June 14, 2021 was 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!