S. Tahoe beach brouhaha not resolved
By Kathryn Reed
South Lake Tahoe officials and operators of the Beach Retreat & Lodge agreed to sit down to figure out solutions to what has become a contentious issue regarding access to the beach.
This centrally located lakefront hotel has changed general managers multiple times since Urbana Realty Advisors became owners a few years ago. But Brandon Reed (no relation to this reporter) told Lake Tahoe News he is here to stay and wants to build relationships.
He was put on the hot seat Nov. 18 during the South Lake Tahoe City Council meeting.
Issues include when the public has access to the beach, to what areas, and if the 18 public parking spaces really are available.
Councilwoman Brooke Laine shared her experience this summer of being told by hotel staff there was no parking by the pier only to make her way back there to find out they were lying. She said antics like that are fueling distrust. She had been honest by telling the worker she was not a guest of the hotel.
Reed said when the construction is done in the coming months on the conference center that parking will be easy to come by. The city would like stenciled markings to indicate the spots are public. That is still up in the air.
Reed added, “We have no intention of disputing that the public has access to the beach.”
The problem is for years many people believed this whole stretch of sand was public. In reality it is a private beach with public access. All of that is based on a 1980’s court decision. And the public agency with control is the State Lands Commission.
The city wants better signage to explain to the public where they are allowed to go and when.
Leniency during the Fourth of July and Labor Day fireworks was also requested. This is because part of the beach is off limits to the public after dark.
In return, Reed wants people to be respectful when weddings are going on.
The public, though, doesn’t want the prime part of the beach cordoned off all day for a one-hour event.
Peggy Bourland submitted 900 signatures on a petition to allow the public the right to access the beach.
It was pointed out how the city picks up trash from the beach, and how U.S. Bank and Deb Howard and Co. have adopted it for cleanup after fireworks shows.
City Attorney Tom Watson during his presentation said the point of the dialog was “to reduce disputes rather than exacerbate them.”
What the two sides come up with, and how the public and hotel treat each other will determine if Watson’s wishes come true.
In other news:
• Scott Blasser, president of the South Lake Tahoe Firefighters Association, told the council one-third of the department is looking for a new job because their compensation is not adequate. However, the department just agreed to a 9 percent raise over three years, and was the only department to get a 2 percent raise under the former city manager because they signed the agreement first.
• Outgoing Councilwoman Brooke Laine thanked her colleagues, staff and the public for their support these last two years.
1/3 of the fire dept is looking for a new job? Well good luck to them, then. A lot of new graduates from fire academies are having trouble finding jobs in the industry these days. Plenty of fire fighters, not so many year-round jobs available.
Their pay and benefits are better than the average citizen’s. If they don’t like it, let ’em go. Someone else will gladly fill the position.
Dog, no way to talk about our local heroes.
Guess what 80% of the employees at whats left of our casinos are looking for work. I hear there are lots of openings in Oakland.
As to the beach issue. Who cares we will all be partying at the new “PUBLIC BEACH” next to Edgewood this summer. RIGHT???
We can watch the images of the lake and the sky reflecting off the Harvey’s tower after enjoying a concert at our convention center.
Some years ago there were disputes of the same type at Lighthouse Shores beach at Tahoe Keys. The HOA erected signs with arrows and boundary markers and that resolved everything satisfactorily. Not terribly complicated.
Beach Retreat& Lodge looks to be winning the fight to steal public property. Look to see how the city rules on ths and remember to follow the money! OLS
OLS not really public property, please read the info on the agenda put together by the city attorney. It was always private land with a right to use easement. It also seems that the city is not the one to enforce the easement but rather the state lands commission as they are the ones that took over the lawsuit from the city which the state won. It seems the only thing that is really in contention is the 18 parking spaces, more to come on that.
Hopefully you meant heroes in a sarcastic manner. They want more money for sitting around thinking of ways to defraud the city out of money for OT. Go to http://transparentcalifornia.com/salaries/south-lake-tahoe/ and the first 10 fireman on the first page cleared over $105,000 for the year. Yeah they are definitely under compensated…
Let’s see here, they spec’d out a ladder truck that is to big to drive on our city streets and left out the pumping system for tools that was then removed and put into another truck. But before they did that they had to order another half-million dollar engine that provided the pumps for the ladder truck. Then add the cost of the remodel to station 2 and you have an excess of 2 million dollars of unnecessary expenditures ( the city’s website is very useful on researching their expenditures). They could have made an agreement with Douglas county to use their ladder truck and spent the money on equipment that was useful.
I understand that the State controls access for the land below 6229 feet (high water mark) in California but I don’t understand how someone who owns land must allow the public to be able to use it. If this were your home on the lake and your APN covered the area down to 6229 feet, how can the State justify demanding that you allow the public on private property 100 feet back from that point? Would you want someone in your front yard?
Tahoe advocate, the 100 ft above the high level mark came about when the developer was getting approval to build, in order to get a variance to build what they wanted the city required something from the developer which was the 100 ft during the summer and 18 public parking places. I would suggest you watch the video on line it is at htp://slt.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=6&clip_id=720
It starts at about 2 hours and 45 min.
I really cant believe that it seemed that one of the public speakers wanted city employees fired because she didn’t get information back as quickly as she wanted and another when the beach was taken off the website and parks and rec handouts. Cody Bass was mad because people were parking on Bal Bijour street(a public street)when they were going to the public beach and it took up parking that his customers would normally use.
The General Manager seemed to be honest when he said that they wanted to work with the community on the access. Which would make sense as he would like for them to use his restaurants and beach rentals as well as refer their out of town guest to them.
Rather than relieing on this report please watch the video and be more informed. I feel if you don’t and you commit you will not know enough to do so accurately.
Dumb question here, but just where is this disputed beach located? Be nice to have many more places very close to the water, where one could park, maybe just briefly, to drop a kayak, canoe, or windsurfer off, without paying for an all day parking pass. Don’t know if it applies here. Most beaches offer parking quite far from the actual shore. Regan Beach about the only one I’m aware of where you can park right there.
DougM it is the Beach in front of The Beach Retreat which is across from Safeway. Also is not parking for El Dorado Beach right there and the parking is free?
reloman- I did listen to most of the video. My comment is still that I worry when private property rights are taken away because of something which happened before the owner decided to build on it.
Because the land was vacant it was used by people who didn’t own it. We don’t know if the owner was even aware of it. When the owner wanted to build on his land, the courts said he had to give up some of his personal right of use of his own property.
Now that the courts have ruled this way, the new owner must abide by that which is as it should be.
My concern is that it happened in the first place.
As far as the public speakers requesting names of city employees, I didn’t hear them ask to fire them. I did hear that they want accountability for actions by them which either weren’t following a timeline established by law or were misleading the public by not showing the beach has being public during certain months and thereby lowering the use by the public. I support employee accountability in both private and government jobs and if they didn’t ask, do you think the city will investigate? I hope those public speakers come back to the next city council meeting to request it again as I doubt they’ll get an answer based on the verbal request last Tuesday.
City manager said Connolly Beach could have been lost on the web site when the new site was started. But when did Connolly Beach come off of the TV 21 and not printed in the city brochure and who made that call? Accountability?
Anyone notice that the fire station across from the middle school has NO fire engine, only a new sign that says “office” ?!?
How do the residents of Al Tahoe feel about this?
If nothing else, if the hotel is truly sincere about working out a solution, a simple starting point would be clearly marking the 18 public parking spaces. Then it would be quite to simple tell if there was available parking or not. And it’s the least they can do considering the City pays for the trash removal down at the Beach.
And a third our looking to leave? Let them go then! Period! There’s a long line of people looking to fill those desired jobs, including a good friend who left the area. Not cause it didn’t pay enough, but cause there was nothing available. And now he works for an out of area Fire Dept.
Tahoeadvocate- I believe this was the classic case of the city needing to change the “zoning” on the parcel to allow for a large hotel. If the owners just wanted to build a home, or whatever else the allowable use was at the time they probably would not have been forced into public access. Which makes me wonder why no public access to the beach at ski run was officially designated as part of redevelopment there. Possibly it fell through the cracks when the developer in the 80s declared bankruptcy.
This is part of a larger problem of illegal restriction of public access to the lakefront up to the high water mark, which is guaranteed by California law. TRPA should require all illegal obstructions to public access be removed — including signs, fences and everything else that blocks or deters access to PUBLIC land.
tahoeadvocate The only reason to know the name of the person who took the beach off of list would be to try and get them fired. I would bet my bottom dollar that that is the wish of that speaker she was that fired up.
I am wondering TahoeDad if what you area saying is that all fences that impede access to the lake be taken down. If so that would really make people in the keyes upset as they all have fences for their backyards that impede my ability to reach the lake. What you are really saying is take away a private properties land. Allow anyone to walk across their land thereby takeing away their ability to have quiet enjoyment of their property.
The beach and the public parking were there and obvious when the current owners purchased the property.
Now they claim it’s their employee parking?? They need to learn to be part of the community before the backlash begins.
Reloman,
Maybe whoever took it off the list should be fired? If we found out who it is, we can then find out the rationale. It’s called accountability!
Parker wondering if you watched the video? The problem with it being on the city things is that it is not a public beach but rather a public access beach(meaning it is not owned by the public rather by a private company) open to the public only June through September during daylight hours only. Which would mean the the city would have to take it down for 8 months of the year and also go through the expense to have double printed material one for when the public is allowed and another when they are not.
If that’s all true reloman, then fine. Let the public know, the taxpayers, the people who are paying their salaries, who took it town. If there’s nothing to hide, then don’t hide! And as a govt. entity, be transparent.
And twice the printed material? No. You say public June-Sept., private Oct.-May. Was that so hard? So who are you protecting with that lame excuse?
If there’s a rationale, let’s hear those responsible explain it.