Attend Board Meeting to Stop Property Tax Giveaway

UPDATE:  More detailed data was provided and used to tabulate the following projections of lost revenue:

Prop 90 Cumulative Calculation
As the number of Prop 90 recipients increases each year, the annual amount of lost revenue also increases.
Prop 90 Annual Calculation
The County staff report states that each Prop 90 recipient receives between $2,500 and $3,000 savings per year.

ORIGINAL POST:

On Tuesday, June 28, 2016, at 3:00 pm, the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors will review whether or not they will extend Prop 90, which is a tax-break incentive for senior citizens to move into El Dorado County.  Prop 90 allows homeowners to transfer their tax base value when selling their house in the Bay Area and Southern California, which significantly lowers their property taxes on the house they subsequently purchase in El Dorado County.

Former Chief Administrative Officers have advised the Supervisors to reject Prop 90 because of the lost revenues to the County;  however, past Boards of Supervisors have extended Prop 90 due to pressure from the El Dorado County Association of Realtors.

Statements from the Chief Administrative Officer and Assessor from a 1989 memorandum:

Upon review of the proposition (copy attached) and material submitted by County Assessor John Thorne, I can see no value for El Dorado County in opting into the program authorized by Proposition 90. Not only is there no benefit to El Dorado County, the program would actually place a disservice on those citizens who currently own homes in the county and would exacerbate the inequity of property taxes already occurring in El Dorado County and the remainder of California. If adopted, the effect of such an ordinance in El Dorado County would be to reduce property tax revenues with no correlating reduction in demand for services from those citizens moving into our communities.

As you can see, it appears that counties such as ours would suffer a considerable economical loss, as the majority of people coming into our county are from more costly areas within the state.

Here are diagrams showing the calculations of lost revenue to El Dorado County due to Prop 90:

Prop 90 Annual Calculation
Lost revenue calculation per house, per year
Prop 90 Cumulative Calculation
Cumulative lost revenue calculation

The above calculations were made from information in staff reports from the El Dorado County website:

2014 Report by El Dorado County Assessor Karl Weiland
2016 Report by Director of Economic Development Jeff McLaughlin

Please attend the public hearing to voice your concerns about extending Prop 90.

Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 3:00 pm
El Dorado County Board of Supervisors
330 Fair Lane, Building A
Placerville, CA 95667

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 #09-0992, Agenda Item #52

Advertisements

Press Release – GRASSROOTS COMMUNITY GROUPS BRING A WIN AND AWARENESS TO EL DORADO COUNTY

For Immediate Release
Contact:  Sue Taylor (530) 391-2190
SaveOurCounty.net

 

GRASSROOTS COMMUNITY GROUPS BRING
A WIN AND AWARENESS TO EL DORADO COUNTY

 

June 8, 2016, Placerville, CA

Save Our County, Residents Involved in Positive Planning, and the Shingle Springs Community Alliance would like to thank the voters of El Dorado County for the adoption of Measure E.  Measure E retains a new and improved 1998 Measure Y while sending a clear message that projects which create gridlock on our roads will not be tolerated.

Measure G lost by a slim margin, informing the Board of Supervisors that it is not just a “small” group of residents that want our resources, rural character, and quality of life protected, as promised in the voter-approved 2004 General Plan.

The ‘No’ campaign by Parker Development, the Farm Bureau, Alliance for Responsible Planning, and the Winery Association promised to protect our open space, farms, wineries, rural economy, local jobs, worms, water, roads, rural quality of life, schools, public safety, fire protection, small businesses, our children, and seniors.

In light of those campaign promises we would expect to find common ground with the opposing groups when we ask the Board of Supervisors to stop ruling in favor of projects that violate our General Plan.  Rather than wasting public and private resources by forcing lawsuits, the Supervisors should stand with the people of El Dorado County in demanding that the required policies that protect our historical, cultural, agricultural, recreational, and natural resources finally be put in place.

