Measure E ruling in the works

Measure E was heard in court on July 20, 2017.  Prior to the hearing, Judge Warren Stracener released a tentative ruling on July 18, which you can read here:  Tentative Ruling on Measure E

Judge Stracener has 30 days to issue his final ruling, which could either accept the tentative ruling as the final ruling or be a different ruling altogether.

Thank you to everyone who has shown their support for Measure E and for holding developers of discretionary projects accountable for paying for their own roads.

Advertisements

San Stino’s Mill Creek project on hold

Forwarded from Shingle Springs Community Alliance and No San Stino:

Dear Shingle Springs residents and rural lifestyle supporters,

Here’s a quick status of San Stino’s Mill Creek project:

The project has been placed on hold since the passage of Measure E and the county is waiting on the developer on how to proceed with processing it. Rumor has it that Measure E has had an impact on the development due to the already strained road infrastructure surrounding the project.

It is good to hear that all of our efforts to pass Measure E are affecting development projects as intended. It will be up to each community to hold the Board of Supervisors accountable to ensure that Measure E is enforced on projects throughout the county.

Thank you for your time, energy, and donations to pass Measure E!

Frank Verdin, No San Stino, on behalf of the
Shingle Springs Community Alliance, No San Stino’s Mill Creek, and Stop Tilden Park
Keeping Shingle Springs Rural

Please attend – Dixon Ranch at BOS on 2-14-17 at 2:00 pm

Forwarded from the Green Valley Alliance:

Dear Green Valley corridor residents and supporters:

Please attend this critical meeting of the Board for the final vote on Dixon Ranch. Help show Supervisors that the proposed density increase on this site is unacceptable. If this project & its 605 homes is news to you, visit the GVA page, https://sites.google.com/site/greenvalleyroadalliance/dixon-ranch, then:

  • Call the Supervisors to express your concerns: If you or friends in Dist 4 voted for Supervisor Ranalli, please remind him of his campaign promise, memorialized in the 9/18/14 Shingle Springs Community Alliance questionnaire and reiterated on his campaign website:

ranalli-questionnaire

Call him and ask if you can count on him Feb 14th to retain the designated land use of the Dixon Ranch site as Low Density Residential.

Contact info for Board of Supervisors:
1. John Hidahl, Supervisor District I, (530) 621-5650, bosone@edcgov.us
2. Shiva Frentzen, Supervisor District II, (530) 621-5651, bostwo@edcgov.us
3. Brian Veerkamp, Supervisor District III, (530) 621-5652, bosthree@edcgov.us
4. Michael Ranalli, Supervisor District IV, (530) 621-6513, bosfour@edcgov.us
5. Sue Novasel, Supervisor District V, (530) 621-6577, bosfive@edcgov.us
Clerk of the Board: edc.cob@edcgov.us

  •  Visit the new Facebook page ‘Stop Dixon Ranch’ (https://www.facebook.com/stopdixonranch/), to share information and connect with others who oppose the project. Please use your social media skills to help spread the word.

February 14th – yep, Valentine’s Day- if approved, this project will set a precedent for other proposals attempting to upzone lower density land and ignore voter approved Measure E. Don’t let this happen. We don’t say this often, but if you are able, take the afternoon off and be there to hold our electeds accountable. Mark your calendars now: 2pm Tues Feb 14th, 2850 Fairlane Ct Bldg C, Placerville

Ellen Van Dyke for Green Valley Alliance
www.GreenValleyAlliance.org

dixon-ranch-map

Placerville changing rules for oversized hotel project

On Tuesday, January 17 at 6:00 pm, the Hampton Inn and Suites project will be before the Placerville Planning Commission.  The site is located at 3001 Jacquier Road (Smith Flat Road area).

hampton-inn-north-view
Street view of 4-story proposed Hampton Inn

This project is oversized for the site therefore requiring numerous variances in order to move forward.  If the City would require the applicants to comply with the City’s design standards, such as: required parking, required loading berth (at least one), required signage (especially since this is in a scenic corridor), height limit (allowing 55 feet instead of the 40 foot max. requirement), and street frontage orientation, then the project would be more complementary to the City of Placerville and surrounding neighborhood.

It is discouraging to see the City of Placerville allow this project with so many concessions given to the applicant.  The worst part is the unattractive massive corporate urban design.  As designed this building will be a huge detriment to the Community and particularly to the Highway 50 scenic corridor.  If the building was reduced to 3 stories and turned 180 degrees to face the main road, then the project would be able to comply with many of the other design standards.

The City’s actions to ‘give away the farm’ for no benefit makes no sense.  They are incentivizing an outside corporation by returning $6,000,000 of the required Transient Oriented Tax which creates a disadvantage to competing local businesses.  The $6,000,000 is $2.5 million over the allowed $3.5 million dollar City of Placerville Hotel Incentive Program.

This project is so wrong on so many levels.  It is very obvious that the City IS giving special favors to Hampton for no justifiable purpose.  Contrary to Staff’s statement, the oversized box design with faux material attached to the outside does not compliment the overall building mass.  The structure is typical to any standard hotel in anywhere USA.  This does not generate a feeling of desired architecture that one would expect in Placerville, especially in the quaint town site of Smith Flat.

Rather than sticking to their typical boiler plate design, the City should have required this corporation to design a structure that would complement the site and not allowed an oversized boiler plate design shoved onto a non-typical sized lot.

The following are the comments submitted by Friends of Historic Hangtown to the City of Placerville’s Planning Commission:

The City has defined Smith Flat Road as the Eastern “gateway” to Placerville in which projects should adhere to the community design concept and be an example that defines Placerville’s image.  This project is a corporate boiler plate box, which is not conducive to what the Community of Placerville envisions as their defining image.  Therefore the Smith Flat Road Standards are not being adhered to if this project is allowed.

Staff’s statement that “the aesthetics is not generally considered an environmental issue” dismisses the fact that Aesthetics is an element of CEQA.  Aesthetics is also a critical element to retaining the culture of Placerville and also an important element in regards to the Highway 50 scenic corridor.  The applicants should be required to meet some type of design standard that is in keeping with the Victorian or western theme of Placerville.

It appears that new mitigation needs to be looked at in regards to the wetlands.  Relocating the wetlands to an off-site location does not mitigate the impact that the project has created.  On-site mitigations should be required to protect the wetlands, with a reduction of size this may be possible.

We disagree with the following findings from the City.  Our comments are in red.

The City contends that this request is consistent with General Plan Land Use Element Goal C that states,

“To protect and provide for the expansion of Placerville’s commercial services sector to meet the needs of both Placerville area residents and visitors”; and, Policy 9 that states,

“The City’s planning for commercial areas shall be guided by the following principals: a) Contribute to the City’s objective to become a balanced community;  We do not see how this project contributes to create a balanced community.  The project is not cohesive or compatible to its surroundings.  Its massive, corporate urban design conflicts with the gold rush architecture of this neighborhood.  Therefore, this project should not be approved based on contributing to become a balanced community.

b) Have a positive economic impact on the community;  The City’s push for new hotels is focused on bringing in more Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) for economic benefit.  How is this project going to bring an economic benefit when the City is giving back over half of the estimated TOT to the developer?   The developer estimates that it will generate over $11,000,000 of TOT in 20 years, yet the City has agreed to return $6,000,000 as an incentive within the first 20 years.  $2,500,000 of the incentive is beyond the scope of the Placerville Hotel Incentive Program.  What guarantee does the City have that the developer will stay after its incentive is reached? Existing local hotels have just recently recovered from the last recession, so this hotel will seriously impact the small motels ability to compete.   As is common with corporate projects, few, if any, local contractors will get to work on this project.  Also, the second to fourth floors will be built out of the area and then shipped to the site.  There is no fiscal analysis for the project to determine its net economic impact on the City over time.  Therefore, this project should not be approved based on economic benefit.

c) Provide for adequate parking and vehicular access;  This is unlikely since the applicant has requested a variance to the required number of parking spaces.  The City is proposing to grant Hilton’s request to only provide 0.9 parking spaces per unit, rather than follow the City’s standard of one parking space per unit.  Using the City’s standards, the project is short at least 24 parking spaces.  Additionally, Hilton has requested a variance to avoid the 2 required loading berths, which are needed because “deliveries will not be significantly smaller in size and nature to those deliveries required by a full service restaurant.” The future is unknown and not restricted in regards to truck trips to this site. The requirement for truck loading is a basic safety issue for better traffic circulation necessary for a project of this size. Therefore, this project should not be approved based on having adequate parking and vehicular access.

