Meyers residents rally to fight for their beliefs
By Jessie Marchesseau
MEYERS – Flyers stating: “There is a new plan for Meyers, and it’s not good” and “A multi-acre, multi-level resort with almost 500 parking spaces: Have you heard of the ‘Catalyst Project’?” helped bring out a throng of citizens Thursday night.
Concerned Meyers residents organized the Feb. 6 community meeting to discuss the implications of provisions in the new Meyers Area Plan. Area plans something that came about because of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency’s year-old Regional Plan.
The meeting at Lake Valley Fire Department in Meyers was a full house. There was standing room only, with people sitting on tables around the perimeter of the room and a crowd where some of the latecomers got stuck near the door.
Maps detail development opportunities in Meyers and the basin. Photo/Jessie Marchesseau
Jennifer Quashnick, a Meyers resident and main presenter for the evening, said the idea for the meeting came about after the Catalyst Project was released about a month ago. People kept approaching her and asking questions about the project and the plan. It seemed residents really didn’t know what was going on, so she and a handful of others organized the meeting as a way let people know what changes could be coming to Meyers.
Quashnick is a consultant for area environmental groups and was involved with in the TRPA’s planning for the Regional Plan update.
“Frankly, I think people maybe got a little duped,” she said of how Meyers was treated in the RPU.
Quashnick discussed the RPU’s rezoning of Meyers into a high-density town center, something she and most of the listeners seemed to disagree with. However, the main focus of the Feb. 6 presentation was on how the building height and density changes in the new Meyers Area Plan will affect development. Maximum building heights rise from 26 to 45 feet in some areas and maximum density will increase from 10 to 40 units per acre in others.
The Catalyst Project, originally billed as one of the hot topics of the night, was barely mentioned.
El Dorado County Supervisor Norma Santiago piped in in defense of the new area plan calling it even more restrictive than the current plan. She also invited everyone to submit any edits or language they would like changed through the county website and encouraged residents to attend the next Meyers Community Advisory Committee (MCAC) meeting.
Quashnick said she was happy to hear Santiago put that invitation out there, as the MCAC has not been that open to public comment on the plan.
Several other members of the MCAC took the opportunity to tout how hard they had worked on the plan and what a great community Meyers is.
Kenny Curtzwiler held up a plastic bin crammed full of folders and documents as evidence of how hard it is to build a commercial property in Meyers.
Despite the efforts Quashnick made to keep the meeting on track, interjections spurred discussions and sometimes arguments among attendees. By the end, it almost became a Myers pep rally of sorts with people standing up just to tell everyone how much they love living in Meyers and how important it is to get involved in the planning process to ensure the preservation of their community.
Several attendees expressed interest in a follow-up workshop to go over the new area plan in greater detail. The public is invited to bring their input to the next MCAC meeting on Feb. 26.
Last time I commented here the majority seemed to agree with me that due to lack of economic demand, these developments would be bad for Meyers. I have questions for those of you that attended the meeting. Did some of you speak out against the proposed development ? What was said in support of the proposal, and what was said against the proposal ?
Is there an online version of this plan and the maps shown? Can someone post the location please?
http://www.edcgov.us/meyers/
This is a bad Idea, Meyers is a great place to live away from the hustle of the South Shore. the people of Meyers have a great little area that should not be ruined by development of any kind. Keep it the way it is.
OLDTIME. I have news for you, development has already happened in Meyers. Anytime you break ground and build a house; that’s development, golf course; development. The questions seems to be the “future.” Some people don’t like any change. I personally would like to see Little Norway changed and some of the other “dead wood.”
Lets have old run down unoccupied buildings along the highway coming into town. Good idea naysayers, atleast you got your house developed on once undisturbed land….hustle of the south shore, give me a break….
Developers are always clever and try to hide their real intentions. Time for a community effort to restrict major multi-story commercial development from thinking about Meyers. Removing old abandoned buildings is one thing and can be done outside of anything else. Clean up the town and then have realistic requirements and little Mom and Pop businesses have always been the heart of Meyers there doesn’t seem to be support or a need to change that. These ideas of big new developments don’t fit Meyers.
a Marriot looking bldg. in Meyers?
and you wonder why they are suing the RPU?
What’s not to like? High-density development is pedestrian and bicycle friendly. Isn’t that what they want to do in the City? They could set the building close to the highway to make it less attractive to those evil cars.
The purpose of the meeting was to inform residents of the possible changes to Meyers proposed by the New plan and if the New plan is approved we, as Meyers residents, will have little say on the approval of projects submitted to EL DO CO. A few examples of this happening in other jurisdictions were offered. Santiago suggested reading and comparing the old and new plans and making suggestions in writing by Feb 28. The plan is 90 pages long and it relies heavily on the TRPA regional plan and El Do Co ordinances. This could take weeks to really go through and understand. It took 5 years to write. This process has not been well publicized and only came on my radar from an article here at LTN. Projects have been proposed by a group called One Globe (very Orwellian) that would change the face of Meyers in a very profound way. So far I am not convinced it would be a good thing. Lots of homework to do.
