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, https://sites.google.com/site/greenvalleyroadalliance/dixon-ranch, 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, bosone@edcgov.us
2. Shiva Frentzen, Supervisor District II, (530) 621-5651, bostwo@edcgov.us
3. Brian Veerkamp, Supervisor District III, (530) 621-5652, bosthree@edcgov.us
4. Michael Ranalli, Supervisor District IV, (530) 621-6513, bosfour@edcgov.us
5. Sue Novasel, Supervisor District V, (530) 621-6577, bosfive@edcgov.us
Clerk of the Board: edc.cob@edcgov.us
Sign the ‘Me too!’ letter urging the Board to deny the project: https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/me-too-letter-to-deny-dixon-ranch (no donations are being taken here; we want your signature, your voice and attendance; random ‘host site’ donations may pop up but can be bypassed!)
Visit the new Facebook page ‘Stop Dixon Ranch’ (https://www.facebook.com/stopdixonranch/), 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
Location of the 120-acre project. Map from the pre-application packet:
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.
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.
At the August 16, 2016 Board of Supervisors meeting, the Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) presented a new Prop 90 report to the Supervisors. The report clearly showed that the County will lose money by extending Prop 90. This is the same conclusion from reports by previous CAO’s.
So why did 3 of 5 Supervisors vote to extend Prop 90 for 5 more years? Those 3 Supervisors seemed more concerned about Lennar Homes selling homes to folks from L.A. and the Bay Area at a good profit margin than with protecting our County’s budget.
Should existing residents be burdened with the added cost of services needed for “affluent” seniors coming from other Counties?
Supervisor Shiva Frentzen tackles that question in an opinion piece posted today, August 23, 2016, on the Lake Tahoe News website: Opinion: EDC caters to special interests
To date, Prop 90 has caused El Dorado County to lose a total of $3,246,664 in funding to the County’s General Fund (used for services and road maintenance) and to the County’s Special Districts:
If Prop 90 was allowed to expire on September 30, 2016, and no more houses were allowed in the program, the County will still continue to lose annual funding:
El Dorado County CANNOT afford to extend Prop 90 for another 5 years and add more houses to the program.
Take action and flood the the Supervisors with emails and let them know that they should be focused on finding ways to fix our budget, not catering to special interests.
And show up on August 30, 2016 to put the Supervisors on notice that they are charged with protecting the County’s financial well-being.
This item is on the Consent Calendar. The public has the right to make comment on the Consent Calendar items:
Tuesday, August 30, 2016 at 9:00am
Building C Hearing Room (Temporary location during construction)
2850 Fairlane Court
Placerville, CA
To send in your comments via email, send to:
Supervisor Mikulaco <bosone@edcgov.us>,
Supervisor Frentzen <bostwo@edcgov.us>,
Supervisor Veerkamp <bosthree@edcgov.us>,
Supervisor Novasel <bosfive@edcgov.us>,
The BOSFOUR <bosfour@edcgov.us>,
Clerk of the Board <edc.cob@edcgov.us>
Subject: Prop 90, File # 16-0777, Agenda Item #3
If you would also like to make phone calls, here is that information:
Ron Mikulaco, Supervisor District I, (530) 621-5650
Shiva Frentzen, Supervisor District II, (530) 621-5651
Brian Veerkamp, Supervisor District III, (530) 621-5652
Michael Ranalli, Supervisor District IV, (530) 621-6513
Sue Novasel, Supervisor District V, (530) 621-6577
Please forward this email/post to everyone you know who is concerned about the financial health of El Dorado County.
The Shinn Ranch project’s tentative map time extension is on the Board of Supervisors agenda for July 19, 2016 at 2:00 pm. Many circumstances have changed since the original map was approved in 2007, and the surrounding community is asking for the map extension to be denied. See detailed explanation below.
The Shinn Ranch map extension is being appealed to the Board of Supervisors based on the grounds that the project approval violates California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the applicable general plans and zoning laws, and that the comments submitted to the Planning Commission contained
accurate statements of significant legal violations that were not addressed by the Planning Commission at the hearing.
In addition to the legal violations not addressed previously, the following are additional facts which must be addressed regarding this time extension, approval of which indicates that these concerns should have been considered when the tentative development was approved in 2007.
1. Measure E approval (June 2016)
The approval of Measure E reinforces Measure Y, which should therefore have been applied and still applies to this project.
