Measure E amendments to general plan

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.

A pdf of the document is available by clicking here.


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.

Measure E in Court on July 20

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:  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:

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.

Supervisors Violate Constitutional Oaths

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.

Click here to read letter to Supervisor Veerkamp
Click here to read letter to Supervisor Ranalli
Click here to read letter to Supervisor Novasel
Click here to read letter to former Supervisor Mikulaco

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.

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,, 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:


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,
2. Shiva Frentzen, Supervisor District II, (530) 621-5651,
3. Brian Veerkamp, Supervisor District III, (530) 621-5652,
4. Michael Ranalli, Supervisor District IV, (530) 621-6513,
5. Sue Novasel, Supervisor District V, (530) 621-6577,
Clerk of the Board:

  •  Visit the new Facebook page ‘Stop Dixon Ranch’ (, 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



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




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:

#   #   #

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