If TRPA is involved then it can’t be good for our town. Where exactly are they planning to build this bad idea? I haven’t heard specifics yet. Tveetons old place?
Funny thing how all of a sudden many of the blog posters are balking at the trpa regional plan that the sierra club said was flawed and favored unacceptable development. I remember how so many of these bloggers threw insults and hatred at all things sierra club. Now these same bloggers are all over the NIMBY approach to growth and development. We havnt heard a thing from dogzilla who wants homewood to grow but not meyers. Isnt it funny how the tides turn on what is acceptable and ok and what is not. I can see how this blog will reveal who the real NIMBYs are (closet sierra clubbers).
Kelley Says is makes a good observation, but the point is it’s our shared backyard – the whole Basin – and people should learn that there isn’t anything hypocritical about NIMBY as it doesn’t have to translate into “but it’s okay by me in yours!”
It shouldn’t surprise any of us that the silent momentum of numerous recreational/commercial developers had their way with TRPA and apparently the CTC as well.
The result is commercial development fast-trackiing in the TRPA 2012 RPU (in land use planning and rezoning), and possibly enhanced by CTC’s proposed “asset land sales” program.
Sure, they’ll graciously allow us to argue on what scale development takes place – but in reality it’s already a “done deal” in approved government planning documentation.
Personally I am not opposed to gradual “quality” commercial development in Meyers.
What needs to take place is exactly what began last nite at the Meyers Community Meeting.
More than ever residents need to formally organize and demand that WE are in charge of our own property rights for commercial, residential and community development.
I’d like more information on the process for approving projects (as envisioned by this Area Plan)
Is it really going to be impossible to stop proposed projects if the Plan is approved?
Once a person buys property they can do what ever they want…?
thank you Tahoe Reader. great information. hope everyone keeps an open mind. much could be done to improve this wonderful community. planned development can be beneficial in the long term IF done well. please keep this in the open and in the news. everyone needs to listen and be heard.
“Frankly, I think people got a little duped” – that, combined with the ‘Justice’ comment “developers are always clever being and try to hide their real intentions”, are consistent with my quiet observations post-RPU approval. . .another example: the Liberty proposal on the North Shore to replace wooden poles with steel ones while increasing the power to accommodate ski area (real estate) development – the TRPA comment period came and went (mid-December) without much press on the relative merits of that proposal, at a time when Tahoe residents (polled as such) say they want a “green community” ? ? ? 48,000 trees ? – alternative energy design [absent ?]
Liberty, a subsidiary of CalPeco, in turn a subsidiary of an Ontario, Canada energy conglomerate, I believe figured out they were sold a ‘white elephant’ by Nevada Energy – (the Tahoe 2-state arm) – needing to shore up their current & future profits with a multi-million dollar project that also happens to justify a a Basin-wide rate increase from the CPUC ?
‘Duped’ of course, is another way of saying someone is “pulling the wool over someone else’s eyes”, making sure they are as ‘under the radar’ as possible.
What gives ? – where is the coverage of this entire direction ?
Or are we to simply rely on the TRPA PR machine to tell us what we “need” to know ?
Meyers is just a harbinger of others to come, and have already come.
Wow! Talk about a NIMBY crowd! Develop South Lake, ok. Develop Kirkwood, ok Develop Heavenly, ok. Develop Sierra, ok. Develop Homewood, ok. But develop Meyers and: “its a bad idea,” “the TRPA machine,” we’ve been duped.” Little Norway has been an eye sore for 20 years and the old gas station for about the same amount of time and that’s the way it’s going to stay?
So many people want less and smaller goverement. It’s the rallying cry of the right. Things we hear all the time, less goverement intrusion on business, less goverement means more jobs, ect. Funny thing is now that some people don’t new development in there backyard they wan’t the goverement to stop the development.
It’s strange that people don’t want goverement stuff until it works in there favor.
There’s lots of improvements that could be done from Little Norway all the way to Stateline. Everything from outright demolition to a remodel or even just a coat of paint and some general sprucing up. Much is needed and it’s long overdue.
But really, a 500 car parking garage in Meyers? Along with other proposed monstrositys? That would change Meyers in a way that, in my opinon, is not in most residents thinking as a “good thing”.
Cleaning, fixing and updating existing property’s and putting LOCAL people to work would be a good start in this endeavor.
Lets fix up our town ourselves and not allow outside consultants along with out of basin developers and construction crews come in make a mess of Meyers and then run off with all the cash!
This is what has happened to SLT for many years and is still happening today. Some developer creates a “relationship” with governing bodies, gets the approval to go forward with their plans and it’s full steam ahead…”local residents be damned, we’re going to build it no matter what they say. Petitions, town hall meetings, are nothing to us as we are rich and powerful”. The out of town developer and construction crews laugh all the way to the bank , chuckeling to themselves “what a bunch of suckers”.
It seems we can’t stop what is happening in So. Shore, always another hoop to jump through, be it a legality ( it has to be a referendum, not an initiative),the developer cozys up to tthe powers that be and gets that project “streamlined”, (possibly like Edgewood?). No proof of that, but I am curious!
