Letter: County should listen to Meyers residents
Publisher’s note: This letter was first sent to the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors on May 21, 2014.
Dear Chair Santiago and members of the Board of Supervisors:
I am writing to you on behalf of California’s South Tahoe Chamber of Commerce (California Chamber) board President George Alm and the board of directors as a follow-up to my letter of May 2, 2014.
A meeting was held May 19 from 3pm to 5:10pm between me and five Meyers area residents and your Principal Planner Brendan Ferry at the county’s South Lake Tahoe office on Emerald Bay Road. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the content of the May 2, 2014, letter and other related issues to planning in Meyers.
On behalf of the Meyers area contingent, I want to thank Brendan Ferry for taking time to meet and listen to our concerns and discuss the planning efforts to date. We all know that this planning effort has had challenges. We know as well that challenges can lead to opportunities for a successful outcome. We acknowledge that efforts are being made to make the planning process more inclusive. The Meyers area residents who attended (the May 21) meeting and our chamber board are committed to working with the county of El Dorado and TRPA officials to arrive at a plan that is acceptable to the community.
It is clear that a notable portion of the Meyers community has only recently began to understand the significance of the emerging new Area Plan and TRPA’s land use changes from the Regional Plan update. Many current residents and business owners and operators have heard great concern and confusion expressed by their community members. This condition creates a greater opportunity to ensure that the new Meyers Area Plan works for the community because community members are now more aware of and anxious to engage the planning process.
The product of our discussions (May 21) was acknowledgement that there is a great diversity of opinion regarding how residents, property owners, and business owners and operators view the future of Meyers as well as great confusion and lack of understanding of proposed land-use changes. This diversity of opinion about the future is in itself the core condition that must be assessed and evaluated in a manner that helps County officials to arrive at a verifiable and democratically-based decision on land use and restores faith that the entire community has had its voice heard.
Issue, concerns, and suggestions
The May 2, 2014, letter highlighted a number of issues and concerns of Meyers’ residents, and I will not repeat them here. I am highlighting issues that are reinforced by (the May 21) conversation and offer a community-based perspective on them.
1. A verifiable method for the county to determine that it has gained a wide range view of the proposed Meyers Area Plan. A “validated” communitywide survey of all residents and property owners is needed to guide and shape the final Meyers Area Plan. Such a survey would allow all interested parties in Meyers to have a voice in this 20-year plan. It would also provide the opportunity for all community voices to be heard. This request has been made in the past and is reiterated herein.
2. Defer any final action on the plan until a new county supervisor is elected and seated to allow him or her input on the new 20-year plan. The voters of the 5th District will elect a new supervisor in November and the man or woman elected should have an opportunity to be heard and decide on a final area plan. I am told and believe that all candidates for county supervisor for the 5th District support this suggestion.
3. Verification in the plan document that available incentives provided under the plan will be applicable to existing business and property owners. We understand that that changes to the draft (but not yet public) plan have been made to do so, and we are anxious to see specific language in this regard.
4. Specifically define height limitations in all planning areas. There should be a specific height standard written in the plan for all land uses leaving no room for creative interpretation of the plan.
5. Define clearly what criteria will be used and by whom to grant variances to building standards including height restrictions if variances are permitted under the plan.
6. Affirm in writing verbal assurances made by staff to make available to all existing business and property owners incentive allowed under an Area Plan.
7. Eliminate mixed land use additions to the plan that could compromise existing business uses (e.g. motel next to an industrial use). Do not allow the creation of uses near existing businesses that compromise the ability of owners to conduct their businesses. I am told that there is great interest in the community to maintain land uses under the 1993 Community Plan or some iteration thereof. Existing Meyers business owners and operators need to be carefully consulted so that land use decisions are clear and in line with the interests of Meyers’ business owners and operators and residents.
8. Ensure in language of the plan that all existing business will be permitted uses in any new plan adopted and that the owners of the businesses can sell their property for the same use to a subsequent owner.
9. Include in specific language of the plan that the County does not support and will not use of eminent domain (acquisition of private property over the objection of the property owner) to achieve plan goals and objectives nor will the county support the use of this extraordinary confiscatory power by other agencies.
10. Define in the plan that county and TRPA officials must carefully explore with Caltrans alternative ways to ensure safe passage of pedestrians and cyclists across Highway 50 including installation of a traffic signal. Options for safe passage must then be reviewed with the Meyers community to ensure that they are acceptable.
11. Maintain community character while striving for community improvements. Community members do not oppose new development in Meyers. They do want to retain the rural character of the community.
12. Write the language of the plan in plain English, not “planners speak.” Make the document user-friendly and informative.
13. Determine if the California Tahoe Conservancy is still willing to leave existing CTC-owned parcels vacant for community open space if Meyers residents want this to happen. I am told that this was a promise made earlier in the planning process.
14. Let the people of Meyers decide their future. Comments have been made to Meyers’ owners and operators over the course of the current planning process by certain policy makers and planners that Meyers should be changed and allowed to develop like “cities” in Europe living and working in a “Pack & Stack” world. Meyers is of course not a city. This “Pack & Stack” notion and “European” future scenario needs to be tested against what the people who live and work there think and want. It is the people of the community’s future that is being planned, and they need the ultimate say in the decision. The Board of Supervisors needs to hear from the community in a verifiable and inclusive way before making changes that impacts them.
Thank you all for taking time to read and consider the comments made in this letter. All of us appreciate the time and effort you make to serve us and our county. The California South Tahoe Chamber of Commerce Board remains ready to assist you, the Meyers community and our friends at TRPA to ensure a successful outcome. Copies of this letter will be sent to the members of the TRPA Governing Board and interested parties.
Sincerely,
Dave Jinkens, chamber board member and government affairs liaison volunteer
What a great letter in support of local businesses and the Meyers community. Way to go South Shore Chamber! Now, it would be nice if the Supervisors and TRPA would start listening.
Umm Dave… There are no CC&R’s in Meyers. The “plan” has been in the works for 20 years and now the “citizens” are just learning about it? Really? European development? Look at Meyers. It is stuck in the 70’s. I have news for you the old “apartment” behind Lira’s Market is 3 stories high now. But, doing nothing is the default of human nature.
hey rock4tahoe. . .If the “plan” has been in the works for 20yrs maybe the local government needed to INFORM the PUBLIC and get them involved! if you call a public meeting and no one shows up one of 2 things have happened, either they did not do any advertising where the public could find it or the meetings are during normal work hours when those of us that pay taxes are at our jobs! our community members have called meetings and had hundreds turn out? so if we can do it (not our job) maybe the local government can (it is there job!)
as to Meyers looking like the 70’s, you don’t throw the baby out with the bath water! some face lifts on the old buildings, most people would like to see, but taking out the charm of this very small town (with no industry for people to make money) is insane!
Dave Jinkens letter was well written by a man who knows how the system works. Good job, Mr. Jinkens!
A full disclousure is in order here. I’m not, nor have I ever been a resident of Meyers, okay, I crashed out there a few nights, (heh, heh!) but I’ve always lived in the SLT city limits except for a 2 year stay on Kingsbury. So that being said… Here goes.
The Meyers Plan has been in the works for many years but with little if any knowledge of the public as to the meetings, what’s in it or just about anything related to said plan. Now it’s being sprung upon So.Shore and the good people of Meyers as tho it’s a done deal!!!
I’m glad there is people like John Adamski, Dave Jinkens and the MANY concerned cititizens who are finding out whats been going on behind closed doors for so many years.
Look out Meyers, if you and the rest of us on So. Shore don’t stand up and speak out, “they”, will take over and completely change your excellent community into something you may not want…and then you’re stuck with it!
Demand transparency and open meetings that are annonced in a public forum, BEFORE these decisions of approving developement’s are signed sealed and okayed by those that profit from developing open land and forests. Not after the fact, as that is what the game is now… sneak it in, and then let the public know as soon as the the ink has dried on the deal!
Developer buys in, zoning and housing ordinances changed ,and “exclusions” alloweded by appointed agencies.
Stay vigilant and save what’s left of Lake Tahoe!!! OLS
Mr. Jinkens is a very knowledgeable individual when it comes to local politics. He is also an excellent letter writer. However, Mr. Jinkens was the city manager when the “Tahole” began in 2006 or 2007. It was under his leadership and guidance that the project failed. He was responsible as anyone for the loss of jobs, businesses, property taxes and blight at Stateline.
rebel with a cause and Louis, Rebel, Yeah, Mr. Jinkens was city manager when the debacle of “the hole” started. What an ongoing quagmire that has been! I’m hopin’ he’s stickin’ around to do some good. I’d like to meet the guy and have a chat and find out where he’s at. I’ll report back should that transpire.
