Letter: County taking action on Meyers
To the community,
Reporting from the Oct. 16 El Dorado County Planning Commission meeting:
After a member of the Planning Commission commented that he gives more weight to the comments of the public members who were able to attend today (vs. the public feedback provided at all previous meetings, the community “vote” on height last spring, the surveys collected by both the EDC and our community), the Planning Commission recommended the following to the Board of Supervisors for our Meyers plan:
1. Do not create a Meyers Advisory Council that is subject to public process rules (e.g. the Brown Act) – in other words, keep it as an informal group, “encourage them” (but do not require) to post agendas, do not require minutes, etc.
2. Move the maximum height to 42 feet (majority community response to date = 35 feet max);
3. Move the maximum density (units per acre) for tourist units (hotels/motels) back up to 40 units/acre for entire community center (majority community response to date = 15 units/acre or less);
4. It was uncertain, but they appeared to discuss re-considering the extras for the incentive project (aka Catalyst Project) in the Plan. We will confirm but it appears they decided to leave this decision to the Board of Supervisors (at the upcoming Oct. 28 hearing).
Our concern continues to be a transparent, clear, public process for our community. We are concerned that the community input to date was mostly ignored. How many people simply had to work Thursday morning and could not attend?
We strongly encourage you to attend the Oct. 28 Board of Supervisors meeting. If you cannot attend, then please send comments in advance – we are happy to provide email addresses and/or mailing addresses.
Thank you,
Jennifer Quashnick, Moya Saunders and Angela Olson, Meyers residents
I’d prefer NO hotels/motels. I live in the county for that certain “feel” we have for not having them.
Before you rally a hornets nest again let’s think about this. After the second plan version the majority of the people were happy and like most people do they went back to their lives, jobs, and families (which most people have) with an understanding that the conspiracies you continue to provide were not true. I give you credit for getting everyone in the community involved to find out what was happening but it turned out most of what you were saying was not true or a bent version of the truth. If you remember you were the ones having to back pedal because people realized you weren’t being honest to anyone. It was the third meeting which was minimally attended because people were satisfied that no behemoth project is coming, proven by the last meeting, and were with their families, jobs, or lives. To compound this the votes came at the end when most people had left and there were about 30 people. Let’s be clear and tell people that this is what you say represents the community… It was then the next session afterwards behind closed doors when you put the rest of the changes in the Meyers plan with no one else knowing. You continue to say there is no visibility and transparency but you guys are the ones working behind the scenes and you guys are the ones who continue to bend the facts to scare people into believing you. You continue to say that you represent the business owners and residents of Meyers, not specifically in this article, but in others, and through the Meyersresident email you set up. What businesses do you represent, list them out, and get them to endorse please. You over state facts without understanding simple economics, land planning, or architecture and play to people’s emotions such as above which does not paint the whole story. We the people of Meyers are getting very tired of the misrepresentation you are providing and are becoming very concerned. You’ve made this whole process extremely dividing through scare tactics and disgusting through bent truths and conspiracies. Our community is better than this and you.
Thank you
To Jennifer, Moya and Angela. I’m so glad to hear you’re focused on the Meyers plan.
As I’ve previously stated I’m not a Meyers resident, but your side of town are still a vital part of the So. Shore community!
Keep your eyes open and don’t let them push this plan thru without the residents approval.
Keep up the good work, you have my support. OLS
I agree with the authors. This Meyers Area Draft Plan has been ransacked by collaboration of the County, TRPA, and special interests.
The latest deluge of interested parties from or through the Nevada Tahoe Chamber demonstrates the true nature of how political corruption and influence works.
WE of Meyers have already legitimately voted on key issues in this plan ( height, density etc.)that was part of a very recent and genuine public process. There were check marks by these issues we voted on to eliminate them from further debate.
Are we going to let our County Officials throw our right to public review and decision in the trash as if it never happened ?
If County Government conspires with others to take that away from us then there is no democratic planning process !
Stop the Lies
You talk as though you represent the residents of Meyers, yet you don’t list your name or the names of residents you speak for.
You want the other group to list names, well, what are you listing ?
Stop the lies, take your own advice. I attended all those meetings and your memory is not very good. The authors are accurate in their description of the facts. The various agencies are the ones trying to obfuscate and mislead the public.
Um. Who and how many actually showed up at this “meeting?” I am reading another news source and it says “two people” spoke against expanding height and density restrictions… Two people.
“A slight majority” voiced support for at least some flexibility in the limits.
It sounds like there is way more interest on the blog then there is on the ground regarding this issue.
Much like the Regional Plan Update, dissenting opinions (from the public that diligently participated) to the more “popular” agencies spin was, on a rare occasion, considered and actually adopted in the final product. That said, the Regional Plan touts maximums- WAKE-UP! -those are guidelines not prescriptions that must be used! The example given from Toxic Warrior “WE of Meyers have already legitimately voted on key issues in this plan ( height, density etc.)that was part of a very recent and genuine public process. There were check marks by these issues we voted on to eliminate them from further debate.” This was appropriately stated and these are “COMMUNITY” plan updates not just economic delusional visions.
