Sign the Petition to Stop the Rezone

If you experience problems  contact admin@parksnotparker.org.

A copy of your petition will be sent to the Board of Supervisors, Planning Board, Mel Pabalinas and yourself.

This petition is requesting the El Dorado County Planning Commission to NOT approve the rezone the Old Golf Course for residential development

Thank you for taking the time to sign this petition

Back in 2015 91% of the registered voters in El Dorado Hills voted against rezoning the El Dorado Hills Old Golf Course in advisory vote.

Just recently, we received a notice from the El Dorado Hills Planning Commission announcing a Hearing to consider the Central El Dorado Hills Specific Plan project to request a General Plan Amendment which will result in rezoning the Old Executive Golf Course for housing.

It seems the will of the people are being ignored and will result in the denigration of quality of life by adding approximately 1566 additional automobiles crowding the intersection of Serrano Parkway and El Dorado Hills Blvd daily, creating more noise and pollution, overcrowding our schools, and developing prime recreational open space in the heart of El Dorado Hills.

Water use is estimated to increase by 70,215,780 gallons per year. (82 gallons per day per capita 783 homes 3 people per home * 365 days)

AECOM Technical Services, Inc. estimates that the project will produce 3,907 metric tons of carbon equivalency per year. (4.99 per service unit * 783)

Residential property in EDH has value in part because of amenities such as schools, parks and open space. Lots and houses are bought and sold based on this value. To rezone and take away a large piece of open space would have a significant impact. The value of all residential property in the community would be diminished, a loss to all the current owners. In part, the increase in value to the Parker Company achieved through rezoning would come at the expense of other property owners.

I request that 1. the Planning Commission NOT Recommend the Central El Dorado Hills Specific Plan as proposed, 2. the Board of Supervisors NOT approve the Central El Dorado Hills Specific Plan as proposed, regardless of the recommendations of the Planning Commission and 3. the OLD Golf Course NOT be rezoned for residential development.

I further feel strongly that NO commitments shall be made with respect to any Development Agreement and/or changes to the General Plan without written agreement from representatives of community groups.

This is a travesty that must be stopped. Please sign this petition.

%%your signature%%



DISCLAIMER: The information in this petition was compiled from various historical documents. It is intended to provide information at a general level for the reader. Any errors, omissions or mischaracterizations are not intentional. CREDITS: Ellison Rumsey, Serrano Westside Project Briefing Book May 2011 CC:John Hidahl, Mel Pabalinas
1,932 signatures = 39% of goal
0
5,000

June 14 is the Deadline for submitting comments to the Planning Commission for CEDHSP. FYI, here is what I submitted.

Central El Dorado Hills Specific Plan Notice of Availability of SECOND Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report has 5 alternatives:

Alternative 1—No Project

Alternative 2—Reduced Density

Alternative 3—Reduced Wetland Impact

Alternative 4—Zoning Consistent

Alternative 5 – Senior Living

I am a Serrano Resident and I am in favor of Alternative 1—No Project for these reasons:

