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


Attend 8/30 Board meeting to support Measure E

The opponents of Measure E are spreading misleading information about Measure E’s implementation to confuse the public, once again.

Please attend the meeting on Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 2:00 pm to support implementing Measure E as intended by voters.

Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 2:00 pm
Building C Hearing Room  (Temporary location during construction)
2850 Fairlane Court
Placerville, CA

In working with County Counsel, the proponents of Measure E have come to agreement with all but one issue:  the way that the County analyzes traffic congestion on roadways and highways.

Measure E mandates the use of Caltrans data to analyze the level of service on US 50, however the County has proposed to ignore this mandate.

Here is a link to the County’s documents and reports:

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:

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 <>,
Supervisor Frentzen <>,
Supervisor Veerkamp <>,
Supervisor Novasel <>,
Supervisor Ranalli <>,
Clerk of the Board <>

Subject:  Measure E Implementation, File #14-1054, Agenda Item #32


Please attend: Workshop on implementing Measure E

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.

Here is a link to the Staff Report:

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:

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.

Supervisor Mikulaco <>,
Supervisor Frentzen <>,
Supervisor Veerkamp <>,
Supervisor Novasel <>,
Supervisor Ranalli <>,
Clerk of the Board <>



Ask County to Clarify Conflicting Message about Fee Program

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?

The County’s Press Release is available here:

The County’s files for the CIP/TIM Fee project are available here:

Please attend the Board of Supervisors meeting to request that the funding request be pulled off of the Consent Calendar for discussion:

Tuesday, June 28, 2016 at 9:00 am
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 <>,
Supervisor Frentzen <>,
Supervisor Veerkamp <>,
Supervisor Novasel <>,
Supervisor Ranalli <>,
Clerk of the Board <>

Subject:  Additional CIP/TIM Fee funding, File #14-0245, Agenda Item #28


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:

#   #   #

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.

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

May 15, 2016 – Sacramento Bee, BY PETER HECHT,

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

Thank You! Update on Measures E and G Court Case

Dear El Dorado County residents and rural lifestyle supporters,

We really appreciate the donations that have been sent.  We try our best to cover our efforts with volunteers.  Unfortunately, the County has worded our ballot questions to guarantee a no vote.   Therefore, we feel we had no choice but to defend the true meaning of the Measures.  So any contribution is greatly appreciated.  Click here for information on how to make a donation.

Here is a quick update of what happened at the courthouse last week:

The Judge set Monday, March 21, 2016 at 4pm as the deadline for plaintiff to file an opening brief.

The Judge set Wednesday, March 23, 2016 at 4pm as the deadline for respondent to file the responding brief.

The Judge set a hearing for Wednesday, March 30, 2016 at 9am for hearing this matter.

If you would like to attend the hearing, the address is:
El Dorado County Superior Court
Department 9
3321 Cameron Park Drive, Cameron Park

The last date for Elections to send ballot to the printer is April 8, 2016, so that is why the judge is moving quickly on this matter.

Thank you,

Save Our County – PAC