Please attend – Howe Family hearing on 3/28/17 @ 6pm

What should have been a simple process has turned into a years-long, complicated nightmare for the Howe family.  Please attend the Placerville City Council meeting at 549 Main Street, Placerville, on March 28, 2017 at 6:00 pm to show your support.

On April 30, 2015, Wilbur Howe and his sister, Marilyn McCarthy, received a notice from the City of Placerville to correct a violation of a City code due to a complaint submitted by past City employee Steve Calfee.

The Howe Family felt that they had no other choice than to submit an application for a permit to allow their employees to park on their adjacent property.

At the November 3, 2015 Planning Commission meeting, after 2 previous hearings, the Commission conceptually approved Conditions of Approval that waived paving, landscaping, and lighting on the Howe’s private property.  Planning staff asked to return on November 17, 2015, with project findings and conditions, consistent with the Commission’s discussion, for approval of the project.

After this approval, Planning Commissioner Michael Frenn met with Wilbur Howe on the property and realized a sign was needed to prevent the public from parking on the property.  Commissioner Frenn also found that the bollards were extremely expensive and desired to give the Howe Family another option.

Here is the Staff Report for the November 17, 2015 meeting: 11-17-15 Staff Report

At the November 17, 2015 Planning Commission meeting, Commissioner Michael Frenn asked if he could have the Commission reconsider items #4 and #5 (the bollards and sign).  He was told they would need to re-open the hearing for the public and Commission to discuss, which was scheduled to December 15, 2015.

Here are the Staff Report and Conditions of Approval for the December 15, 2015 meeting:  12-15-15 Agenda Report

At the December 15, 2015 Planning Commission meeting, the project went sideways.  The Planning Commission denied the permit based on an insufficient application following Peter Wolfe’s motion.  (The application had been deemed complete by staff on July 6, 2015.)

After many more meetings, the request was reconsidered by the Commission and on September 20, 2016, Conditions were approved which required paving, striping, and a landscaping maintenance agreement.

On September 30, 2016, the Howe Family appealed the Planning Commission’s decision to the City Council.

At the March 14, 2017 City Council meeting, erroneous information was shared to the City Councilmembers and is excerpted here:

Click here to view video: https://youtu.be/reUeNdfRE7Y

The Howe Family is asking the City to restore the Conditions of Approval that were conceptually approved by the Planning Commission on November 3, 2015, with changes to Condition #4 to allow for a decorative wall instead of bollards, and Condition #5 to allow for returning the larger, more visible, Private Parking sign.

Here is a drawing that was suggested for the decorative wall instead of bollards in Condition #4:

 

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.

Placerville changing rules for oversized hotel project

On Tuesday, January 17 at 6:00 pm, the Hampton Inn and Suites project will be before the Placerville Planning Commission.  The site is located at 3001 Jacquier Road (Smith Flat Road area).

hampton-inn-north-view
Street view of 4-story proposed Hampton Inn

This project is oversized for the site therefore requiring numerous variances in order to move forward.  If the City would require the applicants to comply with the City’s design standards, such as: required parking, required loading berth (at least one), required signage (especially since this is in a scenic corridor), height limit (allowing 55 feet instead of the 40 foot max. requirement), and street frontage orientation, then the project would be more complementary to the City of Placerville and surrounding neighborhood.

It is discouraging to see the City of Placerville allow this project with so many concessions given to the applicant.  The worst part is the unattractive massive corporate urban design.  As designed this building will be a huge detriment to the Community and particularly to the Highway 50 scenic corridor.  If the building was reduced to 3 stories and turned 180 degrees to face the main road, then the project would be able to comply with many of the other design standards.

The City’s actions to ‘give away the farm’ for no benefit makes no sense.  They are incentivizing an outside corporation by returning $6,000,000 of the required Transient Oriented Tax which creates a disadvantage to competing local businesses.  The $6,000,000 is $2.5 million over the allowed $3.5 million dollar City of Placerville Hotel Incentive Program.

This project is so wrong on so many levels.  It is very obvious that the City IS giving special favors to Hampton for no justifiable purpose.  Contrary to Staff’s statement, the oversized box design with faux material attached to the outside does not compliment the overall building mass.  The structure is typical to any standard hotel in anywhere USA.  This does not generate a feeling of desired architecture that one would expect in Placerville, especially in the quaint town site of Smith Flat.

Rather than sticking to their typical boiler plate design, the City should have required this corporation to design a structure that would complement the site and not allowed an oversized boiler plate design shoved onto a non-typical sized lot.