  1. There have been hundreds of public comments against this development sent to the Board of Supervisors.
  2. There was a standing room only Planning Commission meeting on  January 14, 2020.
  3. This project is a loser for the County according to the project’s Fiscal Impact Analysis (J – Attachment 7-Fiscal Impact Analysis PC 11-14-19).  Projecting the total loss over 15 years to be consistent with the projections in the plan, that is a total deficit of $4,885,000 for the County! This loss is planned to be made up with additional tax dollars for the residents.
  4. Residents in EDH oppose this project:
    1. In 2015 91.4% of registered voters in EDH voted “NO” on the rezone.
    2. In 2019 87% of  1617 voters on a poll on Nextdoor in 2019 voted against the rezone.
    3. In 2020, over 1,900 EDH Citizens signed a petition to stop the rezone on the Parksnoparker.org website.
  5. There are approximately 4600 residences in the Serrano El Dorado Hills Community
    1. Each property owner pays approximately $8000 per year in Property Tax.
    2. Each property owner pays approximately $850 per year in Mello Roos special tax.
    3. Each property owner pays approximately $1200 per year in Mello Roos schools tax.
    4. Each Serrano property owner pays approximately $2400 per year in HOA dues and does not have amenities promised in the Central El Dorado Hills Specific Plan Approved by the EI Dorado County Board of Supervisors Date: July 18, 1988 .
      1. Property owners do not have a dedicated clubhouse.
      2. Property owners do not have a public golf course.
      3. Property owners do not have community tennis courts.
      4. Property owners do not have acommunity swimming pool.
      5. Property owners do not have community bocce ball.
      6. Property owners do not have community pickleball.
    5. The Village Green was never developed per original specs. It turns out to be a nice setting for Parker Development Offices.
    6. The equestrian area was never developed as per original specs.
    7. The second golf course was never developed but was turned into rooftops instead. See 
    8. Serrano Parkway (Paid for with Mello Roos funds) is crumbling due to its use by heavy construction equipment, alternate traffic route for Bass Lake Road and recent underground construction.

In summary:

  1. This project is a loser for the community both financially and in terms of quality of life, and a winner for the Developer in terms of profit.
  2. The developer has reneged on much of what was detailed in the Specific Plan approved by the EI Dorado County Board of Supervisors on July 18, 1988. 
  3. It has been shown for the past 5 years that the citizens of El Dorado Hills are unanimously against this project. 

Respectfully submitted

Jim Pridemore

2030 Powfoot Way, El Dorado Hills

Exhibit 1 – District Church Attendance – Page 1

Exhibit 1 – District Church Attendance – Page 2

Exhibit 2 – Summary of CEDHSP Fiscal Analysis – Page 1

This Analysis estimates the overall fiscal impacts to the County based on the development of the Project under the following two scenarios: 

Scenario 1: CEDHSP Scenario, which evaluates the Project under the proposed amendment;

Scenario 2: Base Case Scenario, which evaluates the Project assuming no changes to the EDHSP or County General Plan.

Impact on the County:

General Fund – an annual net fiscal deficit . 

Phase 1 – $196,000 annually  

Phase 2 – $230,000 annually

Buildout – $438,000 annually

Road Fund 

Phase 1 – $24,000 annually

Phase 2 – $33,000 annually

Buildout – $56,000 annually

Total negative impact on the County:

Phase 1 – $220,000 annually  (5 years, 2020 – 2025) Subtotal $1,100,000

Phase 2 – $263,000 annually  (5 years, 2026 – 2029) Subtotal $1,315,000

Buildout – $494,000 annually  (5 years, 2030 – 2034) Subtotal $2,470,000

                                                                                    Total       $4,885,000

Projecting the total loss over 15 years to be consistent with the projections in the plan, that is a total deficit of $4,885,000 for the County!

Exhibit 2 – Summary of CEDHSP Fiscal Analysis – Page 2

In addition to the deficit nature of this project, this analysis is full of generic claims and unrelated statements to bolster the argument of the Project Applicant with no substantiating backup data or relation to the fiscal analysis of the County..

Approximately 17.8 percent of property tax revenue generated by the Project goes to the El Dorado Hills Fire Department, which results in property tax revenue of approximately $649,000 for the CEDHSP Scenario at buildout and approximately $287,000 for the Base Case Scenario.

Approximately 8.2 percent of property tax revenue generated by the Project goes to the El Dorado Hills CSD, which results in property tax revenue of approximately $298,000for the CEDHSP Scenario at buildout and approximately $132,000 for the Base Case Scenario at buildout

“Despite the potential net fiscal deficit to the County, residential-only projects or residential projects with a significant amount of high-density, relatively more affordable residential units are important components of regional and countywide planning efforts in providing housing options to a spectrum of household incomes. In particular, the Project applicant believes this Project is important to the County in meeting its General Plan goals and policies and assisting the County in meeting RHNA requirements” 

How, specifically, will this project meet RHNA requirements?  

