Letter: Muddled Meyers plan a concern
To the community,
Most of us moved to Meyers because it’s a rural community, away from the city and tourist congestion. I am pro-growth; most locals are as long as it’s appropriately-sized growth for our community.
The proposed Meyer’s Plan, however, opens the door to a mega resort, with incentives for large development and in my mind, lacks long-range planning.
I started going to planning meetings last summer, just to listen, but it wasn’t until December that I got really concerned. Here’s a timeline of events, from my perspective:
Fall 2013 — At Meyers Community Advisory Council (MCAC) meetings, talk of a large project called the Catalyst. When asked about it, the subject was changed or question ignored.
December 2013 — Catalyst leaked, scares the heck out of residents and businesses due to enormous size.
January 2014 — County’s letter to Feinstein leaked. Letter pushes huge project forward in Meyers.
Around this time — Found out our commercial/light industrial zone changed by the TRPA back in 2012 to town center zone, without notification to property owners or businesses. “Town Center” allows for large projects, up to 40 units per acre along both sides of Highway 50, where only 10 units per acre were allowed before (West Meyers, Catalyst vicinity).
January 2014 — Six acres of California Tahoe Conservancy lots considered for sale in town center, land previously referred to as unbuildable Conservancy lots, now referred to as asset properties in direct vicinity of Catalyst project area. Does the CTC smell money?
January 2014 — Meyers Plan draft is released, complete with the aforementioned incentives.
Found out that the TRPA’s Regional Plan update now allows for conversion/transfer of commodities, things like commercial floor area and tourist accommodation units, a very sneaky business since it’s not mentioned in the Meyer’s plan, you must read the TRPA’s plan to know that these can be bought and brought into Meyers. This is a big deal. Commercial floor area is to large development what sewer permits are to residential building, except that you have to buy thousands of them. Does the TRPA smell money too?
February 2014 — Locals circulate fliers, petitions and hold community meeting — more that 100 people attend and almost all were unaware of zone and plan changes to Meyers.
February 2014 — Town center zone change detrimental to existing business owners, threat of eminent domain and the county’s lack of transparency leaves private property owner’s in limbo.
February 2014 — TRPA and county hold public show and tell, however, community still in the dark about plan changes because the meeting was conducted in TRPA speak.
March 2014 — Catalyst project name changed to incentive project due to negative reaction from the Meyer’s community.
March 2014 — Million dollar grant application by agencies falsely claims the Meyers plan is ready to go. They did not get the grant.
March 2014 — CTC promised asset lands can be used as green belt/open space if the community wants it, however , makes no attempt to inform the community.
April 2014 — CTC sends survey crew onto private properties in Catalyst project vacinity without permission and when asked why, lied and got caught.
May 2014 — U.S. Forest Service land swap, visitors center dismantled, also in direct vicinity of Catalyst project area. Can they smell money too?
June 2014 — Another agency dog and pony show, people left, remaining were asked about height limit for new buildings in Meyers, show of hands agreed upon maximum height of 35 feet.
Somewhere around this time the county announces “no more Meyers meetings”. The Meyers Community Advisory Council sort of fizzles and the community finds itself without a voice.
May-August 2014 — South Tahoe Chamber of Commerce writes several letters to the county on Meyer’s behalf, reiterating ongoing concerns, also requesting an independent survey with which to direct planners when rewriting the plan.
July 2014 — No response from county.
July 2014 — California chamber helps organize meeting with agencies. TRPA states they would not allow height limit in plan regardless of community’s vote.
July 2014 — Locals again try to inform Meyers by booking a facility for workshop and sending out agenda. Interestingly, the booked and confirmed date for workshop gets bumped by the Nevada chamber for their previously unscheduled and unheard of event.
August 2014 — Still no response from county.
August 2014 — Documents surface regarding county takeover of 56-acre Tahoe Paradise Park ( Senate Bill 1023), also in direct vicinity of Catalyst project. County denies takeover but suggests the park board sign a memorandum of understanding to help fund bookkeeping and such.
Somewhere in here, agency meeting, not open to public, CTC unpromises green belt land and re-rezones some lands “recreation zone”, which, coincidentally allows for large development, as long as it is sports-related, which includes pretty much everything.
October 2014 — Nevada chamber writes a creatively worded letter to the county in response to second Meyers draft. Somehow they found 300 employees in Meyers, really? State Fund will be thrilled. This letter alludes to 15 Nevada chamber businesses here, but after a quick look, their roster reflects differently, more like three. Could the Nevada chamber have an agenda, maybe something that includes a large smelly project?
October 2014 — At candidate meet and greet, the concept of the city of South Lake Tahoe expanding its boundaries or creating a whole new county with Meyers and city combined. Why would the city want anything to do with us now, they never did before? What’s in it for them?
Enough, you get the point. Whether “pro-growth” or “big growth”, future growth needs to be a community decision. And, well, transparency would be nice. Does anyone really believe the TRPA, county, Conservancy, USFS, Nevada chamber, and now even the city, changed all these things willy-nilly, at the same time, for no reason?
If the new Meyers plan is written with this in mind, growth can be the communities decision, so let’s take the time, create a survey for resident’s ideas and vision for our community. Please come to the Oct. 16 meeting at the airport, City Council Chamber, 9am.
Angela Olson, Meyers
Calling all trolls, conspiracy theorists, and wing nuts!!! Here you go!!!
