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.
Meyers is struggling to figure out what it wants to look like in the future. Photo/LTN
I think the people who actually live in Meyers know what we want and it’s not this. It’s the powers to be who seem to think they know what Meyers wants and needs. Government fools.
Meyers Res you are right. The struggle has been stopping the agencies who are trying to push this on Meyers and trying to have the opportunity to decide as a community. They’ve wasted a lot of our time and money and turned what should have been an enthusiastic community-based process into the distrustful and divided mess it’s become because they have not openly handled this.
I agree with both of you, J&B/Meyers res. From my standpoint, it does not seem to be what the residents of Myers want. It seems to be thrust upon them against their will. Almost had a railroading job there. The time, money and resources spent on this so far is ridiculous as it’s in opposition to the wishes of the people. It would seem that the residents of Meyers should be the ones formulating the plan and then seeking TRPA’s and Eldorado County’s help and support. Looks like this is half-ass backwards. Good luck all of you living in Meyers!
How did the meeting go? I could not make it.
We’re hoping the MCAC puts together a final review workshop meeting for Meyers Community to finalize some key points for presentation to the County.
I raised the issue of CTC properties within Meyers being changed for land use without knowledge or approval of Meyers residents.
At the CTC Mar 20 meeting Patrick Wright clearly stated “I have no problem with Meyers residents deciding to keep any of our CTC properties green/open space within the Meyers plan”
Apparently the County, TRPA and CTC believe they know what’s best for us and went ahead with a private meeting to decide themselves. I’m trying to confirm that and have that land use decision revert back to Meyers Residents.
If the MCAC does put together a final Community meeting – be advised that if you do not come to this one you’ll likely not have another opportunity to put a final opinion in before the plan is finalized.
This will most likely end the public review process.
Where is the grand jury report? The grand jury has time to say how dysfunction the county is, why not set them to pointing.
Dysfunction at the County +
current Supervisor ignoring the community and withholding information about the County’s plans for Paradise Park +
backdoor meetings +
County & TRPA bent on pushing this plan on Meyers…
seems to me it is better for Meyers to hold off on any new plan associated with this 3-ring circus.
One other major unresolved issue to the plan is finalizing language for “height variance” in the plan.
Without an agreeable decision on which sections the height variance applies to and what the language restricts – it leaves the door open to supersede and ruin all the other language and restrictions we’ve all been resolving.
And certainly we do NOT want to let the County and TRPA decide this issue on their own after the plan is finalized !
One of the MCAC Members had the great idea of only applying the height variance to the industrial section of the Meyers plan as an initial trial. Later on that can be changed to include the Town Center and other sections.
What did they say about the CSD at the meeting last night? This takes the power away.
Great Job on the article Kae …… BTW !
It was clear poor Ms. McCorkle had not been given the correct information about the process (although she did a great job handling the meeting after not having been prepared by the County).
She assumed the MCAC meetings had been covered by the Brown Act – nope. But those meetings were all noticed for the public, right? Oops, no, they weren’t. She said we could look at the minutes to see why decisions were made – oh wait, no minutes. She thought this public process had been going on for 2 years – oops, no, most of us just found out when community members brought it to our attention in February by organizing their own meeting. She was likely told there were a few loud voices with their own agendas – but wait, no, actually they just wanted an open and honest community process, so Meyers can truly decide its own Plan.
Regardless of what anyone thinks of the new or old Plan, Meyers needs a true open community process. What has gone on since Meyers started asking for one has been the exact opposite – more backroom deals, more closed meetings, attacks on those speaking up on behalf of the community, agency resistance to discuss all issues around the new Plan, and more time wasted with mundane powerpoints and the community having to fight for our simple right to have an open process. Way to go, EDC and TRPA.
Au contraire. We can see clearly what Meyers wants to look like right now… twenty years in the making.
JB. According to another news source, 3800 postcards were sent out regarding the last “Meyers” meeting and only 50 showed up and ONLY 10 were new participants! Evidently, the only ones in Meyers that take any notice of this process are on this blog.