Are there other alternatives to meeting RHNA requirements without this project?

“Furthermore, as discussed in the Specific Plan, the CEDHSP is within the established Community Region of El Dorado Hills, a General Plan designation that denotes a geographic area in the County with suitable infrastructure and the ability to support higher density land uses. With the goals of the General Plan in mind, the intent of the CEDHSP land use plan is to accommodate the long-term growth needs of the County, while establishing a concentrated, compact development pattern with regionally and countywide balanced housing, employment, shopping, and recreation uses. According to the General Plan, an 

Exhibit 2 – Summary of CEDHSP Fiscal Analysis – Page 3

important goal of the County is the provision of adequate and affordable housing opportunities.“

How will this project contribute to this goal?

Can this goal be achieved through already approved projects elsewhere?

“The CEDHSP is the ideal location for a significant amount of high-density, relatively more affordable residential development, given the Project’s location, including the General Plan designation of being located in a Community Region. The vision for the CEDHSP is to integrate land uses in El Dorado Hills by locating a range of housing alternatives adjacent to existing services to meet future population demands. The land use plan promotes a socially and economically diverse community for a range of ages, household types, and incomes. All of these outcomes are desired objectives of the General Plan Community Region designation.”

Doesn’t EDH already meet the requirement for high-density, relatively more affordable residential housing without destroying a prime piece of property at the gateway to El Dorado Hills?  

“It should be noted that ongoing maintenance of facilities in the Project (e.g., roads) is anticipated to be funded through creation of a private homeowners’ association (HOA), similar to the HOA established for the proximate Serrano project. Further, other taxing entities distinct from the County, including the El Dorado Hills Fire District and the El Dorado Hills CSD, will provide fire and park services to Project residents, which are analyzed separately in this Analysis”. 

On the contrary, without this project there would not be a need for a private HOA because additional roads are not necessary.  Furthermore, the existing roads are in dire need of repair.

Exhibit 2 – Summary of CEDHSP Fiscal Analysis – Page 4

Funding Sources to Mitigate Fiscal Deficits 

  1. An Assessment District could be formed to fund road operation and maintenance costs. 
  2. A MelloRoos CFD.  

The primary reason for the annual net fiscal deficit is the number of high density, relatively lower assessed value residential development included in the Project, as well as the exclusion of any sales tax revenue-generating commercial uses, relative to the service costs associated with new population growth in the County. 

Doesn’t this argue the case for much needed revenue generating recreational use rather than more homes?

The CEDHSP Scenario land use plan helps the County to meet many of its General Plan goals.  “Such as?”  If the CEDHSP Scenario land use plan replaced the high-density residential units with low- to medium-low density units, the net fiscal impact on the County would be a significantly lower deficit or neutral

Approximately 53 percent of the Project’s residential land uses (in the CEDHSP Scenario) are high-density residential uses. The CEDHSP Scenario includes nearly 70 percent of the total units with an assessed value of less than $400,000, 530 multifamily units with an assessed value of $250,000, and 168 medium high density units with an assessed value of $375,000 per unit. According to the Project applicant, the residual land value (Simply put, the residual land value is a method used to determine the value and potential profitability of a piece of property minus any expenses related to the land, according to the real estate website Real Estate Agent. Residual land value is the value of the land that remains after any and all deductions associated with the cost of developing, maintaining or reselling the land)for the 530 multifamily units is close to zero, and the residual land value for 168 units is very low. 

In particular, the Project applicant believes this Project is important to the County in meeting its General Plan goals and policies and assisting the County in meeting RHNA requirements.  This is a generic statement, how will this be done?

This reference “In particular, the Project applicant believes this Project is important to the County in meeting its General Plan goals and policies and assisting the County in 

Exhibit 2 – Summary of CEDHSP Fiscal Analysis – Page 5

meeting Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) requirements.” should not be in this section because this has nothing to do with a fiscal analysis.  Rather it should be in the October 29, 2013 2013 – 2021 HOUSING ELEMENT amendment to the General Plan 

Exhibit 3 Village Green Page 1

Exhibit 3 Village Green Page 2

Exhibit 3 Village Green Page 3

Exhibit 3 Village Green Page 4

Exhibit 4 Equestrian

Exhibit 5 Golf Course

Error in Flyer posted on doors in Ridgeview, et al. around June 12, 2021,

A neighbor just reported today, June 12, 2021 that the following flyer was posted on his front door. Unfortunately, it has erroneous information, see below: “First step: by June 15, send a letter protesting this development…”

The deadline date is June 14, not June 15.

Not only is the date wrong, the place to send comments to is also wrong. It is not going to the Board of Supervisors, it is going to the planning commission. From the EDH Community Council June minutes “The comment period for this project ends on June 14, and any written correspondence should be directed to the County of El Dorado Planning and Building Department, 2850 Fairlane Court, Placerville, CA 95667 or via e-mail: planning@edcgov.us

The text of the flyer follows:

Hi neighbors, 

If we don’t fight the development here in Ridgeview (the “Pedregal” development) and at the former golf course, we will lose forever an incredible resource. 

We are all exhausted from Covid, and perhaps it feels inevitable that the development will happen, but it isnt inevitable. We need to rally and fight. 

First step: by June 15, send a letter protesting this development to all five supervisors: John Hidahl: bosone@edcgov.us, George Turnboo; bostwo@edcgov.us, Loti Parlin – bosfour@edcgov.us Wendy Thomas-bosthree@edcgov.us, Sue Novasel – bosfive@edcgov.us and mail physical copy to Board of Supervisors, 330 Fair Lane, Placerville, CA 95667 

Second step: Join Facebook’s “Parks not Parker” or Nextdoor’s “No Rezone for CEDHSP” groups 

Here are some of the issues: 

Native American site: we know Native American bones have been seen in the area designated to become Pedregal. What measures are being taken to preserve these sacred sites? 

Fire: if thousands of residents are added, how do we all evacuate safely on our narrow lanes

Home Value: Our homes’ value will decrease as we face ten years of construction noise, traffic delays, and the degrading of an architecturally-interesting neighborhood. 

Water supply: We live in drought country and already pay through the nose for water. How will a limited supply suddenly become enough? 

Electrical grid: None of us loved the power outages; how will PG&E tackle the influx of homes drawing on our supply? Each town has an obligation to build new housing, but we’ve already fulfilled that commitment with Town Center and Bass Lake Road housing, 

Schools: What is the plan for the influx of students? Will a new school be built? What about traffic? 

Animal habitat: The greenbelt is home to many an animal we enjoy seeing, the deer and turkeys that make us feel close to the natural world. If their habitat is destroyed, they literally have nowhere to go. That’s when you’ll see a coyote in your backyard and call Animal Control to put it down. We will lose small pets to these creatures who prefer to be hunting in wild space. We already see more wildcats thanks to the development off White Rocks. It will get worse if the greenbelts are destroyed and these animals have nowhere to live. 

Old oaks: These healthy giants clean our air, provide bird habitats, and please the eye. Will Parker take out a permit for each one’s removal? 

Natural, wild beauty: we live here for the love of the land. When you perch atop Wilson and look across at the untouched hillside, reminiscent of Italy, you feel a gratitude for the beauty. And if you have never walked the trail through the greenbelt, do yourself a favor and do it today. It will be the restorative, calming moment of your day as you feel transported into an untouched wildnerness. A month or so ago, the landscape was completely covered in blue flowers, achingly beautiful. A friend said she had harbored for decades the memory of a beautiful walk in England, but when she saw this trail covered in flowers, she said, “Comparison is the thief of joy, but this trail is just as pretty as that one I’ve been thinking about 30 years.” We can’t unpave paradise. We are lucky to have this gorgeous, pristine, wild place where animals and birds commune. It is a shame to think of it covered in cookie-cutter houses, a destructive, mindless suburb. [How to find the trailheads: One end is on Ridgeview Drive, slightly uphill from the intersection with Muse Drive. The other end is the cul-de-sac at the end of Brown Drive off Patterson Way. Stay on the trail to respect the animal habitats.] 