We would like to express a special appreciation to the many individuals, business owners, farmers, and ranchers who have spent their time and energy to spread the word about the importance of protecting our rural quality of life.

Additionally, thank you to the many community groups that supported our shared cause, including Citizens for Sensible Development in El Dorado Hills, Friends of Historic Hangtown, Georgetown Preservation Society, our friends in Meyers, and especially Rural Communities United (RCU).

When the current Board of Supervisors recently overhauled our General Plan and Zoning Ordinance to favor higher-density, urban-type development, RCU was quick to take the lead in a lawsuit designed to stop the county from its abuse of “discretionary” power.  We encourage everyone to support RCU with donations to fund the lawsuit that will further restore the voter-approved 2004 General Plan.

Supplemental information can be found at this website:   ruralcommunitiesunited.org.

#   #   #

Homebuilders spend big to fight El Dorado County slow-growth measures

In the Sacramento Bee article below, Kirk Bone, of Parker Development, mentions the carefully crafted voter-approved General Plan several times.  What he fails to mention is that the General Plan was overhauled with over 20 amendments in December 2015.  Measures E & G restore the General Plan to its original intent.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/election/local-election/article77787677.html

Homebuilders spend big to fight El Dorado County slow-growth measures

May 15, 2016 – Sacramento Bee, BY PETER HECHT, phecht@sacbee.com

Major homebuilders are pouring more than $575,000 into an El Dorado County campaign committee established to defeat two local slow-growth initiatives.

The contributors to the Committee to Protect El Dorado County Water and Open Space are developers who want to build more than 4,000 homes and town houses amid oak woodlands and on a former golf course in El Dorado Hills.

Development affiliates of Parker Development Co., builder of the Serrano El Dorado Hills community, have contributed $577,400 in an effort to defeat Measure E and Measure G in the county of 184,000 residents.

Besides being the builder of the 4,700-home Serrano development, Parker is the parent company of Marble Valley Co. The affiliate wants county zoning changes to build 3,235 homes and town houses south of Highway 50 amid rolling hills, woodlands and the site of a former limestone quarry in El Dorado Hills.

Another Parker affiliate, Serrano Associates, wants to construct 1,028 homes and town houses on the site of a former public golf course in El Dorado Hills and at a second location in the community.

The projects have drawn vehement opposition from many residents, who claim they will disrupt the rural lifestyle and cause traffic gridlock in the county east of Sacramento County. Last year, El Dorado Hills voters rejected the golf course development idea 91 percent to 9 percent in a nonbinding advisory vote on whether to rezone the property to allow construction.

Now, professionally printed campaign signs along Highway 50 and rural roads in the county are calling for ‘no’ votes on measures E and G.

The initiatives were put on the ballot by slow-growth advocates seeking severe restrictions on new subdivisions and large commercial projects. However, the anti-initiative signs are paid by the Parker development interests and read: “Farmers and Wineries Say No E & G – Protect Open Space.”

Near many of the placards, slow-growth advocates have erected hand-written protest signs, reading: “Developer funded.”

“I think it’s very devious,” said Sue Taylor, co-chair of a growth-control group called Save Our County, which is backing measures E and G. “Their signs should say that they want to develop our open space. They should be honest about their intent.

“People are getting ticked off. They’re making their own signs because they’re so angry about what the developers are doing.”

Kirk Bone, director of governmental affairs for Parker Development, said the signs paid for by the developer represent a broad consensus of residents, including farmers and winery operators, who believe that land use planning by ballot initiative is a bad idea.

Bone said the county has a carefully crafted general growth plan that was written to protect the rustic environment while taking a measured approach to allowing residential and commercial construction. The plan was approved by voters in 2004 and later upheld by the courts.

Bone said the ballot measures “would basically end the general plan as we know it today.

“It affects everybody because there will be no general plan” if measures E and G pass, Bone said. “I think there is a lot of uncertainty as to what could happen or not. The impact is as simple as not being able to get a building permit, let alone a general plan amendment. This would all come to a halt.”