Hang in there people of Meyers. Don’t put up with the stuff I’ve seen here on So. Shore since 1962 when we moved here and in the 50’s when we were vacationing here. Take care of your community, Old Long Skiis
OLS, That is why this Area Plan has to examined closely. At this point we have a voice. Once the plan is approved anything goes and we will have little or no input.
Meyers may want to do what the citizens of Squaw Valley are considering/undertaking to stop the ski resort from creating a new development. Incorporate as a city and then the city council of Meyers could stop any county efforts from developing Meyers.
I could see corporate hotels wanting to put over-flow space at Meyers for when Stateline is full and I could see some condo time-share projects. These “sustainable walking communities” are code words for rezone redevelopers and high density both of which are being fought in the west county with a new petition drive for a vote to restrict this practice of developer gifts from the Bos of rezoning for developers profits to high density projects that are out of place and not wanted.
HEY OLDSKIIS! I am sick and tired of cleaning up after some of the people in this town and out of town. I have been involved in most beach day cleanups and my own cleanups for almost 30 years and it is the same crap! Cans, bottles, plastic bags, diapers, old tires, junk cigarette butts etc. I have personally cleaned up Bridal Veil Falls one day going West then the very next day it is trashed again.
Developers have been developing Lake Tahoe to save it since the 1800’s. Dillingham Construction ring a bell?
rock4tahoe,
Oh yes, my friend, I’ve been pickin’ up other peoples garbage since I was a little kid. Starting at Ski Run Marina (my first paying job in 1963 for the whopping sum of $1.oo a day) , then in the late 60’s at local resturaunts, during high school at the drive in theater on Glennwood, then at Heavenly Valley after I graduated from STHS and then??? I hit the big time… a 31 year stint at South Tahoe Refuse. So yeah, I’ve seen ALOT of trash in my life time. Even tho I’m retired now, when I walk the neighborhood in the early hours or later in the day, I’m pickin’up other peoples trash.
As I always say, “Once a garbageman, always a garbageman”. Keep pickin’ it up rock4tahoe! If not you and me, who will?
Yes, I remember Dillingam all too well. Destroying a beautiful wetlands and natural filter for the lake and turning it into what it is now. A terrible enviormental disaster. Sorry keys friends, but it’s true.
This ol’ g-man is gonna watch the opening ceramonies at Sochi and then it’s lights out and get up early to hopefully shovel some SNOW !!! Pick up your trash, OLS
What’s even more unique about this situation is The Conservancy has teamed up with TRPA to promote “high density town development” in a self preservation effort for sustainment of it’s agency.
Their “asset lands” program is a reversal of the intent of their mission to retire sensitive property.
Both agencies has come about 180 degrees promoting large scale commercial development purely for self-sustainment.
What ever happened to the missions to protect Lake Tahoe ?
Oh, that’s right – they already did that with dramatically cutting back residential development….
I was Trudy pleased with everyone that showed up for the meeting. But no mention of the catalyst project. I think it should be required to be posted on the county website and a petition should be circulated to stop the February 28 th deadline for public comment. We could incorporate the city but it will take too long. What I did not understand was the comments at the meeting stating that this plan would not allow a big resort to be established here. NOT so, those were the reasons they changed the heights and TAUs. One note here please realize that these CFAs and TAUs might be confusing but it is the very center of their wrong doing so it is important that all of you understand these allocations. Jennifer did a great job but when she was put on the spot about who she works for did not seem to be fair when Rene is a realtor that is working the deal on the property for the catalyst project, Norma hand picked Dayberry because of the relationship he has with the company. So back to the catalyst project… Most alarming is the letter Norma wrote to Fienstien in June or July of 2013. It supported this resort project back then with corporation indorsments. Was the grant funding use appropriately because One Globe was a signature project stamped with approval by the MCAC before the plan was approved. Was the funding to be used to pay for this corp project? Next is Norma ran the MCAC meetings and restricted the public from being involved. What needs to happen is to over turn this groups authority and its legality of even having any authority because you can’t pressure the Meyers round table out to form a group to replace them without following certain procedures. Lets form the Meyers community Commitee and vote in who we want. The formation of this plan to pad billfolds is maybe something the grand jury should look into. Lastly if Dayberry wants to threaten a lawsuit then all involved on this planning committee needs to be aware of their individual liability.
Ok NIMBY’s. If Bill Gates (or some “private” entity) comes into town and buys up (market price) the entire Meyers strip – North & South and wants to demolish and build, what do you think would happen? Keep in mind what Larry Ellison did with his property on the Nevada side.
Ya’ll could name the resort ‘Coyote Flats’ as a nod and a wink(locals only would get the joke) to the sensitivity the communities of the basin has for our indigenous species with whom we so cheerfully coexist, honoring the true spirit of cooperation and minimal-impact carbon neutral living in our shared environment. (forgive me Kaye-i couldn’t resist);-)
Like many Meyers residents, we chose to live in Meyers because it is as far as we can possibly get from the casinos, the Heavenly development and the like, and still be in the South Lake Tahoe area. Most of us who live here want to keep Meyers small and local. Why shouldn’t Meyers residents have a say in how the area is developed? Keep Meyers Local!