Thank you Angie for putting yourself out there again! Agreed! If the plan is really up to the community to decide, as they’ve promised us several times, why so much pressure to push it forward without making sure it is what the majority of us want? If it really is all an innocent misunderstanding or just bad communication, then the County and TRPA should stop wasting time pushing this through and use their resources to reach out to us now. There were over 200 of us at one of those meetings last spring – what a great chance it could have been for good discussion if they hadn’t wasted so much time on the ‘opening show.’ And – publishing the notice for the special meeting tomorrow in font size 4 in the back of the Tribune isn’t really reaching out to the Meyers community.
Angela Olson. Good comment on The Meyers Plan! From what I’ve seen and heard, your list of the progression of this plan and its approval of plans by developers, the TRPA and other agencies, despite the publics general disagreement, is pretty darned accurate.
I will admit I’m not a Meyers resident but I’ve always felt to be part of that community. Heck, I just live a meadow away!
So we’re all in this together! Stay strong, OLS
Good Job Angie !
I’m sure we can look forward to another Dog and Pony Show tomorrow with Brendan and Adam selling their own plan design again.
Meyers residents need to first – demand that key issues already decided and voted on in previous meetings be set in stone, and second – demand the other unresolved key issues be voted upon at this meeting.
This Area Plan belongs to the Meyers Community – NOT TRPA, County Planning or special interest Sustainability Collaboratives !
OLS what developers are you referring to? I have not heard or read of any developers who have expressed an interest in doing anything in Meyers. I also don’t think developers approve plans I think that’s left to the County and TRPA.
Slapshot, I don’t have a develpoers name, but there will be one once the Meyers plan is pushed through.
I attended a meeting at the old Yanks Station building(now home to the CCC)where there was a discussion not whether we wanted developement,it was about how high the buildings should be. From all appearences it looked to ME like their going to build up Meyers if the public likes it or not. I hope I’m wrong. But it also seemed like public input was the the last thing on the check list before they break ground along with the TRPA and county approval, which to my understandig is already in place.
Just my take on it Slapshot.
Again, I hope I’m wrong! OLS
Put the matter on a ballot for a vote of the citizens. End of debate. Like the parking meters.
Government bureaucrats rarely know best and typically are more interested in extending their funding as long as possible.
OLS – TRPA in collaboration with certain individuals, the Conservancy, and Sustainability groups have been designing this plan with the “Town Center” concept behind the scenes for quite some time now.
Norma is on all these folks boards and is bought and sold completely. She’s being pressured by her “associates” to push this through before the new Co Supervisor is installed. There’s a lot of smoozing that will go to waste if she doesn’t.
I think it was a done deal a year ago………
From the commercial real estate perspective I don’t think Meyers is as a good development opportunity as the city is. Just look at all the restaurants that have come and gone. Without some change this cycle will continue. I would rank Meyers near the bottom of south shore development opportunities. This gap will widen as the city continues to improve with sidewalks new projects etc.
The pnly way that the city can expand to include meyers is for the citixens of Meyers to vote and approve to be part of the city. Though from so many committs in the past on this board, it seems many many people from meyers want to be heard by the city council and quite a few of them even go to the meetings and speak, like kenny. Really kind of funny that they want to be heard but in thier heart of hearts they dont want to be included in the city limits.
Let the people that live, work and play in Meyers have a say in the redevelopment not proposed OVER development. Sadly, the plans for the plans are super sized visions that will never come to life.
The problem with just letting the people who live and play in Meyers make the call is that Meyers is not a incorporated city. Maybe the people of Meyers should look at what some folks in Squaw Valley are doing by forming their own city. If Meyers incorporates you can set the development rules without input from those outside the jurisdiction otherwise everyone is entitled to have a say. Like I said above from a development perspective Meyers is not a good one given its track record.
Thank you, Angela Olson for detailing the time frame events. It certainly looks like Meyers was about to be changed regardless of what the residents wanted. Still does. The way and manner in which things have been handled is not right to say the least. It is amazing to me how the various agency’s rule books get changed and for whom. Who cares what the people have to say, government must know best. NOT!
When I read letters like that I get stuck in details….like the whole paragraph about there not being 300 employees in Meyers. CCC and the Magnate school are probably 100-1500 employees. The rest of the businesses clearly have another 100-150 employees.
How can there possibly be fewer than 300?
I think most of the letter makes as much sense.
Development in Tahoe is governed by urban boundaries. Meyers is one of the last larger available areas that is within the urban boundary and can accommodate either larger projects or more projects. Whether or not this is a driving force in the current discussions, I do not know. Right now many see Meyers as a sleepy community a distance from town but when larger parcels in town are developed and work there becomes impossible or extremely expensive, there is always Meyers…………..
My take from that today is the Planning Commission members after hearing public comment made their own individual assessments of the plan regardless of what the public wanted.
It appears all prior Meyers Community workshops and votes made on key issues are entirely disregarded at this point.
I think much of the 3rd draft plan is acceptable – but three key issues still remain unresolved (1) CTC properties kept as open space or green space projects (2) Height Variance language and application (3) Town Center all-in-one or left as three separate zones , and density for each.
Regardless – it would seem Meyers Residents should definitely VOTE on all key issues including the above – or we have absolutely no public process.
That being said I purposely remained silent and listened to all sides of public input. Having been intimately involved in this the past year I have gradually become more accepting that a plan that is too restrictive isn’t good for responsible development to come forth. Still – I believe the decision should be left to the Meyers Community to vote on – not rammed through by Agencies, Government, and newly surfacing South Tahoe Chamber members.