What incentive do citizens have to keep attending meetings (many forced to take time off work) when properly collected votes and opinion from previous are simply and arbitrarily thrown out? Kind of like going on a hike on a hill of sand and taking one step up while sliding two steps back. Could this be a strategy to frustrate and disenfranchise residents so that they finally stop trying to have input into the future of their community?????
All-
We do not know the facts behind who is pushing for higher development levels. It will turn out to be a big land owner, or a developer who has an option on a big land package. Big is really just a few acres 3 or 4. Or a key lot like the one Meeks sits on.
The indicated interest of the Nevada chamber is confusing. Can anyone explain where this came from?
Someone or some group sees an opportunity to make a hell of a lot of money developing commercial real estate.
Depending on what it is, it could make Meyers a better place or a worse place. Either way the County will go with it for the increased tax base.
The planning commission does NOT have to follow existing planning ordinances.
By a finding that an exception to an ordinance is for the public good, they can approve it.
The California Environmental Quality Act is probably the best tool to fight development that stretches the acceptable envelope, but this is expensive, time consuming and requires some expert help, on the order of the lawyers who always get their way down around the strip. I expect the money behind this will have their own cadre of well paid legal eagles.
Whoever the proponents of development are, they are counting on the Meyers citizens group to be short on money, time and staying power. I hope they can be proven wrong.
I am kind of wondering how many people there are in the area considered Meyers, and if it includes all areas that are in the county? Would this not be 3000 to 5000 people? People keep saying that the residents have voted on what they want. How many people have voted? Do they have a majority of 1501 to 2501 or is it like the plastic bag people that had about 300 signatures out of 5000 registered voters.
Hitch. About a month ago (I believe) another “Meyers” meeting was held and according to another news source, 3000 invites were sent out to Meyers residence’s and only 60 people showed up and of those 60 only 10 people were new. 60 out of 3000 is 2% participation rate.
Again. It seems that there is way more attention on this blog then actual Meyers residence “willing” to participate.
Relo. Since this is a county issue, residence of South Lake Tahoe do have an input because they reside in El Dorado County as do others that live in the County.
I find it hard to believe that the people of meyers will be heard as they keep talking over each other. It will be impossible to do what each individual wants as they cant seem to agree on much.
Meyers is a lousy investment/development opportunity compared with other options around Lake Tahoe and the surrounding area. It’s clear that some people fear the potential of big development but there are many tools to manage any development that might occur as has been mentioned in other posts. I think many have an overinflated view of Meyers as a development option. Any development in Meyers is a very high risk compared to the potential financial return. Look at the historic turnover in restaurants over the past decade. Not the best track record for investment. Compare that with investment in Truckee, Squaw or Northstar.
Looking at potential opportunities in South Shore any investor is going to look first in the Ski Run to Kingsbury Grade area, Meyers would be the last place a developer would look. The city can’t even attract investment of any size at the Y who would invest in Meyers? It doesn’t matter if the county would like to see development it matters only if there is someone who will take the financial risk.
As the city continues to see new development and attract more spending the good people of Meyers may want some new development why not keep future options open.
Stop the LIES,
Obviously you are either a member of the Nevada Tahoe Chamber or a stakeholder with this plan providing you a development opportunity.
Even if the above isn’t correct you have your facts wrong.
Jennifer has done plenty if investigation and been completely open and transparent with her findings.
I too did plenty of research with her help and found a State grant funded agency/sustainability collaboration conspiracy driving this plan from behind the scenes.
They provided false information to acquire additional grant funding to drive this plan behind closed doors.
Even Norma admitted her involvement with this consultant driven plan conspiracy. So it IS true.
A whole bunch of us worked hard to get and keep Meyers residents coming to what was beginning to look like a genuine public review process.
Maybe you don’t like a legitimate public process because it throws wrenches into your cogs.
If you were one of those who walked out of the meetings before the votes took place then you lose bud.
Those decisions and votes are legitimate and should stand regardless of those who wish to dismiss them.
The window of opportunity is closing on Meyers. I really thought that Meyers would piggy back onto what Sierra did with the last Winter Olympics and maybe want to really upgrade; some sort of Winter Sport Center for the Sierra’s or along those lines. But, Meyers is stuck in the 1970’s with no agreement on how to move forward. Get used to the Little Norway and Tveten Town, I suspect they will be there for a good while more.
Rock4Tahoe,
You may be partially correct that some don’t want any change or development but I think the majority of us do.
The standoff is unfortunately over the fact that the County and TRPA have been literally lying to us stating “This is YOUR Plan Meyers” – then immediately negotiating their own plan behind closed doors with the CTC and Sustainability Groups etc.
A lot of us believe a major portion of the Draft Plan is good – but it’s been redrawn and renegotiated behind the scenes between every community meeting.
If they ( the entities mentioned above )were honest and respected a genuine public process all of these key issues could be worked out and everyone would have something they like about it.
Toxic. Quantify “A lot of us.” Because when very few people show up for actual meetings, then of course that leaves a vacuum. Some “people” will try to take it upon themselves to move forward and fill the vacuum. I think it is folly to say this has been done behind closed doors and undercover when the planning started decades ago. To me, it just show dis-interest.