Action Alert! Sign Ordinance at 5/28 Planning Commission

Fellow El Dorado County citizens,

Please take action and request the Planning Commission to continue the May 28, 2015 hearing on the Sign Ordinance due to the fact that an updated list of changes (an errata sheet) has not been provided to the public for review in a timely manner.

According to the minutes from the hearing on March 26, staff promised to provide a list of changes:

“Ms. Purvines notified the Commission that instead of re-writing the Sign Ordinance Update, they would be providing an errata sheet showing the Commission’s recommended changes.”

As of May 23, a proposed errata sheet has not been posted on the County’s website for the hearing on May 28. With the Memorial Day holiday on May 25, there will not be adequate time for the public to receive, review, and make comment on a proposed errata sheet prior to the May 28 hearing. It is premature for staff to recommend that the Planning Commission adopt resolutions and approve the final draft of the Sign Ordinance when the public has not had a chance to review recommended changes.

Here is a link to the minutes from the March 26 hearing on the Sign Ordinance where you can read many of the questions and concerns that were raised at the meeting:

The latest update from the County regarding the Sign Ordinance is available here:

Please attend the May 28th meeting if you can.
Thursday, May 28, 2015 at 8:30am
Planning Commission Hearing Room
2850 Fairlane, Building C
Placerville, CA 95667

If you cannot attend the meeting, please send an email to the Planning Commissioners.

Below is a sample email to customize to express your concerns.



Subject: Sign Ordinance, May 28 agenda #2, File #13-0086

Dear Planning Commissioners,

I am requesting that you continue the May 28 hearing on the Sign Ordinance due to the fact that a proposed errata sheet of recommended changes has not been posted for public review. Remember that you are doing the business of El Dorado County citizens and that transparency is imperative to creating an ordinance that will be supported by residents.

Thank you,

[your name]
[your town]


Request for clarification: 3-17-15 Board of Supervisors Meeting

Subject: Agenda clarification request

Dear Supervisors-

Yesterday’s regular meeting of the Board, held in EDH, included a staff update on the General Plan update. I have two fairly serious issues with what occurred during the meeting. The first regards the Brown Act and the effort to restrict public comment during the hearing. A copy of both the 3/17/15 agenda page and California Gov Code (CGC) 54954.3 are attached below.

I would like clarification as to
1) why this update was not considered to be ‘on the agenda’
2) why a staff update would not qualify as “an item of interest to the public” per CGC
3) how the public was to ‘know’ that they would not be allowed to comment on the issue. It was after all, listed on the agenda and we are asked not to comment during Open Forum on items on the agenda.

Second, during this update, a number of VERY misleading statements were made by staff. Without the opportunity for the public to comment, those misconceptions just ‘hang’ out there, breeding misinformation on an already controversial issue. This occurred previously during discussion of Measure Y, the TDM, and traffic Levels of Service, and the misconceptions were never corrected in public. Here are a few of the points made in hearing yesterday and subsequently refuted by Sue Taylor and John Hidahl:
1) ‘The TGPA/ZOU update does not increase density’ – note that the RDEIR itself refutes this, as has been pointed out in submitted public comments
2) ‘no new entitlements are being granted’ – over 37,000 parcels are being rezoned; there are entitlements being granted whether parcels are created or not.
3) ‘This update is not changing the General Plan – we’re just amending it’ which was repeated about 5 times by Supervisor Mik and confirmed by staff’s Dave Defanti. Regardless of the fact that ‘to amend’ something IS to change it, the TGPA/ZOU is a massive overhaul and ‘targeted’ or not, the policy changes are sweeping.

While the Board eventually relented under pressure and allowed a few insistent people to comment (thank you), more residents would have commented if not for your suppression. I would like to know if this manner of placing things on the agenda will continue, and would like to request greater clarity in the future.

You have been informed of the way staff is misrepresenting the facts to both you and the public.

Please include this comment in the administrative record for the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance update.

Thank you-
Ellen Van Dyke

from Ca Gov Code 54954.3:
CA GOV CODE 54954-3

Agenda page 6:
Agenda page 6 3-17-15

Take Action! Our quality of life is under attack in El Dorado County

Dear El Dorado County concerned citizens,

Please attend the Tuesday, February 24, 2015 Board of Supervisors meeting at 3:30 pm.

