Future of Meyers Area Plan in limbo

By Kathryn Reed

MEYERS – While El Dorado County doesn’t have plans for another Meyers Area Plan meeting before it goes before the Board of Supervisors, members of the Meyers Advisory Council are coordinating a get-together without agency involvement.

That was the outcome of a three-hour meeting June 26 at the California Conservation Corps center. MAC members told Lake Tahoe News they are shooting for late July to bring the community together to hash out issues that stand in people’s way from signing off on what officials have presented.

As for the county, it was the intention of officials the Thursday meeting would be the last before the environmental process begins. (It was reported that Supervisor Norma Santiago was ill and that is why she was not in attendance.)

Meyers is struggling to figure out what it wants to look like in the future. Photo/LTN

“We need to talk internally, with TRPA and Norma to see where we go,” Brendan Ferry, chief planner for El Dorado County, told Lake Tahoe News after the meeting.

Many of the nearly 50-person audience believed not enough outreach had occurred, that more community involvement is needed and the process needs to be slowed down – and perhaps delayed until after November when the area will be represented by a new supervisor.

If the process goes forward, there are at least five more public meeting where comments would be taken and changes could be made to the plan. Two are before the county and three involve TRPA.

While seven people acknowledged this was their first Meyers Area Plan meeting, the process has been going on for more than two years – with many public meetings. Postcards were mailed for the first time to residents announcing the meeting. However, they only went to people living or with businesses in the confines of the Tahoe Paradise Resort Improvement District, which is a fraction of the greater Meyers area.

Other than having a plan from 1993 on the books and needing to live with the rules within it, there is no legal reason the county or Tahoe Regional Planning Agency must move forward with the Meyers Area Plan. The TRPA’s Regional Plan allows these area plans; with an overriding goal to give local jurisdictions more say over planning.

Still, there is a template of sorts for these documents based on what is in the Regional Plan and laws regarding the reduction of green house gas emissions. It is not a document that is created from scratch.

The plan would be the planning blueprint for the Meyers area going forward for the next 20 years. However, it is recommended that whatever community group takes over for the Meyers Area Council reviews the plan every year.

Some of the main sticking points include determining how Meyers has a voice going forward.

County documents handed out at the meeting say, “The county is evaluating the establishment of a Community Services District, which would review proposed projects in Meyers, initiate future revisions to the plan, and direct some funding for local improvement projects.”

Stephanie McCorkle, the outside public relations person hired by the county, facilitated the meeting. She was also adamant that the county is not going to form a CSD; that it would be up to the residents of Meyers to do so if that’s what they want.

However, Ferry said, while it has not been fully flushed out, the idea of a municipal advisory council for Meyers has also been floated. He said members could be elected by the public or appointed by the Board of Supervisors.

Adam Lewandowsky with TRPA said, “The plan calls for a formal advisory council.”

With differing answers to the same question – Who is the voice for Meyers going forward? – this is an example of how distrust has become an issue when it comes to finding consensus about the plan.

Another concern is the density of multifamily homes has arbitrarily been bumped from 15 units to 20 units per acre. Some community members are not happy with that possibility.

Others want the California Tahoe Conservancy lots in Meyers to have more defined future uses. The state agency has agreed for the land use to be changed from residential/tourist to recreation. But recreation could still mean developable. That is what upsets some people.