Louis, I went to high school with Joe Tveten many years ago, he was a couple years older than me and I never really new him very well. I will tell you this, when he used the building as a stereo shop, he sold the loudest ,and most expensive amps and speakers I ever heard. Crazy loud! Blow you right out of the building!
At the time of his death, it was “rumored” that he fell in with the wrong crowd which led to his untimelely demise. Murder…Suicide??? We’ll never know what really happenned. Whatever can be done with his old property also remains a mystery. I guess time will tell. Stay tuned, OLS
To those who think we oppose the TRPA’s Meyers Plan because we just want no growth, that’s a load of bologna. TRPA’s plans for Meyers aren’t about helping rehab some existing businesses with scenic improvements, nor supporting the development of a few new small businesses in Meyers. If TRPA’s plan for Meyers did focus on these things and ONLY allowed these things, I’m sure most of us living out here would be all for it. But the TRPA’s plan – as translated into the current Meyers Area Plan – is about the big stuff. Big resorts, big hotels, big corporate businesses that will push out the little guy.
Worse yet, the agencies need money to fund themselves. By applying the “mixed use” zoning around the Basin, they are getting CA money (our taxes) to pay for more planning. What they don’t seem concerned about is how the new mixed use zoning will affect us all. Meyers doesn’t want it. We aren’t downtown LA. It will hurt our existing businesses and impact residents way of life. No agency should get to impose that on people without even notifying every single one of them first.
Given all of the support from the Chamber, the Supervisory Candidates, the Paradise Park, business owners, community members, and numerous other people to simply delay the plan and engage the community more, why is our current Supervisor still pushing it forward? The best thing Norma could do for Meyers is to support what Meyers wants – more time, more involvement. THAT would send her out on a high road – to have fought for her community. Also, she needs to stop sending her poor staffers to deal with this. She promised us we can have the plan we want, but her actions speak otherwise. We’d like to hear why directly from Norma.
J&B you’re pretty much on target with what you said.
The entire planning and approval process for Meyers needs to be stopped right now and revamped.
Regardless of the fact that this plan was in the works for two years, Meyers residents (myself included) had no idea what was in play until it surfaced recently as a plan that “is ready to use”. The MCAC didn’t properly conduct itself in adequately bringing genuine local public input into the plan until the plan was already completed. Furthermore the MCAC should have conducted it’s meetings under the Brown Act and by taking minutes and public review in ALL of it’s meetings regarding the plan.
TRPA, the Sustainability Collaborative and the County conducted this planning process in a manner that suited “their needs” which is why we’re having this disagreement over finalizing a plan designed by them.
Furthermore, the CTC publically offered any of their properties within the new Meyers plan could be kept as open “green space” at the will of Meyers community if so desired. These “green space” properties could be used for purposes of parks or community centers serving the community of Meyers. I highly suggest we take advantage of this offer by the CTC and take time to plan something attractive on these properties that are unique, attractive and serve the community.
There’s no need ram this plan down our throats just because TRPA and the Sustainability Groups need their additional Strategic Growth Council grant funding.
This Meyers plan should be shelved until a fair and new planning process is in place that truly allows the Meyers Community to make local planning decisions for itself !
Great letter Dave Jinkens – Thank You !
Ok Grass. I get it, you want the meetings to fall in your lap without any “work” on your part. Got it.
Tahoe is the “year round playground,” look at how few people show up for any meetings anywhere.
Look around “Meyers” the proof is in the pudding and it shows decades of neglect.
To the good folks of Meyers and the citizens of South Lake Tahoe, I’m endorsing Kevin Brown for the soon to be vacated seat of Norma Santiago.
He is well informed about the issues on So. Shore and Meyers. He has told me he will stop or at the very least slow down the Meyers plan until there’s more public input and WE (the people that live here) make the call as to what WE want goes on in Meyers!
This is an important decision on voting day and Kevin Brown is, in my opinion, the right man for the job and catlapper agrees!
Please join me and John Adamski and many others in electing a true representative of the people of So. Shore.
Don’t forget to vote June 3rd, otherwise you got no room to gripe about things that YOUR vote could have changed. Vote and keep smiling, it’s good for ya! OLS