Measure E would reverse a law, passed by voters in 2008, that gave supervisors authority to authorize construction of new county roads for major residential developments that contribute to traffic congestion. Such projects can be approved if four of five supervisors vote for the development plans.

Measure Y, passed in 1998, prohibited any approval of residential projects of five or more units that caused or worsened traffic gridlock. While Measure Y was reaffirmed by voters in 2008, it added the four-vote-majority exemption for supervisors to approve projects that increase traffic. Measure E would return the county standard to the 1998 language.

Meanwhile, Measure G seeks to preserve open-space buffers near agricultural or timber lands by amending the general plan to broaden distance requirements for residential, commercial or mixed-use developments. The measure would also prohibit projects from being built in some rural areas without public water sources. The general plan now allows such developments to connect to private water systems.

“A ‘Yes’ vote WILL NOT allow approval of new discretionary projects until the agricultural buffers are restored and existing policies that will protect our historical, cultural, water and recreational resources are implemented,” the Yes on Measure G ballot argument reads.

Residents signing the ballot argument included Patricia Chelseth, owner of a small sheep farm in Shingle Springs called My Sister’s Farm; Rod Pimental, owner of El Dorado Northern Lumber Company; and Dennis Smith, owner of Ranting Raven Fruits and Vegetables in Georgetown.

In an interview, Chelseth, who also supports Measure E, said she is hoping to protect the county’s “bucolic” lifestyle while stopping housing developments, including a 1,000-home subdivision – called Mill Creek – that a developer is hoping to build in the Shingle Springs area.

“What’s looming is traffic congestion and pollution,” said Chelseth, who said proposed developments “all take water … and that worries me as a farmer.”

The argument against Measure G was signed by opponents including Placerville wine producer Alexis Boeger, vice president of the El Dorado Winery Association; El Dorado Hills Chamber of Commerce President Debbie Manning; and Jim Davies, president of the El Dorado County Farm Bureau.

“Measure G threatens El Dorado County water rights, jobs and our economy,” their opposing argument said. “It could cost the county needed revenue and … tie the county up in costly court battles for years.”

Maryann Argyres, a Camino apple grower and opponent of both initiatives, said she isn’t comfortable with the “big money” flowing in to defeat the measures. But she said measures E and G are wrong-headed and will actually hurt efforts to control traffic and allow sensible development.

“They are a total and complete over-reaction,” she said. “It’s the proverbial Chicken Little thing, saying, ‘The sky is falling.’ It is not falling.”

Proponents of the initiatives, led by the Save Our County group, so far have not reported any campaign contributions.

The robust spending against the initiatives marks the second time in two years that developers have bankrolled opposition to growth-restricting measures in the county.

In 2014, Measure N would have imposed steep traffic improvement fees on subdivision builders while allowing county funds for improvements to Highway 50 for commercial projects. Measures M and O would have banned zoning changes for high-density housing projects and amended the general plan to restrict new subdivision construction in Shingle Springs, Camino, Pollock Pines and parts of El Dorado Hills and Cameron Park.

All three 2014 initiatives lost by large margins. Building and real estate interests spent more than $1 million to defeat them.

Besides the spending against measures E and G by Parker Development – and its affiliated Marble Valley Co. and Serrano Associates – the opposition took in $20,000 from Doug Veerkamp, who runs a major construction engineering company in the county.

Another $10,000 came in from Hal Freeman, the CEO of ECorp Consulting Inc., a Rocklin-based environmental consulting and landscape architecture firm for construction projects. Hefner, Stark & Marois, a Sacramento law firm specializing in real estate and land use, donated $5,000, according to campaign reports.

Peter Hecht: 916-326-5539, @phecht_sacbee

Take Action – Dollar General in Georgetown

Folks in Georgetown:

Want to stop the Dollar General project?

Dollar General Northwest elevation
View from Main Street

The most efficient way to stop this project is to ask Supervisor Ranalli to do an emergency measure to implement a Historic District overlay for Main Street, Georgetown:  bosfour@edcgov.us or 530-621-6513.