Fight to keep the wilderness wild! 

CEDHSP (Central El Dorado Hills Specific Plan) in a Nutshell

Proposed Project (1000 Dwelling Units) as proposed by Serrano Associates. (1299 pdf pages!)

I have tried to summarize the alternatives (163 pdf pages!) here:

Alternative 1 No Project (312 Dwelling Units)

  • Assumes that the land uses within the project area would remain as currently entitled (Serrano Village D1, Lots C and D) and as current General Plan land use designations allow (Pedregal and the former El Dorado Hills Executive Golf Course). 
  • A General Plan amendment, El Dorado Hills Specific Plan amendment, or rezoning would not be required. 
  • Buildout of existing plans and/or entitlements under the theoretical maximum density for the project area would allow development under the No-Project Alternative of up to 759 dwelling units on 181 acres. 
    • Pedregal planning area limits allowable development to a total of 312 dwelling units on the 341-acre project site (93 developed acres).
      • 168 detached, single-family residential units at a density of <1–5 dwelling units per acre (du/ac) 
      • 144 multifamily residential units at a density of 14–24 du/ac. 
    • The Serrano Westside planning area encompasses Serrano Village D1, Lots C and D, which would be developed with residential uses consistent with the 1988 El Dorado Hills Specific Plan (EDHSP). Within the Serrano Westside planning area, 41.2 acres would be developed with detached, single-family residential units at a density of <1–5 du/ac (135 dwelling units). 
    • The former El Dorado Hills Executive Golf Course property would remain in its existing state as maintained vacant land. 

Alternative 2 Reduced Density (672 Dwelling Units)

  • Reduced Density Compared to the proposed project, the Reduced-Density Alternative would reduce the total number of dwelling units from 1,000 to 672 but would increase the development footprint by over 50 acres to accommodate the reduced density (from 134 acres for the proposed project to 185 acres under this alternative). 
  • This alternative would provide the least open space—130 acres—of all the alternatives, and 39 fewer acres of open space than the proposed project. This alternative assumes development of Village D1, Lots C and D (135 units) and combines the current approved land uses and existing housing types within the Serrano Westside planning area with development of the Pedregal planning area as envisioned under the proposed project. 

Alternative 3 Reduced Wetland Impact (915 Dwelling Units)

  • This alternative is Intended to reduce wetland impacts compared to the proposed project through changes to the location and density of development. A total of 0.24 acre of wetland would be affected under this alternative, versus 2.9 acres of wetlands and other waters of the United States under the proposed project. The Reduced-Wetland-Impact Alternative would reduce the quantity and density of potential dwelling units in the Serrano Westside planning area and would include the development of Serrano Village D1, Lots C and D (135 units), which would be designated as Open Space under the proposed project. Of the 341-acre total site area, 168 acres would comprise the development footprint and approximately 173 acres would remain in open space use. 
  • Buildout of this Alternative would result in the development of 
    • 68 low-density units
    • 294 medium-low density units
    • 200 medium-high density units
    • 353 high-density units
    • total of 915 dwelling units on approximately 139 acres. 
  • Assumes construction of duplexes and half-plexes within the Pedregal planning area as a means to increase density, while reducing and configuring the development footprint to avoid wetlands. 

Alternative 4 Zoning-Consistent  (654 Dwelling Units)

  • Assumes that the land uses in the project area would be developed pursuant to current zoning therefore a County General Plan amendment and EDHSP amendment would not be required. 
  • Consists of developing 
    • 510 detached, single-family residential units at a density of less than 1 to 5 dwelling units per acre on the Westside planning area north of Serrano Parkway 
    • 135 units on Serrano Village D1 Lots C and D and 375 units on Pedregal
    • 144 attached, multifamily residential units at a density of 14 to 24 dwelling units per acre on the Pedregal planning area. 
  • Open space and parkland would be dedicated (173 acres). 
  • This alternative would include 5 acres zoned for a church. 
  • The former El Dorado Hills Executive Golf Course property would remain under its current zoning of Recreational Facilities, High-Intensity (RFH).5 and would be developed as active recreational facilities that could include uses permitted by the RFH zone district such as a tennis and aquatics facility, day-use and night-use sporting fields, amusement complex, indoor or outdoor entertainment facilities, hotels, and general merchandise sales. 

Alternative 5 Senior Living (1763 Dwelling Units)

  • The former Executive Golf Course south of Serrano Parkway would be developed as a senior living facility. 
  • The senior living facility assumes a continuing care retirement community (CCRC), which provides residential services, on-site amenities and recreation, and health care.
  •  A County General Plan amendment and EDHSP amendment would be required. The Senior Living Alternative would consist of developing 
    • 37 detached, single-family residential units at a density of <1–5 dwelling units per acre on the Pedregal planning area, identical to the proposed project, 
    • 226 single-family residential units at a density of 8–14 dwelling units per acre on the Serrano Westside planning area north of Serrano Parkway, and 
    • 300 attached, multi-family residential units at a density of 14–24 dwelling units per acre in both planning areas. 
    • The former Executive Golf Course south of Serrano Parkway would be developed as a senior living facility with 
      • 1,000 independent living dwelling units
      • 200 assisted living dwelling units. 
  • Open space and parkland would be dedicated. 
  • 11 acres of civic–limited commercial land use. 

Join our Mailing List

Rumor has it there are new developments about the Old Golf Course in the works to be announced within the next couple of months.

Let’s be prepared by forming a strong coalition of residents opposed to the development of housing on our currently zoned open space, specifically the Old El Dorado Hills Executive Golf Course. Please join our mailing list to keep informed. If you are on the mailing list you will receive emails with the latest developments.

Board of Supervisor meeting 4-13-2021 where the Green Zone Resolution was discussed.

Following are the key points of the meeting. Included herein is a link to a video of the meeting followed by a chart of the speakers/topics and their location in the video:

(1)    TO PROTECT THE OLD EXECUTIVE GOLF COURSE AS A COMMUNITY RESOURCE, please write to the Board of Supervisors now. If you want to have a voice in the development of your community,  oppose designating any land  in the Central El Dorado Hills Specific Plan (CEDHSP) as a “Green Zone.” 

(2)    A “Green Zone” designation does not mean keeping land green; it flags the land for fast track infill development. Such a designation for the golf course is inconsistent with the General Plan and zoning.

(3)    “By mistake,”  the El Dorado County Planning Department included the Old Executive Golf Course in the Green Zone plan presented for a vote to the Board of Supervisors (BOS) on April 13, 2021.  Many concerned county residents saw this “mistake” as a backdoor to a development that the community has clearly opposed. These residents contacted their supervisors.

(4)    The BOS did send the proposed Green Zone plan back to County Planning to remove the Golf Course, but some areas of the Central El Dorado Hills Specific Plan may remain when the revised plan is submitted to  the BOS on May 4.

(5)    As residents of El Dorado County,  we have the General Plan and zoning for many reasons, including the right of residents to have a voice in planning.   Changes require public processes like specific plans. No shortcuts, like a Green Zone for land in the CEDHSP, are acceptable. 

(6)  This proposal is premature, fraught with inaccuracies and misconceptions.  It was brought to the Board of Supervisors quickly and poorly documented.  For example, at this point, there is no project for a grant application.  This is just laying the groundwork for the County to propose something in the future that would come before the Board to ask permission to even submit a grant application.  According to the spokesperson at the Department of Transportation, they are more concerned about getting the transportation dollars.  

