The document below shows the effects of Judge Stracener’s court ruling on how Measure E has amended the El Dorado County General Plan. The document was prepared by the petitioner in the case, EDCARP, and aligns with the Press Release published by El Dorado County.
Save Our County is consulting with its legal counsel to determine whether or not to pursue an appeal of the ruling.
Measure E will have its day in court on Thursday, July 20, at 1:30 pm, in the El Dorado Superior Court Department 9, 3321 Cameron Park Dr, Cameron Park, CA 95682. The public is welcome to attend.
Measure E became part of the El Dorado County general plan on July 29, 2016. On the same day the Alliance for Responsible Planning (EDCARP) filed a Petition for Writ of Mandate in order to invalidate the voter approved Measure E.
At the August 30, 2016 Board of Supervisors meeting, County Counsel Mike Ciccozzi explained that it is the Board’s duty to interpret its general plan. Here is his explanation: https://youtu.be/3jgLllGiiFY Despite the explanation that it was their charge to interpret the general plan, including Measure E, Supervisors Novasel, Ranalli, and Veerkamp voted against providing staff with an interpretation of Measure E and how to implement it.
During Open Forum of the June 27, 2017 Board of Supervisors meeting, Planning Commissioner Jon Vegna explained to the Board that their lack of providing an interpretation of Measure E has left the staff, planning commissioners, project proponents, and residents without clarity as to how to implement Measure E. Here is his testimony: https://youtu.be/OeoXGben_ZY
Since Supervisor Ranalli said at the August 30, 2016 meeting – let the courts decide Measure E, we are left to assume they are ignoring the Measure until this case is decided. Measure E has been part of the general plan for almost a year now. Supervisors Novasel, Ranalli, and Veerkamp have been shirking away from their duty to interpret the El Dorado County general plan for a year. The court will not do their job for them. The only thing before the Court is whether or not the Measure is valid, implementing it will still be the responsibility of the Board. Unfortunately the Board is taking the “just sue us” stand, so contributing to the Save Our County Legal Fund would be very much appreciated.
On June 6, 2017 during agenda items #40 and #41 regarding spending Tribe funds, Supervisor Novasel cut off Chairperson Frentzen while she was asking a question during public comment.
Novasel insisted that the Board’s rules regarding the agenda prohibited Frentzen from asking a question during public comment. The rules (below), specifically state that the public cannot participate in deliberations AFTER public comment.
Is Novasel interpreting the rules correctly?
“Public comment will be received on each agenda item listed under Department Matters or Time Allocation as called by the Chair. There applicable, the principal party on each side of an issue is allocated 10 minutes to speak, individual comments are limited to 3 minutes, and individuals speaking for a group are allocated 5 minutes. (Adopted 8/10/93) Except with the consent of the Board, individuals shall be allowed to speak to an item only once. Upon completion of public comment the matter shall be returned to the Board for deliberation. Members of the public shall not be entitled to participate in that deliberation, or be present at the podium during such deliberation, except at the invitation of the Board for a point of clarification or question by the Board. The Board reserves the right to waive said rules by a majority vote.”
Supervisors Novasel, Ranalli, and Veerkamp received the following letters on March 8, 2017. As of this date, former Supervisor Mikulaco has not picked up his letter at the Post Office.
Here are excerpts from the letters and video clips:
Whenever constitutional violations are committed by public officers, there are constitutional remedies available to the people. Such remedies make those who violate their oaths, such as you, accountable and liable for their unconstitutional actions conducted in perjury of their oaths.
Your continued refusal to allow the public the opportunity to make comment on the staff’s monthly TGPA/ZOU status update was a violation of the Ralph M. Brown Act. By your actions, as stated herein, you perjured your oath, which oath was given in exchange for the public trust. Therefore, you violated the public trust, and also violated the rights of free speech, redress of grievances to government and peaceful assembly, guaranteed in the First Amendment, all of which actions were conducted by you without constitutional or any other valid lawful authority.
Your refusal to provide a meaningful process for Citizens made it extremely clear to the audience that this meeting was a joke, a farce and a fraud, simply meant to give the appearance of a just and fair hearing, but delivering nothing of the kind.