Historic Design General PoliciesHistoric Design Conforming Structures Historic Design Commercial page 1Historic Design Commercial page 2Otherwise, your only options are to hold the Planning Commission to the design standards of a Design Community overlay, or to not combine the three parcels.

The three parcels have a Design Community (DC) overlay.

Dollar General parcel Design ControlBecause the parcels are zoned commercial you can’t really fight the commercial use, but you can challenge health and safety issues, such as water, sewer, transportation, drainage, etc.  and challenge the look of the buildings based on the following DC development codes:

Sec. 130.74.020. – Purpose.

  1. For the protection, enhancement and use of places, sites, buildings and structures having special character, aesthetic interest and value;
  2. Enhancement of tourism and the economy of the County by protecting and preserving places having special and unique character and interest.

Sec. 130.74.030. – Creation of districts.

The Board of Supervisors, following consideration by the Planning Commission, may create new design review districts. When creating a new design review district, the Board of Supervisors shall find that the area proposed is:

  1. An area of special, natural beauty and aesthetic interest forming a basic resource in the economy of the County; the preservation of which would enhance the character of the County and local communities and promote tourist attractions; or
  2. Areas, places, sites, structures or uses which have special historical significance as identified by an agency representing Federal, State or local historical concerns; or
  3. Both Subsections 1 and 2 of this section.

Sec. 130.74.040. – Sierra design and community design review districts; restrictions.

  1. Any district created pursuant to Section 130.74.030.1 shall be designated on zoning maps as either design Sierra (-DS) or as design community (-DC) as the case may be.
  2. All new commercial within the boundaries of a community design district shall conform in exterior styling to that style of architecture described in Subsection C of this section. Approval for compliance with design criteria shall be provided for in Section 130.74.115.

C.The architectural styling for new construction permitted in the community design districts shall be that which is exemplified and meets the intent of the community design guide which shall be adopted by the Board of Supervisors. These design guides shall provide guidelines and examples for architectural styles and site design permitted in the subject districts.

Full Code:

https://www.municode.com/library/ca/el_dorado_county/codes/code_of_ordinances?searchRequest=%7B%22searchText%22:%22design%20control%22,%22pageNum%22:1,%22resultsPerPage%22:25,%22booleanSearch%22:false,%22stemming%22:true,%22fuzzy%22:false,%22synonym%22:false,%22contentTypes%22:%5B%22CODES%22%5D,%22productIds%22:%5B%5D%7D&nodeId=PTBLADECO_TIT130ZO_CH130.74DEREDI_S130.74.115AP

Aerial photo of site
Photo showing the three parcels proposed for combining to create the project site
Site Plan
Footprint of the project on the three parcels

LINKS TO CORPORATE AND SUBSIDY INFORMATION REGARDING DOLLAR GENERAL:

http://corp-research.org/dollar-general

http://subsidytracker.goodjobsfirst.org/prog.php?parent=dollar-general

http://violationtracker.goodjobsfirst.org/prog.php?parent=dollar-general

Link to County website for Dollar General project:

http://edcapps.edcgov.us/Planning/ProjectInquiryDisplay.asp?ProjectID=20215

 

 

Special Interest Group plots against grassroots community groups

The following message is being distributed by a group that is aligned with Parker Development, “Alliance for Responsible Planning” and being headed by the Board of Supervisor’s appointed Chairperson of the Community and Economic Development Advisory Commission,
Maryann Argyres.

(Save Our County’s comments in red)

Begin forwarded message:

Date: January 7, 2016 at 1:20:55 PM PST
Subject:Alliance for Responsible Planning Luncheon — Friday, January 22, 2016; 11:30 AM to 1:00 PM
You are cordially invited to attend a complimentary luncheon
 
Friday, January 22, 2016
 
From 11:30 AM until 1:00 PM
In the Private Waterfall Buffet Room at Red Hawk Casino.
 
Much has happened since our last luncheon meeting, and new issues are on the horizon. 
 