For several years the residents of El Dorado County have tried to protect their quality of life by reducing the urban boundary lines in the County.  These urban boundary lines are called Community Region Lines.  Right now the Community Region Lines include land that is proposed for low density growth, such as 5-acre parcels.  Basically the people living in these areas are not expecting or aware of high-density growth that these lines tend to promote.  Because the Board of Supervisors lacked the will to move forward due to being told by staff that it would take lots of time and money if they were to implement this, the residents gathered signatures and put Measure O on the 2014 ballot.

Measure O was defeated because the developer interests, led by Parker Development and the El Dorado County Chamber, spent over $1,000,000 on mailers and TV ads to spread lies about Measure O .  Measure O was defeated at the polls because the grassroots groups that put Measure O on the ballot could not compete with the $1,000,000 of lies.

County staff has led the Board to believe that changing the urban boundary lines will cost $100,000 in environmental reports.  However, staff is not mentioning that environmental reports for reduced urban boundary lines were already analyzed as part of the General Plan in 2004.  The analysis in 2004 stated that reduced urban boundary lines is consistent with the intent of our General Plan.  Why hasn’t staff told the Supervisors this at Board meetings?

Instead, we have staff making political statements that discourage the Board from reducing the urban boundary lines.

Here is an example of where Shawna Purvines, staff member of Long Range Planning, attempts to mislead the Board of Supervisors by stating that the community’s goal is to discourage development, rather than maintain its rural character:

Why would county staff make such a misleading statement?

Here is another example where Steve Pedretti, the Director of Community Development Agency, is referring to a political election for setting county priorities.  Shouldn’t he be keeping politics out of the county business as a public servant?

Our Zoning Ordinance is compliant with the General Plan.  It does not have to be changed as Steve Pedretti stated in the video, yet changes are currently proposed to change the Plan in ways to benefit developers over communities.  That is why we feel it is so critical to fix these lines.

The development community is once again working with the El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce to sway the Board of Supervisors with propaganda that is full of lies.   Watch your mailboxes and email inboxes for propaganda from a group called EDCARP (Alliance for Responsible Planning).  Do not be fooled by their name.  They are the same people that aligned with Parker Development’s million dollar campaign to defeat Measure O.  They do not want our Community Region Lines reduced, nor do they care about our quality of life in El Dorado County.  They are beholden to Parker Development’s quest to urbanize El Dorado County.

Watch this video where Kirk Bone of Parker Development, compares our future roads in El Dorado County to those of Los Angeles and Orange County.  What the heck?

The El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce is sending out emails right now to promote EDCARP’s message of lies.  The El Dorado County Chamber was a huge supporter of the campaign to defeat Measure O, and Kirk Bone is the Chairman of the El Dorado County Chamber’s Political Action Committee.  Here is a photo of the El Dorado County Chamber’s front counter, laden with campaign propaganda during the 2014 election:

M-N-O at EDC Chamber
Campaign materials on front counter of the El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce

And lastly, the El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce regularly holds it luncheons and mixers at the Red Hawk Casino restaurants.  EDCARP also holds its meetings at Red Hawk Casino restaurants.   The Red Hawk Casino is run by the Shingle Springs Band of Miwok, which is a sovereign nation and not part of El Dorado County.  Shouldn’t a Chamber of Commerce hold its meetings in one of its local businesses rather than that of a sovereign nation?

As citizens of El Dorado County, we must take a stand against the developer interests in our county and demand that our Board of Supervisors protect the quality of life that we love.

TAKE ACTION!  Make phone calls, write emails, attend the 2-24-15 Board Meeting.

Tuesday, February 24, 2015 at 3:30 pm
Board of Supervisors Meeting
330 Fair Lane, Building A, Placerville, CA

Contact info for Board of Supervisors:
1. Ron Mikulaco, 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,
Board of Supervisors’ Agenda Item Comments, Clerk of the Board:


Sample email [please customize it to reflect your concerns]:

To: <>, <>, <>, <>, <>, <>
Subject: Comment on 2-24-15 BOS Agenda Item #47, File #13-0510

Dear Board of Supervisors,

I want you to protect our quality of life in El Dorado County.  Direct staff to begin the process of reducing the Community Region Lines using the analysis from the 2004 General Plan and to make it a high priority in their list of projects.

[Your town or address]

%d bloggers like this: