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


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


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.”



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:
  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



LAST CHANCE – Take Action! Contact Supervisors to stop rezoning Shingle Springs

The Supervisors will take their final action on the General Plan overhaul and Zoning Ordinance Update on Tuesday, December 15, 2015.  This is your last chance to make comment on the project.  
Watch this video to learn more about the project:

From Shingle Springs Community Alliance:

On Friday, 11/13/15, the Board of Supervisors voted 4-1 to pass the TGPA/ZOU (General Plan Update/Zoning Ordinance Update or LUPPU).  They will come back on 12/15/15 to finalize their vote and clean up any loose ends to prepare for the anticipated lawsuit.
The Board’s approval included rezoning 37,000 parcels in El Dorado County.   Rezoning the parcels was done without notifying landowners nor adjacent landowners who would be impacted.  The County put the burden of finding the rezoned parcels on citizens.  So, during the hearings on November 10, 12, and 13, citizens did point out several parcels that were being rezoned to higher development densities, which is in conflict with the stated goals.  
Here is a very concrete example of a rezone to a higher, incompatible density, in Shingle Springs.
  1. This map shows the intersection of Ponderosa Road and Highway 50.  The Board rezoned the 2 north corners of Ponderosa and Highway 50 to an intense commercial zone that is for regional projects, like a Costco (in red with horizontal lines).  That will completely destroy our sense of place in Shingle Springs and negatively impact traffic forever.
  2. Additionally, these commercial parcels are adjacent to Medium Density Residential parcels, which are 1-acre to 5-acres in size (the pink color).  A regional project is a very intense use and not compatible with residential homes.  Therefore, a request was made to rezone the commercial parcels to a compatible zone, such as Commercial Office or Commercial Light, but that request was ignored.
    View video here:
    View submitted document here:
    Look up parcels here:  If you have questions on the map, contact Shawna Purvines, El Dorado County Long Range Planning, (530) 621-5362
  3. Furthermore, there are already small businesses and offices on these commercial parcels.  Changing their zoning to Commercial Regional makes the businesses on the ground incompatible with the zoning.  The TGPA/ZOU was NOT supposed to create inconsistencies.
  4. Lastly, the community of Shingle Springs has been very active in the past several years.  Why didn’t the Planning staff or Supervisors tell us about the proposed changes and ask for our input???
This is just one example out of the 37,000 parcels that were rezoned.  How many other instances of unnecessary and increased densities were approved without public knowledge?
PLEASE TAKE ACTION – Write to the Supervisors – Customize our sample email to fit your concerns

To: <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>,

Subject: TGPA/ZOU Final vote on 12-15-15

Dear Supervisors Mikulaco, Veerkamp, Ranalli, and Novasel,

I request that you do not approve the rezoning of thousands of parcels in El Dorado County.  The rezone at the intersection of Ponderosa Road and Highway 50 is an example of how the community of Shingle Springs was left out of the process and not informed about the negative impacts to traffic and quality of life from these rezones.  Instead of these rezones, I ask that you use our County resources to protect our existing Community Identity in Shingle Springs as a peaceful country community of homes and ranches on acreage.
Thank you to Supervisor Frentzen for voting No on these rezones and the TGPA.
[Your Name]
[Your Town]


%d bloggers like this: