Once again, it is anticipated that the opponents to Measure E will be there in force. They have already filed a lawsuit to thwart the will of the voters. Information about the lawsuit and how you can help defend Measure E is available here: http://wp.me/P2S1Pd-bc
The law is clear that it is now the responsibility of the County to implement Measure E as it was intended.
If you cannot attend the meeting, contact the supervisors and let them know that voters expect ALL of Measure E to be implemented as intended.
Supervisor Mikulaco <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Supervisor Frentzen <email@example.com>,
Supervisor Veerkamp <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Supervisor Novasel <email@example.com>,
Supervisor Ranalli <firstname.lastname@example.org>,
Clerk of the Board <email@example.com>
Subject: Measure E Implementation, File #14-1054, Agenda Item #32
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?
On Tuesday, August 16, 2016, the Board of Supervisors will give staff direction on preparing a Cultural Resources Ordinance and possibly removing the requirement to have a Cultural Resources Preservation Commission.
If you are interested in El Dorado County’s Cultural Resource preservation, please attend:
Board of Supervisors
Tuesday, August 16, 2016, after 2:00 pm
2850 Fairlane Court, Building C
(temporary location during construction)
County staff will be presenting information and giving recommendations to the Board of Supervisors about how Measure E should be implemented at a Special Workshop on Tuesday, August 9, 2016, at 9:30 am. Please attend to show your support for implementing Measure E as intended by the voters of El Dorado County.
It is anticipated that the opponents to Measure E will be there in force. They have already filed a lawsuit to thwart the will of the voters. Information about the lawsuit and how you can help defend Measure E is available here: http://wp.me/P2S1Pd-bc
The voters have made it clear that it is now the responsibility of the County to implement Measure E as it was intended.
Join us in defending staff as they work toward following the will of the people. If you cannot attend the meeting, contact the supervisors and let them know that voters expect them to follow the will of the people.
The Shinn Ranch project’s tentative map time extension is on the Board of Supervisors agenda for July 19, 2016 at 2:00 pm. Many circumstances have changed since the original map was approved in 2007, and the surrounding community is asking for the map extension to be denied. See detailed explanation below.
The Shinn Ranch map extension is being appealed to the Board of Supervisors based on the grounds that the project approval violates California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the applicable general plans and zoning laws, and that the comments submitted to the Planning Commission contained
accurate statements of significant legal violations that were not addressed by the Planning Commission at the hearing.
In addition to the legal violations not addressed previously, the following are additional facts which must be addressed regarding this time extension, approval of which indicates that these concerns should have been considered when the tentative development was approved in 2007.
1. Measure E approval (June 2016)
The approval of Measure E reinforces Measure Y, which should therefore have been applied and still applies to this project.
2. Fire safety for nearby properties-health and safety hazard
There is no water supply, fire hydrants, nor any egress on the narrow roads leading to the existing 38 homes/56 parcels on Kingvale Road, Concept Mountain Rd, Kingvale Court, and Wildcrest Road south of the planned development. This tentative development and the planned new homes increases the chances of a fire occurring. With the current plans using Kingvale road, this causes a huge bottleneck for all residents relying on Kingvale road as their only exit. The project should have mitigated the reality of fire for all the residents beyond the project on Kingvale road which have no way of protecting themselves from this hazard. The planners chose to use their only exit.
3. Indian burial sites
The local Native Miwok tribal Communities submitted the following comments to county planning: “We have serious concerns of possible burial sites that may exist and are purposely obscured. The tentative map does provide for ” … in the event of human remains are encountered … ” which would be considered inadvertent discovery. This is very different from original knowledge of same prior to any discovery during construction. This is not acceptable and disrespectful to cultural ancestors and the disturbance of any remains. There are not typically any markers with Indian burial sites, but, the area would be considered sacred and should be preserved as sanctuary. More time is needed to research and respond to this issue. The secondary problem is that excavation of these burial grounds will reintroduce Valley Fever and other ratified diseases to the surrounding community. This is a health and safety issue for the community. Apparently there is no study or plan to contain this disease once it is airborne.
4. Notification of affected properties
In 2007 when this tentative map was approved, notification was made in the newspaper, but a limited number of adjacent property owners were notified. At that time, notification was required if property was within 500 feet of the planned development. Currently, the requirement is one mile. Some residents claim they did not receive these notifications. We’re they sent certified? Tom Shinn owned 3 of the properties affected at that time, maybe more. A full background would need to be done in order to verify. Many residents do not subscribe to the Mountain Democrat. Word of mouth is not an appropriate vehicle for notification.
5. Existing deed restrictions- Shinn Ranch Road properties
A deed restriction was attached to deeds signed by Tom Shinn and Linda Lou Fine when the Shinn Ranch Road properties were sold. These existing properties are adjacent to the tentative map. Restrictions include:
• Dwelling must be a minimum of 2600 sq. ft (exclusive of garage)
• Second dwellings not to exceed 1200 sq ft.