2. Fire safety for nearby properties-health and safety hazard
There is no water supply, fire hydrants, nor any egress on the narrow roads leading to the existing 38 homes/56 parcels on Kingvale Road, Concept Mountain Rd, Kingvale Court, and Wildcrest Road south of the planned development. This tentative development and the planned new homes increases the chances of a fire occurring. With the current plans using Kingvale road, this causes a huge bottleneck for all residents relying on Kingvale road as their only exit. The project should have mitigated the reality of fire for all the residents beyond the project on Kingvale road which have no way of protecting themselves from this hazard. The planners chose to use their only exit.
3. Indian burial sites
The local Native Miwok tribal Communities submitted the following comments to county planning: “We have serious concerns of possible burial sites that may exist and are purposely obscured. The tentative map does provide for ” … in the event of human remains are encountered … ” which would be considered inadvertent discovery. This is very different from original knowledge of same prior to any discovery during construction. This is not acceptable and disrespectful to cultural ancestors and the disturbance of any remains. There are not typically any markers with Indian burial sites, but, the area would be considered sacred and should be preserved as sanctuary. More time is needed to research and respond to this issue. The secondary problem is that excavation of these burial grounds will reintroduce Valley Fever and other ratified diseases to the surrounding community. This is a health and safety issue for the community. Apparently there is no study or plan to contain this disease once it is airborne.
4. Notification of affected properties
In 2007 when this tentative map was approved, notification was made in the newspaper, but a limited number of adjacent property owners were notified. At that time, notification was required if property was within 500 feet of the planned development. Currently, the requirement is one mile. Some residents claim they did not receive these notifications. We’re they sent certified? Tom Shinn owned 3 of the properties affected at that time, maybe more. A full background would need to be done in order to verify. Many residents do not subscribe to the Mountain Democrat. Word of mouth is not an appropriate vehicle for notification.
5. Existing deed restrictions- Shinn Ranch Road properties
A deed restriction was attached to deeds signed by Tom Shinn and Linda Lou Fine when the Shinn Ranch Road properties were sold. These existing properties are adjacent to the tentative map. Restrictions include:
• Dwelling must be a minimum of 2600 sq. ft (exclusive of garage)
• Second dwellings not to exceed 1200 sq ft.
• No manufactured or modular dwellings except during construction
• No track or course for bikes, quads, motorcycles
• Only domestic livestock allowed (no excessively noxious or noisy animals)
Changes to these restrictions requires written consent of all adjoining property owners bordering a Shinn Ranch Road property. The 5 and 10 acre parcel owners on Shinn Ranch Road have concerns over how the tentative development is in opposition to these restrictions, especially the home square footage restriction. There are also similar deed restrictions for all properties north of old timer lane to Mother Lode. This development does not fit within the existing CC & R’s. Nor does it fit within the existing neighborhood.
6. Increased traffic Kingvale Road
Access is already difficult and dangerous at Shinn Ranch Road, Kingvale and on an already dangerous thoroughfare, Mother Lode Drive, especially when the sun glare is brightest turning west on Mother Lode off Kingvale in the late afternoon. Several have been injured or killed at Kingvale and Mother Lode Drive. Follow up with CHP for data as it appears this was also not taken into consideration. The proposed deceleration and turn lanes added as part of this project won’t handle the added traffic. Mother Lode is a narrow two lane road. Apparently planning failed to study the impact to the existing residents already using Kingvale road. This development only makes this intersection more dangerous for the existing communities. This development should NEVER have access to Kingvale road due to the added risk, traffic and inconvenience to the existing residents who only have one way into their homes. It is also a private, maintained road by the residents of Gold Country, whom bare. the full cost of road maintenance.
7. County to pay for infrastructure?
Since the County has constructed an Animal Shelter at another location since the approval of this project, all references to the County reimbursing the developer, such as “The applicant and El Dorado County shall enter into a reimbursement agreement in the event that this development occurs prior to El Dorado County construction of the roads for the Animal Shelter,” should be removed. The County should not be responsible for providing the infrastructure for this project.
8. Drainage
Much of the drainage mitigation is to be determined after approval of the project, which is a violation of CEQA. It should have been required of the applicant to show that adequate drainage is possible with the amount of homes being proposed to ensure that the neighboring properties will not be impacted by future drainage issues.
9. Quality of life.
Noise, light and air pollution, crime. Destroys rural atmosphere we all enjoy.
Save Our County - Joint Coalition 
You must be logged in to post a comment.