(7)    Please write to your supervisor(s) and ask them to deny this project.  We need to demand transparency and accountability.

John Hidahl: bosone@edcgov.us

George Turnboo: bostwo@edcgov.us

Wendy Thomas: bosthree@edcgov.us

Lori Parlin: bosfour@edcgov.us

Sue Novasel: bosfive@edcgov.us

General Public Comments: edc.cob@edcgov.us

Link to Meeting Video Follows

We have provided this link to the Board of Supervisors video of the meeting held on April 13, 2021.  This link is of the complete meeting but you can go to various portions of the meeting by going to the time locations noted in the following table.

Time Location in Video
0:50:00
0:50:24Raphael Martinez Director of Transportation
0:50:57What the project is NOT
Not SB-35 Planning and zoning: affordable housing: streamlined approval process.
0:52:25Definition of “Green Means Go” from the website https://www.sacog.org/greenmeansgo
0:58:06Natalie Porter Department of Transportation
Assembly Bill 1209 – This is a proposed bill from Assemblyman McCarty
Bill has not been approved, they are going through this process to “potentially” get grant money in the future
Even if the bill is approved, that does not mean we will get grant money
1:04:03Wendy Thomas
Background information relative to the project
1:09:32Lori Parlin
Lori presents a litany of problems and issues associated with this project.
1:17:52Discussion around clarity of the project
1:21:58Woodrow Delorio El Dorado County Transportation Authority
Stipulate the the County retails local control of Land Use Authority
1:24:11Lori Parlin
1:27:28Wendy Thomas
1:28:55General Discussion
1:37:15Public Comments Begin
1:37:36Tom Fox
1:41:03Richard Perrin
1:43:44J Kysar-Carey
1:44:45Robert Williams
1:48:01Sue Taylor
1:53:35James Corless
1:56:30Ken Greenwood
1:58:34John Richard
2:02:24Sue W
2:03:47Mike
2:06:59Melissa Velasco
2:09:48Laura Patane
2:13:15T Grossman
2:14:27A. Bertram
2:17:42L. Alvarez
2:20:37Noelle Mattock
2:24:03Michael Saragosa
2:27:26Bob Hendricks
2:29:57Kris Payne
2:34:50Namrata
2:37:27Heather Siefkes
2:38:21End of Public Comments, Board Discussion and Roll Call for Vote
2:56:39End of Meeting

What? No Heads up for the EDH Community!

Note: This was posted on the EDH Nextdoor website just a few hours ago and because of that, I consider this to be public knowledge at this point, so I have taken the liberty to publish the full text here on this website with John’s permission.

John Richard Serrano Villages

New activity old Executive Golf Course and Pedregal Planning Area: closer to development. As many of you know, in the past 15 months there has not been much publicly-disclosed activity regarding development of the old Executive Golf Course and the Pedregal Planning Area as proposed by Parker Development (the Central El Dorado Hills Specific Plan or CEDHSP). The last public hearing was before the Planning Commission at the District Church on January 13, 2020. As you know, the community voiced overwhelming opposition to the CEDHSP at every Planning Commission meeting. Despite this consistent opposition, the El Dorado County Department of Transportation, through Natalie Porter, Senior Traffic Civil Engineer, has submitted a resolution to the Board of Supervisors that designates the CEDHSP area as Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) “Green Zone.” Sounds great, BUT SACOG Green Zones are areas set aside for accelerated infill development. Such a designation sets the stage for the development of the CEDHSP while flying below the radar. Interestingly, the supporting documents provided by the Department of Transportation do not identify the CEDHSP area once….only the El Dorado Hills Business Park is mentioned. Nevertheless, without any supporting documentation or other mention of developing the old golf course, the CEDHSP is designated a Green Zone via a map that is part of the resolution. You can see everything here:

https://eldorado.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=4905290&GUID=523CB482-69A7-4914-8B96-0DA9FE4ECFCA&Options=&Search=

https://eldorado.legistar.com/DepartmentDetail.aspx?ID=4317&GUID=8D6AEF28-D72E-4E85-9BCE-93169FD91B4F

