100+ weigh in on Meyers Area Plan
By Jessie Marchesseau
MEYERS – More than 100 people packed into the auditorium of the Lake Tahoe Environmental Science Magnet School on Wednesday evening for the Meyers Area Plan open house.
Large tables encircled the room offering seven workstations for attendees to visit. Each station represented a key topic related to the plan: design and implementation, transportation, land use, Meyers Advisory Council, recreation, California Tahoe Conservancy asset land, and conservation. The stations were staffed by personnel involved in plan development and offered presentation boards with insight into the particular topic in addition to copies of the original 1993 Meyers Area Plan alongside the most recent draft of the new Meyers Area Plan. Some stations showed colored maps, photos or sediment samples, all with staff to explain, answer questions and accept feedback.
This open house format was a change from previous meetings regarding the plan. It allowed for more direct interaction and conversation between residents and planners.
The Meyers Area Plan meeting May 6 brought out more than 100 people. Photo/Jessie Marchesseau
Dave Defanti, assistant director of El Dorado County community development agency, greeted people as they came in, answered questions and encouraged attendees to pick up and fill out comment sheets. He said they chose this type of format because they wanted more interaction with community members and to encourage one-on-one conversation.
Residents’ feelings on the meeting format were mixed. Jan Roman-Gonzales was disappointed there were no opening remarks from the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors Chairman Brian Veerkamp or a breakout session with opportunities for public questions and comments as was advertised on the county’s website and the postcard she received in the mail. She believed the open house format did not give her and other community members a chance to have their voices heard. (Veerkamp is supposed to be Meyers’ point person on the board because District 5 Supervisor Sue Novasel has conflict based on her property she owns.)
Joseph Restaino, on the other hand, liked the one-on-one interaction. He told Lake Tahoe News it was a good way for him to really learn about the plan and to get excited about what’s happening in Meyers.
At the open house, public input was encouraged in ways other than just speaking aloud. Poster-sized flip boards offered a place for attendees to write down suggestions and comments such as “community garden,” “flashing red light at Apache,” and “leave Park City in Utah.” At another station, people were given stickers to place on a board with various transportation goals and design options to indicate which items were the most important to them. By the end of the night, the winners of the most stickers were buffered or protected bikeways, separated bike paths, economic viability, and pedestrian safety. The items with the fewest stickers were bicycle signals and in-roadway signs.
Brandy McMahon, acting long-range planning manager for the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, was staffing the design and implementation station. She said she answered a lot of questions on everything from bike paths to the bug station, but the overall feeling she had for the night’s open house was positive, a change from the tension she felt at previous meetings.
Defanti, McMahon, and Brendan Ferry, principal planner for El Dorado County, all said input from the May 6 open house will be considered for changes to the Meyers Area Plan when the Board of Supervisors meets again next month and in the future. According to Defanti, it could be at least nine months before anything is voted on, so there is still plenty of time for residents to offer their comments either on paper, or online.
Ferry said that while people can’t agree on every little thing, their goal is to please everyone as a whole. “I think the community in general is excited about getting the plan done and implementing something cool in Meyers.”
I’ve been to many of these community planning sessions, “vision” meetings, etc. Lots of time they are exercises to placate the community. Community members need to keep notes and follow up with “action items”. Seems like the Meyers community has been doing a very good job at that! But they need to really get buy-in from the El Dorado County Planners (& Director) who can convince the BOS that what the Meyers Community wants, is best for the County. Very sad that Sue N is not able to participate in the community she represents!
I tried to explain to my friend from Colorado I lived in Meyers in Tahoe. He said, “wtf is Meyers? “.. I had to say: the gas station and supermarket at the Kirkwood turnoff. You know, with the vacant lot they sell cheap rugs at near the inspection stop.
Keep your silly ideas about being able to safely cross the highway without being run down by some pumped up energy swilling bay area fool to yourself! Meyers is fine with vacant parking lots, gas stations, the bug station and traffic that makes walking across the road dangerous. Bunch of Commies…..
This approach allows for broader participation and prevents a few from dominating the conversation. Maybe this is getting on track.
Your right Slapshot. I felt there was tremendous community participation complimented with polite conversations within the various work stations. Stress free zone for a change
Disappointing that Novasel wasn’t at the front meeting and greeting instead of some random county asst. director. Just because the county ambulance chaser issued an “opinion” doesn’t mean she is absolved of all involvement in Meyers.
smoke and mirrors.
get ready Meyers you are going to get Porked.
At previous meetings it certainly was evident that planners, consultants & developers were being listened to more than residents (and ,of course, they are allowed a longer period to speak). People, don’t mince words, say it loud and clear- whatever your position, it’s as important as any and our stand-in Board member needs to hear it all to be clear on what’s best for residents and businesses.
Agree with previous comments: smoke and mirrors and a way to placate the community. With all of the boards about transportation and bike lanes and things people already tend to agree on, the biggest issues (and changes to our community) come back to land use and zoning changes. With just one table and a picture of TRPA’s zoning for Meyers, clear discussion of those issues was lost in last night’s shuffle.
The reason the County and TRPA changed this meeting to an “open-house” is because they do not want any more adverse input from the Meyers Community !
THEY have their own plan designed to accommodate THEIR needs………
The County, TPRA, The Tahoe Conservancy, and “Sustainable Collaborative Groups” ( mostly comprised of developers and special interests) have a strong alliance to push their plan through from behind closed doors to deliver a plan that will sustain “Themselves”…….
My conversation with both Brendan Ferry and his manager Dave Defanti convinced me that they have chosen to completely disregard all previous Meyers Workshops and Key Issues voted upon and legally “established” in a legitimate public process !
MEYERS residents need to demand they be the ones to dictate what they want in this plan !
Folks this style of meeting is called divide and conquer. Also known as another dog and pony show.
YES, do keep copious notes with dates, and the agency personnel you spoke with and turn in written comments. Follow-up on unanswered questions and concerns. Participate at as many meetings as you can- Douglas County, TRPA Advisory Planning Commission and Governing Board.
TRPA code states: 13.6.4. Approval of Area Plan by TRPA
For Area Plans initiated and approved by a lead agency other than TRPA, the Area Plan shall be submitted to and reviewed by the TRPA Governing Board at a public hearing.
Public comment shall be limited to issues raised by the public before the Advisory Planning Commission and issues raised by the Governing Board.
Yes, this meeting was meant to avoid the subjects of ‘Land Use and Zoning’, the main topics that residents wanted to voice their opinions on.
Please see the letter from Jim Lira in the “Voices” section of this publication and see the comments section for an idea of what zoning changes are coming to Meyers and the larger area around Meyers. How are residents going to like the ’employee housing’ (Who’s employee housing- seasonal?, section 8, ?) in their neighborhoods? I don’t think people are aware, yet, of what the fine-print says in the Meyers Plan.
Unfortunately, I tend to agree with slow roller and J&B. On this track, Meyers is going down the road to rape.
To build on J&B’s good comment a bit:
This was well attended, but clearly was a placation session to try to draw more people in to believing they were getting what they want and that the government is listening to them.
Buffered bike lanes, red lights, pedestrian safety, economic viability (whatever that means to a master plan), walkable community etc are minor items, just ICING on the cake, whistles and bells it would be nice to have but do not deal with the guts of the plan.
The CAKE is the zoning and land use proposals. Why won’t the agencies produce an annotated map of what IS, and describe its flaws and advantages, followed by the same type of annotated map showing the new proposals for land use and zoning?
Why can’t they be direct instead of vague and evasive?
Why are the ultimate goals for the government vision of Meyers’ build-out never really produced?
I believe the key lies in the zoning plan and land use.
We all need to carefully analyze this and a variety of options and questions will be obvious topics for detailed discussion.
The single table and one display of the proposed zoning was an insult to the attendees and clearly insufficient.
If at all possible, we need to look at existing land ownership, and how it compares to proposed new zoning and land use, and my belief is the exercise will provide the path to follow the money. Money IS what this process is all about in the end, and damn the concerned citizens and residents.
You’re on the right track, Gerald. I didn’t find the 1 table on zoning and the whole thing was a like a bad joke and was absolutely insulting to those of us who wanted specific answers about specific areas. In the plan, an asterisk says there are grant-funded projects in the works for areas of the plan but it doesn’t say what areas or what the grants are for. Are we really going to leave the barn-door this wide open, so to speak? If we do, and don’t demand better, more concise answers, we get what we have coming to us.
I need to disagree with those that this process is about rolling Meyers. Read the comments closely. Many folks simply want to ***** and make themselves heard because they think they are super smart and know better – generally unproductive in getting anything done, but people leave those types of meetings and feel entitled. And guess what, as Eco noted, nothing happens and Meyers continues to look like a dump.
The approach taken at this meeting has been shown in numerous examples across the country to actually focus peoples attention from simply whining, to actually articulating a vision of what they want. It is one of the most effective ways of focusing the community on articulating their vision, but specifically looking at each element and deciding what is it they really want to see happen. I have found myself on both sides of the equation, and have found in the end in the several circumstances I have worked a station or participated as the public – I found the end result logically and workable.
When you put a couple hundred people in a room a few people take over and simply ***** and offer no vision or constructive direction.
No one is stopped from articulating their thoughts on the developing plan in writing, but I encourage folks to focus their comments on what they would like to see happen in the plan, transportation, roadway safety, business buildout if any, etc. and leave the tired rhetoric about being raped behind. Those letters are generally ignored as they offer no constructive thoughts on how the community should look.
Meyers can step up and be a nice and pleasant gateway into the Tahoe Basin or stay a dump. I personally hope more for the former.
Rick
The real decisions will be at the Board votes and being that they are held in Placerville it is the problem for those trying to attend from a distance to be able to participate. People shouldn’t trust Veerkamp who’s relatives own one of the largest construction businesses in the county to be neutral on this or the county planners or TRPA to do anything the people living with these proposals want. Concerned parties should plan to be there for these votes after reading the final draft plan and try to have the Board travel to the basin for the final meeting and vote would make sense on this issue, but often government does the opposite of anything making sense.
Myers Plan LOL! Some choice comments: “placate the community, wtf is Meyers?, county ambulance chaser, Meyers you are going to get Porked, another dog and pony show, Meyers is going down the road to rape”
Good luck Rick.
Appreciated the format. Liked the opportunity to learn, listen and voice opinions.
Thanks.
Detailed comparisons of the changes in land uses by area are available at:
http://meyersresident.com/community-area-plans-for-meyers/
I like Meyers the way it is. ANYTHING that ANY level of government gets it’s paws on can NOT be good for the people. Especially when some clown like Veerkamp is involved.
Mr. Veerkamp is up for reelection in 2016 and we can look forward to possibly a different representative on the BOS. How much time can he devote to the Meyers plan when he is the BOS Chairman, district 3 supervisor with their own problems and run a reelection campaign? Most people here are missing the point of all this. No one wants to prevent Meyers from growing or implementing the plan #3 that we have all worked so hard on these past years. No one wants to f*** it up either has been posted here. We would just like to have a voice and vote for our destiny and vision, not the voice and vision of Placerville. Some will argue that we do have a voice and they would be correct, it’s just that in order to be heard now we must go to Placerville. It is the voting power that is missing. Sometimes sacrifices need to be made for the community. If you are comfortable with believing someone else should control us then fine, do nothing and accept what we get which is a place that will look like anytown USA. If not, then get involved so when you drive through our town of Meyers which will grow and move forward, you will see development that coincides with responsible growth and community input without giving up our mountain community. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one.
Kenny-
I don’t think most people are missing the point. For years there have been a handful of people publicly claiming to represent and understand what “Meyers” wants and doesn’t want. While I am sure their intentions are admirable there are a whole lot of people living in the area that are educated and well traveled and have a difficult time constantly hearing about what Meyers should not be.