Following years of public hearings and environmental review, the Board of Supervisors approved the Targeted General Plan Amendment/Zoning Ordinance Update on December 15, 2015.  The first comprehensive update of the zoning ordinance in over 30 years:
 
  • Brings zoning consistent with the General Plan for about 6% of parcels that were previously “inconsistent”;
    There are 94,000 parcels on the tax rolls 6% would be 5640 parcels so why did the county rezone 37,000 parcels?
  • Extends “right to farm” protections to some of our most productive agricultural lands;
    And possibly removed protections from around 2,300 previously Ag zoned parcels that the County “opted out” of Ag without much understanding of the consequence of that action.
  • Provides rural commerce opportunities to maintain economic viability of larger parcels in rural areas;  
    Allowing for rural commerce was already in the existing General Plan, but the County went beyond this by allowing a home occupancy business to be retail or industrial without checking for compatibility with their neighbor.
  • Does not change General Plan Land Uses (“colors”) except a small number of map corrections.
    This is a conflicting statement.  The county changed land use even after telling the public that there would be NO land use changes.  The public argued that this massive General Plan overhaul would not be necessary if they just changed the land use to match the zoning.  We were told by the County that they could not change land use.   
As you might imagine, this does not conclude planning-related issues on the near-term horizon.  
  • Litigation to challenge TGPA/ZOU is threatened by opposition groups;
    This is not a threat but is a duty of the public to hold our government officials responsible for upholding the law.  The Board of Supervisors left the public no choice but to litigate – unfortunately they will be using our money to defend their actions.
  • Petitions to recall the entire Board of Supervisors are being circulated by a small group of activists frustrated by their inability to control County government; 
    The Board of Supervisors are suppose to be public servants and answer to their citizens, that’s what we hired them to do!  We did not yield our sovereignty to the agencies which serve us.
  • Efforts continue to obstruct our “Area of Origin” water rights application, including attempts to discredit the fiscally sound policies of the majority of the EID Board.
  • Is it a sound decision to gamble $11 million of tax and rate payer funds for speculation when they know that the jurisdictions down river will sue to stop them as they did before? The other issue to consider is do we really need water rights for 216,000* more residents on metered water and do we really want to fund the last $180 million* to implement the infrastructure for these future residents? (*these facts are hard to document given they come from those that don’t always share truth)
     
Two initiatives will appear on the June 2016 ballot.  The “Yellow Petition” claims to “Reinstate Measure Y”, but even Bill Center has said this initiative goes “far beyond” original Measure Y, and would have “serious economic impacts”. The “Purple Petition” would make sweeping General Plan amendments to conform the Land Use Map to old zoning, among other changes.
“Reinstate Measure Y” goes back to forcing the developers to pay their own way for roads and as originally stated takes the vote away from the Board and back to the people before a road can be allowed to go to level of service F (gridlock). 
The “Retain our current zoning and Rural assets” initiative requires the Board to implement the protection policies as promised in the 2004 General Plan before allowing developers to bulldoze the resources the plan was to protect.  
The Board of Supervisors have enormous power over our land use, over the last 20 years they have severely abused that discretion and these initiatives put that power back in check allowing for common sense development and protection of our treasured resources for local use rather than incentivizing stack and pack development for favored developers at Taxpayers expense.
 
As you can see, there’s a lot to talk about, and we hope you will be able to join us for this timely discussion.  Because seating is limited, please let us know in advance if you are unable to attend
Anyone want to go and set the record straight for this propaganda event? 
 
Thank you again for your valuable contribution to the future of our county.
 
Maryann Argyres
Alliance for Responsible Planning, President
 
RSVP (Regrets Only) by reply to this email or to

alliance4responsibleplanning@gmail.com

COMMUNITY GROUP FILES LEGAL ACTION AGAINST EL DORADO COUNTY APPROVAL OF THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE

For Immediate Release                                             Contact: Ellen Van Dyke (530)676-8025

COMMUNITY GROUP FILES LEGAL ACTION AGAINST EL DORADO COUNTY APPROVAL OF
THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE

January 14, 2016 – Placerville, CA
On Wednesday January 13, Rural Communities United continued its efforts to protect rural character by filing a case challenging the County’s massive rezoning and gutting of the voter approved 2004 general plan. Rural Communities United is an organization of local residents who seek to protect the County’s rural character for current and future residents.