• No manufactured or modular dwellings except during construction
• No track or course for bikes, quads, motorcycles
• Only domestic livestock allowed (no excessively noxious or noisy animals)
Changes to these restrictions requires written consent of all adjoining property owners bordering a Shinn Ranch Road property. The 5 and 10 acre parcel owners on Shinn Ranch Road have concerns over how the tentative development is in opposition to these restrictions, especially the home square footage restriction. There are also similar deed restrictions for all properties north of old timer lane to Mother Lode. This development does not fit within the existing CC & R’s. Nor does it fit within the existing neighborhood.
6. Increased traffic Kingvale Road
Access is already difficult and dangerous at Shinn Ranch Road, Kingvale and on an already dangerous thoroughfare, Mother Lode Drive, especially when the sun glare is brightest turning west on Mother Lode off Kingvale in the late afternoon. Several have been injured or killed at Kingvale and Mother Lode Drive. Follow up with CHP for data as it appears this was also not taken into consideration. The proposed deceleration and turn lanes added as part of this project won’t handle the added traffic. Mother Lode is a narrow two lane road. Apparently planning failed to study the impact to the existing residents already using Kingvale road. This development only makes this intersection more dangerous for the existing communities. This development should NEVER have access to Kingvale road due to the added risk, traffic and inconvenience to the existing residents who only have one way into their homes. It is also a private, maintained road by the residents of Gold Country, whom bare. the full cost of road maintenance.
7. County to pay for infrastructure?
Since the County has constructed an Animal Shelter at another location since the approval of this project, all references to the County reimbursing the developer, such as “The applicant and El Dorado County shall enter into a reimbursement agreement in the event that this development occurs prior to El Dorado County construction of the roads for the Animal Shelter,” should be removed. The County should not be responsible for providing the infrastructure for this project.
Much of the drainage mitigation is to be determined after approval of the project, which is a violation of CEQA. It should have been required of the applicant to show that adequate drainage is possible with the amount of homes being proposed to ensure that the neighboring properties will not be impacted by future drainage issues.
9. Quality of life.
Noise, light and air pollution, crime. Destroys rural atmosphere we all enjoy.
All of us who have driven across the desert or the Great Plains on a hot summer day often have experienced certainty that we have seen water on the highway ahead only to see that water magically disappear when driving closer.
Well, at $11 million of taxpayer expense, the El Dorado Water and Power Authority is chasing 40,000 acre-feet of new water rights that are as real as that mirage on the highway.
At the El Dorado Irrigation District’s June 27 board meeting EID staff presented a 30-year water demand forecast through the year 2045 that demonstrates that even in the third year of a drought, EID already has more than enough water rights to: a) serve its existing 40,000 customers even if they use 48 percent more water, b) serve 17,000 new residential customers, and c) triple agricultural use.
Even if the State Water Resources Control Board inexplicably was to have a brain meltdown and somehow award EDWPA more water rights when water rights statewide already are substantially over-subscribed and not backed by real water, there is no plausible way for EID or El Dorad County to put more water rights to legally required, beneficial consumptive use until well after the year 2045.
So, who in their right mind thinks that future residents of El Dorado County will ever gain any real water by current county taxpayers and current EID ratepayers spending $11 million to pursue a new water rights mirage?
The next problem is that for El Dorado County to put the additional water rights to legally required beneficial use would require $200 million of new transmission and other capital infrastructure to bring that 40,000 acre-feet of new water to South County and the Divide. But would new water users in South County and the Divide pay $200,000 or more up front to hook up to the new water supply? By Article 13d of the California Constitution, neither existing EID ratepayers nor developers can be forced to pay for $200 million of new water infrastructure that is of absolutely no benefit to their property.
EDWPA’s 10-member board is comprised of five county supervisors and five EID directors. At 9 a.m. on Wednesday, July 13, at the El Dorado County Water Agency, 4110 Business Drive in Shingle Springs, these 10 elected officials will vote on EDWPA’s 2016-17 budget, which includes continuing to spend millions of dollars on this water rights mirage.
Greg Prada is a member of the El Dorado Irrigation District Board of Directors, serving Division 2.
On the Consent Calendar for Tuesday, June 28, 2016, at 9:00 am, the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors is being asked to approve spending an additional $200,000 on consultants for the Capital Improvement Program/Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee (CIP/TIM Fee) project. County staff is asking for the additional $200,000 to pay consultants to determine the impacts of Measure E on the CIP/TIM Fee project.
At the same time, the County has issued a Press Release stating that all progress on the CIP/TIM Fee project has been put on hold. Not only is that contrary to the request for an additional $200,000, it also conflicts with the County’s statement that it will continue collecting comments on the CIP/TIM Fee environmental document until July 5.
How does it make sense to put a project on hold yet continue to request funding for the project and continue accepting comments on the project?