That we shouldn’t be like “Vail” or Stateline or Park City or whichever boogeyman could be named. However it is easy for many of us to look towards the good thing that those places have or have done in a similar environment. They have solid infrastructure, transportation and even libraries and many of us want some version of that for our selves and our families.
Additionally, many of us either work for the “evil corporations” or understand that we are all connected and intertwined with them. We are also active and supportive within the greater SLT community at large. It’s pretty tough for a lot of people to listen to the trashing of their employers or neighbors.
So yes, a lot of the stuff coming from those claiming to represent Meyers comes across as NIMBY, do nothing, keep Meyers as it is to a lot of people. All we hear is that Meyers doesn’t want to change…while all we see is the need for change and there isn’t all that much(structurally) worth saving.
Well said SCTahoe.
Rick
SC Tahoe has it right.
yup
Thanks SCT
Doing nothing new versus asking for new development to represent what the community wants are two different things. Too often these are lumped together in the media and elsewhere.
Sctahoe nailed it. So much negativity prior to the last few posts. There is obviously much division on what this community wants and a few motivated vocal locals. Personally I have no problem with a little progressive redevelopment. Meyers is small… It will never be SLT nor do we want it to be.
Meyers is likely doomed from the developers and TRPA and the county planners from Placerville deciding the fate of it. The people who will live with it, so far, are the least heard in this equation. Some want this for their own reasons and ideas and many don’t. The Board will make the vote and the D-5 Supervisor, Novasel, I guess won’t be voting on it due to conflict. People will need to attend the vote and make their own voices heard to make a difference.
Thank you SCTahoe for so succinctly sharing your thoughts and opinions. I agree with you.
Good planning, not a long list of fears, is needed to maintain or develop a healthy, thriving community. We already have a number of good examples of what happens when changes are not made, ultimately properties physically decay, are vacated or businesses leave. Tahoe will not become another Bay Area, Sacramento or LA (only a retreat from them.) But it will be harmed by lack of planning or poor planning.
Tahoe’s economy is primarily supported by visitors and part time residents. Too ignore this fact will have a greater effect on those who live here year around more than anyone else. Still all those with vested interests in Meyers should be considered not just a vocal few who may or may not represent the majority.
Everyone who believes that a few voices are trying to speak for everyone about the Meyers Plan, need to go to the Meyers Plan and read the 2 rounds of comments from residents and businesses. What happened at the ‘carnival’ the other night was a slap in the face to all who have participated believing they were being heard. It was as though the last 2 years worth of work never happened- when they go back to the point of ‘what’s your pleasure? bike paths?, parking? lighting?’ This is slight-of hand, illusion. Watch this hand while the other one is picking your pocket, kind-of- stuff.. Now, can we see the list of grants and what areas they apply to?
Anyone ever heard the saying “People with nothing to hide, hide nothing”
Just curious…..why can’t this be put to a vote by Meyers residents? Vote yes or no, and the count will determine the outcome. I don’t believe for a second that going to these dog and pony show community meetings will change the agenda of TRPA and the BOS.
meyers is not a city. cannot ballot…
So, it’s still a County town. We def don’t want SLT City involved. It could be placed on the ballet just like the politicians are. It can be done. There is NO RUSH to change Meyers (I hope). Seems like the best thing to do….have those who live in Meyers vote for what they want or don’t want.
For those of you who comment but did not attend the meeting in Meyers the following was put out on the El Dorado County website. This is what most were upset about. They changed the format of the guest speaker and our voting BOS representative for District V Mr. Brian Veerkamp. We are also supposed to have monthly meetings here in our community but as you can read everything will now be done by email. Nobody wants to stop this as most speculate. We just want our input to count. We are also supposed to have a Meyers Committee of 7 residents or property owners as set forth in plan #3 section 6. These will be either elected (I do not see that occurring) or will be appointed by the 4 BOS. Since they do not live here and did not interact with the public who exactly are they going to appoint? Please read what they sent us and realize they changed it. Of the 100 + residents that attended most were understandably upset and questioned Mr. Veerkamp but were politely told he would not address the residents as a group. I understand the reasoning as they (the county) did not want this to turn into a shouting match nor dog and pony show but they only managed to prevent one from happening. Please read what they sent us and perhaps you will understand the frustration the community is feeling. Thank You
El Dorado County is hosting an Open House to share information and receive feedback on the Draft Meyers Area Plan. There will be opening remarks by the County Board of Supervisors Chair followed by a breakout session with opportunities for public questions and comments. We strongly encourage you to attend so your voice can be heard. A Board of Supervisors Workshop will then be held in June or July to discuss initiating environmental review of the Draft Plan. Please bring photos and/or ideas from other communities that you like to the Open House.
Meyers Area Plan Open House:
When: Wednesday, May 6, 2015 from 5:30 P.M. – 7:30 P.M.
Where: Lake Tahoe Environmental Science Magnet School, 1095 E San Bernardino Ave., Meyers, CA
Note: Future correspondence regarding this process will be done primarily via email so please email MeyersAreaPlan@edcgov.us to sign up.
GA not too smart
from: really?
If Meyers had not stood up to this a year ago, the new Plan would be approved by now, with 56 foot tall buildings and the 4 story Catalyst Project most people (those who even knew about it) didn’t want in Meyers.
The delay in the new plan has upset certain people though, and those who are trying to keep this all in the public’s eye make great targets for attacks based on misinformation. The workshop on Wednesday was formatted to conquer and divide. Don’t let them, Meyers!
Is there any way for these 100 people and other Meyers residents to put together a ballot with items such as maximum building heights,maximimum/minimum motel rooms of a hotel if built,max sq foot of any retail built,maximum #of retail shops of any type to be built, max # of fast food eateries,max number of misc other shops. This is what the CAKE is and really is what all are dancing around here. Get some type of vote done on paper and standing. Put a stake in the ground. I do believe as residents that you do have standing with a vote and infringement upon your community in manners not agreeable and in opposition would seem to be able to be challenged.
No matter what kind of meeting was held some group in Meyers would have a problem with it.
th, Everything is in plan #3 already and it is what the community decided on in all the past meetings with Norma and the community. The problem lies with the changes that are happening with the height restrictions that were put forth by the residents. The Tahoe Sustainability group would like to increase the limit and the justifications are actually reasonable yet the way they approached it was to write a letter to the BOS to have it changed without going to the community. The community wanted to wait for any decisions made on behalf of the Meyers plan until after the election when we would have a vote on the BOS. We do not have that vote nor do we now have the ear of the county and can offer no input on the decisions made in our community. Most of us work and do not rely on grants to sustain our income and have the time to go to Placerville. As I stated before, the Meyers community has been down this road before with “community planning sessions” and no one wants to stop the process. We want the voting power to make our own decisions and not let Placerville decide our future.
Kenny, there are still several things in the June 2014 draft (plan #3) that have not been openly vetted with the community. Land use and zoning changes, for starters. This is why a survey done by experts in the field who would know how to frame questions objectively is such a good idea. This has been requested for a year now.
Exactly how would height issues be determined by the community? A vote of people who show up for a meeting? I don’t think so. It’s just another group, they are unelected and no mores speak for the whole community then any other group.There is no way to do it short of having a specific vote, that in itself creates a bad precedent i.e. specific policy by ballot measure. If the county wants to put a plan out and people in the unincorporated part of the county have an up or down vote on the whole plan that would be interesting. That said any group or individual should always provide input directly to the decision makers for their vote, they are elected. I would always rather see input directly to elected officials rather then any group.
If you want the voting power as KC suggests then form a town and assume the financial responsibilities that go with it. Some people in Meyers want the political power with financial responsibility, it will never happen. That would be like people who live in the Sierra tract telling the city what do, never happen.
I would support I survey as one source of community input though I doubt a survey would been seen as credible by those who don’t like the results.
slap: Not my suggestion about forming a community group rather it was a suggestion by the Meyers community and Norma incorporated into the plan which still needs to be voted on by the BOS if they approve plan #3.