The following are the comments submitted by Friends of Historic Hangtown to the City of Placerville’s Planning Commission:

The City has defined Smith Flat Road as the Eastern “gateway” to Placerville in which projects should adhere to the community design concept and be an example that defines Placerville’s image.  This project is a corporate boiler plate box, which is not conducive to what the Community of Placerville envisions as their defining image.  Therefore the Smith Flat Road Standards are not being adhered to if this project is allowed.

Staff’s statement that “the aesthetics is not generally considered an environmental issue” dismisses the fact that Aesthetics is an element of CEQA.  Aesthetics is also a critical element to retaining the culture of Placerville and also an important element in regards to the Highway 50 scenic corridor.  The applicants should be required to meet some type of design standard that is in keeping with the Victorian or western theme of Placerville.

It appears that new mitigation needs to be looked at in regards to the wetlands.  Relocating the wetlands to an off-site location does not mitigate the impact that the project has created.  On-site mitigations should be required to protect the wetlands, with a reduction of size this may be possible.

We disagree with the following findings from the City.  Our comments are in red.

The City contends that this request is consistent with General Plan Land Use Element Goal C that states,

“To protect and provide for the expansion of Placerville’s commercial services sector to meet the needs of both Placerville area residents and visitors”; and, Policy 9 that states,

“The City’s planning for commercial areas shall be guided by the following principals: a) Contribute to the City’s objective to become a balanced community;  We do not see how this project contributes to create a balanced community.  The project is not cohesive or compatible to its surroundings.  Its massive, corporate urban design conflicts with the gold rush architecture of this neighborhood.  Therefore, this project should not be approved based on contributing to become a balanced community.

b) Have a positive economic impact on the community;  The City’s push for new hotels is focused on bringing in more Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) for economic benefit.  How is this project going to bring an economic benefit when the City is giving back over half of the estimated TOT to the developer?   The developer estimates that it will generate over $11,000,000 of TOT in 20 years, yet the City has agreed to return $6,000,000 as an incentive within the first 20 years.  $2,500,000 of the incentive is beyond the scope of the Placerville Hotel Incentive Program.  What guarantee does the City have that the developer will stay after its incentive is reached? Existing local hotels have just recently recovered from the last recession, so this hotel will seriously impact the small motels ability to compete.   As is common with corporate projects, few, if any, local contractors will get to work on this project.  Also, the second to fourth floors will be built out of the area and then shipped to the site.  There is no fiscal analysis for the project to determine its net economic impact on the City over time.  Therefore, this project should not be approved based on economic benefit.

c) Provide for adequate parking and vehicular access;  This is unlikely since the applicant has requested a variance to the required number of parking spaces.  The City is proposing to grant Hilton’s request to only provide 0.9 parking spaces per unit, rather than follow the City’s standard of one parking space per unit.  Using the City’s standards, the project is short at least 24 parking spaces.  Additionally, Hilton has requested a variance to avoid the 2 required loading berths, which are needed because “deliveries will not be significantly smaller in size and nature to those deliveries required by a full service restaurant.” The future is unknown and not restricted in regards to truck trips to this site. The requirement for truck loading is a basic safety issue for better traffic circulation necessary for a project of this size. Therefore, this project should not be approved based on having adequate parking and vehicular access.

and, d) Be designed and landscaped in a manner sensitive to Placerville’s character”, in that the project has been designed in a foothill theme, has adequate parking and vehicle access, and will have a positive impact on the community through sales and transient occupancy taxes.  A corporate, urban design is not sensitive to Placerville’s gold rush character.  As mentioned before, there is not adequate parking and the project deviates from the City’s standard for streetfront orientation.  Because the size of the structure is more than allowed by City standards, there is not enough room to comply with the City landscape standards.  As stated above, there is no fiscal analysis for the project to determine its net economic impact on the City over time.  Therefore, this project should not be approved based on the statements within principle d.

The City contends, “Due to existing site constraints of topography there are unique physical characteristics specific to the project site, therefore, the granting of the variance requests does not constitute a special privilege not enjoyed by others in the vicinity or in the same zone as the project.”   The topography for this project is NOT any different than much of the topography within the City of Placerville.  Therefore, this variance DOES constitute a special privilege.

Per the Staff Report, “Lastly, staff believes that, when completed, this project will have a significant positive impact, catering to tourist needs and long-term economic health of the community and region.”  Without a Financial Analysis, staff’s belief is purely speculation.

Lastly, this project is not required to perform its own environmental review document, such as an EIR (Environmental Impact Report).  Instead, the City is allowing the project to move forward using old environmental documents from previous proposed hotel projects.  This is concerning because this project is similar to formerly proposed projects, but its size and footprint are different.  Additionally, the former environmental documents were challenged in court and the project was allowed to move forward only after reaching a settlement agreement, which is not included in the Staff Report.