and, d) Be designed and landscaped in a manner sensitive to Placerville’s character”, in that the project has been designed in a foothill theme, has adequate parking and vehicle access, and will have a positive impact on the community through sales and transient occupancy taxes.  A corporate, urban design is not sensitive to Placerville’s gold rush character.  As mentioned before, there is not adequate parking and the project deviates from the City’s standard for streetfront orientation.  Because the size of the structure is more than allowed by City standards, there is not enough room to comply with the City landscape standards.  As stated above, there is no fiscal analysis for the project to determine its net economic impact on the City over time.  Therefore, this project should not be approved based on the statements within principle d.

The City contends, “Due to existing site constraints of topography there are unique physical characteristics specific to the project site, therefore, the granting of the variance requests does not constitute a special privilege not enjoyed by others in the vicinity or in the same zone as the project.”   The topography for this project is NOT any different than much of the topography within the City of Placerville.  Therefore, this variance DOES constitute a special privilege.

Per the Staff Report, “Lastly, staff believes that, when completed, this project will have a significant positive impact, catering to tourist needs and long-term economic health of the community and region.”  Without a Financial Analysis, staff’s belief is purely speculation.

Lastly, this project is not required to perform its own environmental review document, such as an EIR (Environmental Impact Report).  Instead, the City is allowing the project to move forward using old environmental documents from previous proposed hotel projects.  This is concerning because this project is similar to formerly proposed projects, but its size and footprint are different.  Additionally, the former environmental documents were challenged in court and the project was allowed to move forward only after reaching a settlement agreement, which is not included in the Staff Report.

We ask that the Planning Commission require the applicant to adhere to the City of Placerville’s design standards and reduce the overall mass and height of the project to what is required by code in order to comply with the parking, landscape, signage, and orientation standards.  The City should also require at least one loading berth in order to maintain safe accessibility for delivery trucks.

Link to Hotel Incentive Program:  https://evogov.s3.amazonaws.com/media/17/media/9253.pdf

Link to Incentive Agreement for Hampton Inn Hotel:  https://evogov.s3.amazonaws.com/media/17/media/9290.pdf

Link to Staff Report:  https://evogov.s3.amazonaws.com/media/17/media/38315.pdf

hampton-inn-site-plan-view
Site Plan view of proposed Hampton Inn
hampton-inn-aerial-view
Aerial view of proposed Hampton Inn

Proposed Whispering Pines Cemetery in Pollock Pines

Pre-Application Packet:  Click Here

Location of the 120-acre project. Map from the pre-application packet:
whispering-pines-location-map

About the Whispering Pines Project:
Whispering Pines, a Natural Passages Conservation Site, is proposed for 120+/- acres in the Pollock Pines area. The Whispering Pines site is strategically located in close proximity to other conservation lands, and is intended to protect, in perpetuity, such property as an open space corridor with a localized trail system providing access to visitors.

Special Use Permit application:  Click Here
Potential Impacts of the Project:
  • Funeral processions traveling on rural, residential roads, especially on weekends and on hazardous, snow-packed roads
  • Trail users driving on under-sized, rural, residential roads
  • Loss of community identity by bringing commercial uses into a residential neighborhood
  • Variance to El Dorado County Health and Safety Codes
  • LLC (Limited Liability Company) not required to get a Certificate of Authority from the California Department of Consumer Affairs, which may exempt Wildlands from state cemetery law
Wildlands Inc.:  Profile of a Company and an Industry

The idea for Wildlands Inc. — the first for-profit mitigation banking company west of the Mississippi — was hatched by two businessmen in a duck blind. That mix of money and nature, land use and land preservation, practical business and idealistic ecology, has defined and driven the company ever since. Today, Wildlands Inc. is one of the largest mitigation banking companies in the country. The Ecosystem Marketplacetakes a look at the company and how its life history traces the development of the broader mitigation banking industry in the US.

For the complete company profile:  Click Here

A search of the Secretary of State website found several entries related to this company:

natural-passages-sos

wildlands-capital-sos

wildland-mitigation-sos

Vote local on November 8, 2016

Save Our County has worked with communities throughout El Dorado County to protect our picturesque landscapes and quality of life.  Efforts include organizing and collaborating with:

  • Friends of Historic Hangtown – Stop the roundabout in Placerville
  • Shingle Springs Community Alliance
  • No San Stino
  • Stop Tilden Park
  • RIPP – Residents Involved in Positive Planning
  • GPS – Georgetown Preservation Society
  • Rural Communities United
  • Green Valley Alliance
  • Save the El Dorado Canal
  • SHRED – Save Hangtown from Redevelopment and Eminent Domain
  • Citizens for Sensible Development in El Dorado Hills
  • Placerville Historic Preservation League – Save the Courthouse
  • Land Use Ballot Measures O, E and G.

As such, we endorse the following candidates who will stand up against special interests and represent constituents.

Please vote for the following candidates on November 8, 2016:

John Hidahl, candidate for El Dorado County Supervisor, District 1:  hidahl4supe.com

Alan Day, candidate for El Dorado Irrigation District Director, Division 5:  day4eid.com

Craig Schmidt, candidate for El Dorado Irrigation District Director, Division 3:  fixeid.com

Watch this video to see why we need better representation than Bill George on the EID board:

 

Take action! Tell County to stop catering to special interests

At the August 16, 2016 Board of Supervisors meeting, the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) presented a new Prop 90 report to the Supervisors.  The report clearly showed that the County will lose money by extending Prop 90.  This is the same conclusion from reports by previous CAO’s.

So why did 3 of 5 Supervisors vote to extend Prop 90 for 5 more years?  Those 3 Supervisors seemed more concerned about Lennar Homes selling homes to folks from L.A. and the Bay Area at a good profit margin than with protecting our County’s budget.

Should existing residents be burdened with the added cost of services needed for “affluent” seniors coming from other Counties?

Shiva-Frentzen-150x150Supervisor Shiva Frentzen tackles that question in an opinion piece posted today, August 23, 2016, on the Lake Tahoe News website:  Opinion: EDC caters to special interests

To date, Prop 90 has caused El Dorado County to lose a total of $3,246,664 in funding to the County’s General Fund (used for services and road maintenance) and to the County’s Special Districts:

Prop 90 Cumulative Calculation to General Fund

Prop 90 Cumulative Calculation to Special Districts

If Prop 90 was allowed to expire on September 30, 2016, and no more houses were allowed in the program, the County will still continue to lose annual funding:

Prop 90 Cumulative Calculation to General Fund 5 more years

Prop 90 Cumulative Calculation to Special Districts 5 more years

El Dorado County CANNOT afford to extend Prop 90 for another 5 years and add more houses to the program.

Take action and flood the the Supervisors with emails and let them know that they should be focused on finding ways to fix our budget, not catering to special interests.

And show up on August 30, 2016 to put the Supervisors on notice that they are charged with protecting the County’s financial well-being.

This item is on the Consent Calendar.  The public has the right to make comment on the Consent Calendar items:

Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 9:00am
Building C Hearing Room  (Temporary location during construction)
2850 Fairlane Court
Placerville, CA

To send in your comments via email, send to:

Supervisor Mikulaco <bosone@edcgov.us>,
Supervisor Frentzen <bostwo@edcgov.us>,
Supervisor Veerkamp <bosthree@edcgov.us>,
Supervisor Novasel <bosfive@edcgov.us>,
The BOSFOUR <bosfour@edcgov.us>,
Clerk of the Board <edc.cob@edcgov.us>

Subject: Prop 90, File # 16-0777, Agenda Item #3

If you would also like to make phone calls, here is that information:

Ron Mikulaco, Supervisor District I, (530) 621-5650
Shiva Frentzen, Supervisor District II, (530) 621-5651
Brian Veerkamp, Supervisor District III, (530) 621-5652
Michael Ranalli, Supervisor District IV, (530) 621-6513
Sue Novasel, Supervisor District V, (530) 621-6577
Please forward this email/post to everyone you know who is concerned about the financial health of El Dorado County.