a man told Bob Albertazzi, who was leading the parking discussion, that he believed what the city had come up with was a viable solution.
Marti Monns, who lives by Regan Beach, told Lake Tahoe News, “I don’t believe in paid parking in an area like this.” She also doesn’t want to pay for a permit. She knows what it is like to be a single mom, so she wants to keep things affordable for those who live and visit Lake Tahoe.
Monns added that the congestion during Fourth of July and concerts at Lakeview Commons is tolerable. What concerns her and others is if the city puts paid parking in at Regan Beach, it will spill over into the neighborhood because those people will want to park for free. That is why the city is looking at permit parking – to lessen the impact on locals.
The meeting on Oct. 9 at South Tahoe Middle School attracted about 80 people. Three stations were set up for people to get info and voice opinions. They included talking about events at Lakeview Commons – the impacts, types of events and how many there should be. The city plans to have event specific guidelines for Lakeview Commons devised by December. That same month request for proposals will be sent out for concessionaires for that location.
Another sector at the meeting focused on parking management. What wasn’t mentioned by city staff is how in the current budget there is revenue budgeted to come from paid parking. Then again, it was in the last fiscal budget, too, but the City Council took it out when public pressure weighed heavily on them.
The third station at the meeting was talking about plans to revamp the Harrison Avenue business district. Hilary Roverud, who runs the city planning department, said, “The actual physical changes are only proposed for the commercial area.”
Another opportunity for people to comment on Harrison Avenue will be during the 30 days when the CEQA document is on the street. It should be released Oct. 12. The Planning Commission is likely to have a special meeting later this month about that document. The council Nov. 6 is expected to have a public meeting about creating an assessment district for Harrison.
In March or April, city staff would like to award a contract to a contractor who would then begin work in May.
I could understand requiring vacation rentals in the neighborhood to have paid parking permits, but full time residents?
ABSOLUTELY NOT!
if you don’t have a parking permit do you get a ticket?
what about all the vacation rentals here in the hood?
does Aspen have parking permits?
San Francisco uses ‘local’ parking permits to distinguish those who live in a certain neighborhood (or not) . . . so no, you probably don’t “get a ticket” if you have one – think of 25.00 as an annual “pass”. “Aspen” uses the same meter system that Truckee does – a paper receipt from a central dispenser viewable from the dashboard. . . perhaps that could provide part of an answer; visitors buy one near Lakeview Commons or Regan, as that person is right: absent a “local” sticker, folks will overflow into the surrounding streets. . .
Bless those who availed themselves of the Bicycle Valet this summer (subtracting hundreds of cars from the mix) – what would the neighborhoods have looked like then ?
The Harrison Avenue change could be thought of as a hybrid combining mere ‘Change’ with progress.
Parking permit for local households? They already pay them..it’s called taxes.
One way access on Harrison is the only answer folks. What’s the big deal? The street is only so many feet wide. To accomodate business owners with access, ONE WAY is the ONLY WAY.
THE ONE SMART THING THAT I READ IN THIS ARTICLE IS THE THOUGHT OF AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT.
AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT IS WHAT IS NEEDED THROUGHOUT THE CITY, PUT IN AN ASSESSMENT DISTRICT TO CURB, GUTTER AND PAVE ALL STREETS THROUGHOUT THE CITY, IT WILL BEAUTIFY THE CITY AND ALSO STOP THE EROSION PROBLEM. EVERY PROPERTY OWNER PAYS OVER THE YEARS IN THEIR PROPERTY TAXES AND WE GET THE JOB DONE RIGHT. BEEN SAYING THIS FOR YEARS AND SOME DAY THE COUNCIL WILL UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS THE ONLY WAY TO IMPROVE THE AREA LOOK FOR THE TOURIST AND THE RESIDENTS, IT MAY COST A LITTLE EACH YEAR FOR THE PROPERTY OWNERS,BUT IT WILL SURE IMPROVE THE PROPERTY VALUES AND THE BEAUTY OF SOUTH LAKE TAHOE, AND EVERYONE WILL BE HAPPY WITH THE RESULTS, THINK ABOUT IT.
LOVE TO HEAR HOW THE PUBLIC FEELS ABOUT THIS IDEA ?????
Herb Caen of the S.F. Chronicle used to say that parking meters were a form of legalized gambling: they’re betting with your quarter (at that time) that you won’t make it back in time. . .as S.F. writes $ 60,000,000+/annum in parking tickets, South Lake Tahoe need not suffer the same fate.
John above says “taxes” should cover it all, but it simply doesn’t – $ 2.00/month/household is worth more to manage change (and peace of mind) while the dispensers mentioned would assure way more of the City’s costs for doing so. . . that’s a fair trade-off.
xlocal– we already have an assessment district. It’s the thousands and thousands of dollars a year some of us pay in property taxes.
With regards to the city’s paid parking model, they showed last year that they intend to make more money from parking tickets than they collect from the paid parking.
What a way to welcome the tourists who we depend on. HI, HAPPY YOU’RE HERE, HERE’S YOUR TICKET, PLEASE COME BACK.
I hope I don’t have to pay for parking to take my animals to Sierra Veterinary Hospital. Or any other business at Harrison.
Four years ago both Bruce and Hal were againt one-way streets in the Al Tahoe neighborhood. Now we have all new staff and the same old ideas. Let Harrison Ave have it’s one-way street but keep one-way streets and paid parking out of Al Tahoe. Look at the money we could save on this project. Buy another lot for a parking lot if Harrison Ave needs more parking.
Good idea Buck.
Harrison as one way really doesnt seem to be a problem is it? and its certainly an easier solution to flow, allowing safe angled parking, and looks than widening. Also adding a lot is certainly more attractive than paid parking. The city still cant get it through it’s head that paid parking at Heavenly Village (and its intended and unintended consequences – the biggest of which is Crescent V creating the impression you cant park there) is killing business on the CA side of stateline area. This is and for the foreseeable fuure will be a po-dunk small town – when you start to manage it like a city (paid meters, traffic enforcement) you start to drive tourists away. The idea that parking tickets will drive city revenue is pretty deplorable really! It’s up to residents to make sure the city doesnt get into one more project that is that is penny-wise, but ends up being dollar foolish.
Who at the city decided to invest in more ticket writers, more new trucks for them to drive and parking meters instead of snowplows and roads?
I’d rather not see any parking or driving on Harrison…have it all pedestrian and park in the lots behind RoJos and Rude Brother and Sprouts. How lovely it would look with more outside seating and gathering spot. Bet more would use the businesses more often.
Paid parking is short sighted, if you are trying to build your tourist base, not drive them away!