We ask that the Planning Commission require the applicant to adhere to the City of Placerville’s design standards and reduce the overall mass and height of the project to what is required by code in order to comply with the parking, landscape, signage, and orientation standards.  The City should also require at least one loading berth in order to maintain safe accessibility for delivery trucks.

Link to Hotel Incentive Program:  https://evogov.s3.amazonaws.com/media/17/media/9253.pdf

Link to Incentive Agreement for Hampton Inn Hotel:  https://evogov.s3.amazonaws.com/media/17/media/9290.pdf

Link to Staff Report:  https://evogov.s3.amazonaws.com/media/17/media/38315.pdf

hampton-inn-site-plan-view
Site Plan view of proposed Hampton Inn
hampton-inn-aerial-view
Aerial view of proposed Hampton Inn

Proposed Whispering Pines Cemetery in Pollock Pines

Pre-Application Packet:  Click Here

Location of the 120-acre project. Map from the pre-application packet:
whispering-pines-location-map

About the Whispering Pines Project:
Whispering Pines, a Natural Passages Conservation Site, is proposed for 120+/- acres in the Pollock Pines area. The Whispering Pines site is strategically located in close proximity to other conservation lands, and is intended to protect, in perpetuity, such property as an open space corridor with a localized trail system providing access to visitors.

Special Use Permit application:  Click Here
Potential Impacts of the Project:
  • Funeral processions traveling on rural, residential roads, especially on weekends and on hazardous, snow-packed roads
  • Trail users driving on under-sized, rural, residential roads
  • Loss of community identity by bringing commercial uses into a residential neighborhood
  • Variance to El Dorado County Health and Safety Codes
  • LLC (Limited Liability Company) not required to get a Certificate of Authority from the California Department of Consumer Affairs, which may exempt Wildlands from state cemetery law
Wildlands Inc.:  Profile of a Company and an Industry

The idea for Wildlands Inc. — the first for-profit mitigation banking company west of the Mississippi — was hatched by two businessmen in a duck blind. That mix of money and nature, land use and land preservation, practical business and idealistic ecology, has defined and driven the company ever since. Today, Wildlands Inc. is one of the largest mitigation banking companies in the country. The Ecosystem Marketplacetakes a look at the company and how its life history traces the development of the broader mitigation banking industry in the US.

For the complete company profile:  Click Here

A search of the Secretary of State website found several entries related to this company:

natural-passages-sos

wildlands-capital-sos

wildland-mitigation-sos

Show Your Support with a Schmidt Campaign Sign

schmidt-signageTired of EID putting the cost of new development on existing ratepayers?   How about voting for someone that is truly fiscally responsible and has the past to prove it, unlike the other 2 candidates.  Big spender, incumbent Bill George has served long enough.  Don’t expect much different from Mike Rafferty.

Craig has been a watchdog for ratepayers, being the author of the FixEID.com webpage to keep the public informed regarding irresponsible spending habits by the Board majority.  Craig is also a defender of agriculture and will protect their historic rights to affordable water.

Check out FixEID.com and Vote for Craig Schmidt El Dorado Irrigation District 3.

Help Craig win the District 3 EID seat by posting a campaign sign.  Send an email to craigaschmidt@gmail.com to get a sign.

 

 

Support Craig Schmidt for EID Board, District 3

Finally! Someone who wants to be fiscally responsible running for EID and not give away all our resources to large developers.  He has our support.

Sue Taylor
Save Our County

—– Forwarded Message —–
From: Craig A. Schmidt <info@fixeid.com>
Sent: Thu, 15 Sep 2016 16:11:23 -0000 (UTC)
Subject: FixEID.com tops 25,000 visits!

Hello Friends;

Two quick items:

1. Our www.FixEID.com web site has just topped 25,000 visits. Wow!

2. If you haven’t read the “One Minute News” summaries for June/July, August and September 2016 at www.FixEID.com (i.e. just under my candidate statement), I would like to encourage you to do so. These past four months of EID board meetings have revealed a lot of new/critical information. It will probably take you 3 or 4 minutes (only).

Thanks for all of your support, encouragement and campaign funding. It is truly appreciated 🙂

Please SHARE with your friends and neighbors!

Best wishes,

Craig A. Schmidt
Candidate: EID Board, Div. 3
Putting ratepayers first!

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:
https://eldorado.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=2818037&GUID=1C211302-1FEA-423E-9096-3D329451086D

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 <bosone@edcgov.us>,
Supervisor Frentzen <bostwo@edcgov.us>,
Supervisor Veerkamp <bosthree@edcgov.us>,
Supervisor Novasel <bosfive@edcgov.us>,
Supervisor Ranalli <bosfour@edcgov.us>,
Clerk of the Board <edc.cob@edcgov.us>

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