The case was filed to protect rural groundwater supplies, fire safety, and traffic circulation. The case alleges that the mass rezoning of thousands of parcels fails to respect the 2004 general plan protections for the County’s rural resources. According to the case filed in El Dorado County Superior Court, “These planning blunders have transformed El Dorado County’s general plan and zoning ordinance into the antithesis of orderly planning.”

The case was also filed to protect the rights of local citizens to fair hearings. The case scolds county planning commissioners and supervisors for not giving fair hearings to those who expressed concerns regarding the effects of the rezones on their homes and neighborhoods. According to the case, the County’s deliberate indifference to the rights of its residents has, “caused good people to question their faith in the integrity of their government.”

The case will likely be heard by a judge later in the year in El Dorado County Superior Court. Ellen Van Dyke of Rural Communities United said, “We hope to inspire people throughout El Dorado County to protect the things that make this a great place to live.”

website: www.RuralCommunitiesUnited.org

email: contactRCU@gmail.com

We need you! Attend overloaded Board of Supervisor Meeting 12/15/15

Come to the last Board of Supervisors meeting of 2015 on Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 9:00 am.  The Supervisors have a track record of loading the last agenda of every year with many items that will negatively impact our quality of life in El Dorado County.  This year is no different.  WE NEED YOU THERE!

There will be several opportunities throughout the day to make comment to address the Board of Supervisors and their lack of representation.  Therefore, please plan your day to arrive around 9:00 am, and then stay for most of the day.

Chairman Veerkamp may attempt to cut off public comment.  We ask that you NOT be intimidated and stand up for your right to speak. Here are some facts:

  1. The Board (all but Supervisor Frentzen) has tentatively approved staff’s overhaul of our voter-approved General Plan and Zoning Ordinance, along with rezoning 37,000 parcels without notifying property owners or their neighbors.  The Board will officially approve this at 1:00 pm on Tuesday.  Click here for a video about the impacts of this approval:  https://youtu.be/Dr_LRPTiswk
  2. The Board (all but Supervisor Frentzen) has voted to change their calendar in 2016 so that they only have regular meetings (requiring 72-hour notice) on every other Tuesday and then pick arbitrary days for Special Meetings (requiring 24-hour notice).   Not only does this reduce the public’s access to the Supervisors, it creates inconsistency, uncertainty, and chaos for the public and County staff.
  3. Developers have prepaid for new roads in El Dorado Hills and they expect to be paid back.  This includes the $18,000,000 paid by Angelo Tsakapolous to build the Silva Valley-White Rock Road interchange connecting El Dorado Hills to Elk Grove.  That debt was supposed to stay in El Dorado Hills.  The Board tentatively voted on Monday, December 7, 2015, to allow for development fees from throughout the county to pay for that debt.
  4. The Board voted 5-0 to file litigation against the Auditor Controller for withholding payment of funds that may or may not be tied up in litigation.
  5. The Board voted to extend a contract with a law firm that specializes in Eminent Domain, which has been used against citizens with increasing frequency in the County.
  6. The overhauled General Plan encourages higher density mixed use on commercial zoned lands. County Staff has expanded commercial zones with zero lot setbacks throughout the county and high density residential is allowed on commercial zoned parcels without commercial development required.
  7. The General Plan pushes growth into Shingle Springs, Diamond Springs, and El Dorado Hills.  But one of the options of the TIM fee reductions pushes growth into the rural areas.  WHAT THE HECK?  Why are we paying millions of dollars to consultants to come up with these conflicting scenarios?

TIM fee zoning map

TIM fee program update nexus and funding model 12-0245 11-12-15 page 2