The Board of Supervisors is meeting tomorrow, 4/13/21, to vote on this issue. I find the resolution before the Board of Supervisors to be disingenuous at best. Designating the CEDHSP as a SACOG Green Zone sets the stage to rationalize development of the old Executive Golf Course as a “green” measure consistent with area-wide government mandates. The reality is this is a back-door push forward for a project facing stiff community opposition. Further, such a Green Zone designation is inconsistent with the General Plan and current zoning. (The General Plan designates the old golf course as “open space” and current zoning allows recreational facilities.) If the CEDHSP is designated a Green Zone by the Board of Supervisors, stopping development of the old golf course will be very difficult. I urge you to make your voice heard on this matter. Do not let the Board of Supervisors designate the old Executive Golf Course as an area set aside for infill development. Write your Supervisor today–time is of the essence to get your voice heard and your comment made public because the vote is tomorrow. The Green Zone resolution is Agenda Item #20. At the very least, simply let your supervisors know that you oppose Agenda Item #20 of the 4/13/2021 Meeting of the Board of Supervisors. Supervisors:

John Hidahl: bosone@edcgov.us

George Turnboo: bostwo@edcgov.us

Wendy Thomas: bosthree@edcgov.us

Lori Parlin: bosfour@edcgov.us

Sue Novasel: bosfive@edcgov.us

General Public Comments: edc.cob@edcgov.us The El Dorado Hills Area Planning Advisory Committee (APAC) has already sent a letter in opposition to the resolution naming the CEDHSP area as a Green Zone. I chair the APAC subcommittee reviewing the CEDHSP.

Creekside Villages Development plan

Here is a synopsis of the Creekside Villages Development Plan written by Bob Hendricks, President of Blackstone Homeowners Association:

Creekside Villages is a new residential development planned in the Business Park across from Blackstone.

The project plans to put 926 units on a small 200 acre parcel of land in the Business Park.

The lot sizes are 45×100 and 55×100.

They stated that the homes would be single family and townhomes, but also said they would be “affordable starter homes”. When pressed on what that meant, they stated that they hope to be less than the current lower priced homes in El Dorado Hills, which I stated was probably in the $500k range.

Suggesting that these would be less than that caused me to ask if these were going to be low-income housing and they responded that these would not be “income restricted”. Not sure exactly what that meant or if it answered my question.

They were not sure where the children would go to elementary, but if I understood their response, it sounds like Brooks elementary. For high school, it would be Union Mine or Ponderosa.

They will have two entries onto Latrobe, one at Avanti Dr., and one at Royal Oaks, but only Royal Oaks will have a stoplight. They also would use roadways west to White Rock Rd. We spent several minutes asking about traffic issues, especially since all these homes flow into Latrobe or White Rock Rd.

I also asked why this project was being planned, adding 926 homes in that location when Folsom Ranch, just over the hill in Folsom, is building 10,000 new homes.

I started a petition to stop this project, for three specific reasons:

1) the county was changing the general plan and rezoning commercial property in the Business Park to residential

2) the impact to our local elementary schools, which are all beyond capacity now

3) the obvious traffic implications. The traffic implications are not just Latrobe, which will impact Blackstone Residents, but also neighboring communities that rely on White Rock Rd. and every community that (at a point in the future once we get the virus under control) will rely on an already overcrowded freeway commute. How long before your 30 minute drive takes 1 1/2 to 2 hours?

If you feel as I do, then I would ask that you sign my petition and I will continue to keep you posted with updates. The link to the petition is at: http://chng.it/qMg4HDRn