Residential Proximity to Environmental Hazards and Adverse Health Outcomes

Health concerns over building a gas station on Silva Valley Parkway near a school, or placing a park alongside the freeway

Both of these have been options suggested by the developers in EDH who wish to build up El Dorado Hills [CEDHSP and the Costco build-out proposals].

All adding to the congestion, additional traffic, school crowding and more. 

To learn more about the health risks of building parks, or having schools near highways or gas stations next to schools or homes, read this article titled: Residential Proximity to Environmental Hazards  and Adverse Health Outcomes.  

It’s time the community speaks up before it’s too late! Let’s preserve our open space for our families and future generations to enjoy!

Review of Measure E Rezoning vote held in 2015

MEASURE E scorecard

In 2015, the residents of El Dorado Hills voted on Measure E which was and “Advisory Vote” letting the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors know their opinion of rezoning the 98 acres of property known as the old executive golf course, on the east side of El Dorado Hills Boulevard.  The property is currently zoned as “open space recreation“.

The voters were CLEAR on their message. 91.04% of the people that voted said “NO” to rezoning. Only 8.96% wanted change the zoning.  

Developers are trying to push to put between 650-1000 single and multi-family housing units (apartments) in that area equal to about 48 acres.  (If you are familiar with the Pique apartments only a couple miles away off Iron Point adjacent to Hwy 50, that is what 327 apartments looks like. So, this would be 2-3 times that many!)

The loss of open space, the overcrowding of current schools requiring BUSING to campuses 25 minutes away for students in EDH to Diamond Springs schools, and the added traffic congestion for years to come, just doesn’t make sense. 

You can see the full details and the voting report here. 

Resident Comments at EDC Planning Commission Meeting November 14, 2019

https://youtu.be/H0GpS99PW28

In the El Dorado Planning Commission Meeting November 14, 2019, just before COVID, several concerned residents made comments before the Planning Commission. This meeting was recorded and viewed by a little over 200 times. People don’t have the time to view such long, boring videos, so we created a small video for each concerned resident, about 3 minutes long. This video is of the first speaker, Craig Peterson.

There will be a video of each person speaking at this meeting. Do you ever wonder if the Planning Commission ever acts on these comments or are they a formality check off for the Commission to say they listened to the community? Please leave a comment below.

If you are sick and tired of the County dragging their feet on this project, please purchase a yard sign or send them a letter.

 

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

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. 

Public Comments and Email Petitions Associated With the CEDHSP Project as of 6/11/2020

Most if this information is buried in the County Website for this project, and is quite voluminous.  It is presented here so residents of the County can easily view this information if they wish.

Public Comments

Please note, the following topics reference the items found on the County website here. They have been separated from each other (on the county website they are all crowded together).

Public Comment Rcvd 06-11-20 PC 06-11-20 (Kim Cross)

Public Comment Rcvd 06-10-20 PC 06-11-20 (Sam Morley)

Public Comment Rcvd 06-09-20 PC 06-11-20 (John and Katalin Walcott, Robert McCarthy, Binay & Melissa Ackalloor, Walt and Shirley Sikes, Timothy Tamplin, Lisa Gregerson, Lyle R. Cunningham)

Public Comment Rcvd 06-08-20 PC 06-11-20 (Bonnie Bastian, Jeanette Anderson, Jim Schulz, Jacqualine McCarthy, Somit Joshi, James Pridemore, James Wittrock, Joe Zuccolotto, Michael Jahangiri, Bina Mcconville, Julie A. McIntosh, Mary A Levernier, Leslie Ellwood and Dan Ellyson.)

Public Comment Rcvd 06-04-20 PC 06-11-20 (Eric Fechter) 

Public Comment Rcvd 04-23-20 PC 04-23-20 (Kenny Croyle) 

Public Comment Rcvd 04-22-20 PC 04-23-20 (Eric Fechter) 

Public Comment Rcvd 03-20-20 PC 03-26-20 (Betty January)

Public Comment Rcvd 03-18-20 PC 03-26-20 (Dean Getz) 

Public Comment Rcvd 02-18-20 to 03-09-20 PC 03-26-20 (Leslie Ellwood, Eric Fechter, Dean Getz, Merrilee Posner and Adam Baughman)

Public Comment Rcvd 02-12-20 PC 02-13-20 (Wayne Haug)

Public Comment Rcvd 02-05-20 PC 02-13-20 (Mary Levernier) 

Public Comment Rcvd 02-04-20 PC 02-13-20 (Mary Levernier) 

Public Comment Rcvd 01-14-20 to 01-25-20 PC 02-13-20 (Bonnie & Scott Wolfe, Leslie Ellwood, Bill Wasdyke, Hugh & Lisa Baca, Cheryl Adler, JAMES KERR, Romeo Manzano, Jeffrey Maus, Diane Amerson, Shirley and Walt Sikes, David Kempker, Laura Harling, Diane Seip, David Keneller, Tom Lusi, John Richard, Kristofer Mickelson, Michael Miro, Donn Neher, Susan FaGalde, Merrilee Posner, Georgianne Knight, Sue Cantlin and Cathy and William Kerr.

Public Comment Rcvd 01-13-20 PC 01-13-20 (Phil Richardson, Karen Coomes, Leslie and John Borasi, Phil Caserta, Rebeca Gagetta, Annette Lee, Melissa Swart-Weikel, Richard Slepian, Cory Smart, Steve Lucia, Briana Finley-Link, Emille Smart, Brigit Barnes, Joe and Annette Chinn, Mary Levernier, Ivy Hendy, Hilary Krogh, Amber Forte, Dan Forte, Don Sacco, Cathy Devito, David Kane, Linda Youngs, Casey O’Looney, Nora Koltoff, Betty January, John Burns, Shirley and Walter Sikes, Hugh and Lisa Baca, Judi Oswald, Laura Patane, Charles “Buzz” Nunn, Georgianne Knight and Melinda Peak)

Public Comment Rcvd 01-11-20 to 01-12-20 PC 01-13-20 (Neely Lawton, Rachel Wade, Garth Hoffmann and Andy Schildt)

Public Comment Rcvd 01-10-20 PC 01-13-20 (Jason Reidenbach, Rob and Lisa Burns, Paula Autry, John Davey, Mitchell Peter, Debbie LaBotz and Rusty Everett)

Public Comment Rcvd 01-07-20 PC 01-13-20 (Bryan and Melissa Peebler, Bill Moore, Lawrence Ellsworth, Nathan Miller, Georgianne Knight, Robert Sacco, Jim Lawler, Benjamin Glickman, Flora (no last name), Janet Schultz, Chris and Nancy Engdall, Rob Vomund, Bonnie Bastian, Richard and Roma Turoff and Peggy Zappan)

Public Comment Rcvd 01-07-20 to 01-09-20 PC 01-13-20 (Peggy Zappen, Wanda Hall, Merrilee Posner, Howard Mahoney, Lisa Skube, Rachelle Carson, John Davey, recommends non support of the project, John Richard, Peter Eakland)

Public Comment Rcvd 01-06-20 PC 01-13-20 (Merrilee Posner, John and Chris Modin, Mark Denholm, Leslie Ellwood, Iverne and Jeff Hendy, Briana Finley-Link, Patrick and Debra Lanius)

Public Comment Rcvd 01-02-20 PC 01-13-20 (Gail Kopp and David Daniel) 

Public Comment Rcvd 12-31-19 PC 01-13-20 (Suzane Paullin, Jennie Baggaley)

Public Comment Rcvd 12-23-19 PC 01-13-20 (Donn Neher, Zach Presnal) 

Public Comment Rcvd 12-27-19 PC 01-13-20 (Brett Jakovac)

Public Comment Rcvd 12-12-19 to 12-20-19 PC 01-13-20 John Richard, Gordon Allred, Cathy Devito, Wendy Jones, Kevin Ratliff, Dianne Gross)

Public Comment Rcvd 12-11-19 to 12-12-19 PC 12-12-19 (Miscellaneous public comments – 49 pages)

Public Comment Rcvd 12-11-19 PC 12-12-19 (Review of Critical Traffic Issues in Latest Traffic Analyses for Proposed Revision to Central – 9 pages)

Public Comment Rcvd 12-09-19 PC 12-12-19 (Laura Patane, Carole Braverman, Sharon Nunes, Bill Osgood)

Public Comment Rcvd 12-06-19 PC 12-12-19 (Ray Cavanagh, Shirley and Walter Sikes and Diane Gross)

Public Comment Rcvd 12-05-19 PC 12-12-19 (Rakesh Sethi and Albert & Paula Autry) 

Public Comment Rcvd 12-04-19 PC 12-12-19 (Sheryl Sage)

Public Comment Rcvd 12-03-19 PC 12-12-19 (Dr. Gene Gowdey, Member, Board of Directors Elms, Oaks, and Willows Homeowner’s Association — Promontory Village 8. ) 

Public Comment Rcvd 11-27-19 to 12-02-19 PC 12-12-19 (Kerry Marini, Natalie Marini , Karen Brown, John Bowles, Sherrie Bunk-Petersen and John Moreno) 

Public Comment Rcvd 11-20-19 PC 12-12-19 (Kenny Croyle)

Public Comment Rcvd 11-18-19 PC 12-12-19 (Dean Getz regarding CEDHSP’s Proposed Sidestepping of Serrano’s CC&Rs )

Public Comment Rcvd 11-14-19 PC 11-14-19 (Richard Ross and Kevin A. Loewen)

Public Comment Rcvd 11-12-19 PC 11-14-19 Albert and Paula Autry  and John Burns) 

Public Comment Rcvd 11-07-19 PC 11-14-19 (Lisa Plummer, Renee Gilpen, Drew Gilpen, Sara Adams, and Eric & Becky Brandon) 

Public Comment Rcvd 11-06-19 PC 11-14-19 (Angela Martin and Neal Takahashi)

Public Comment Rcvd 11-05-19 PC 11-14-19 (Cam Squires)

Public Comment Rcvd 11-04-19 PC 11-14-19 (Susan Hansen)

Public Comment Rcvd 10-30-19 PC 11-14-19 (Nathan and Julia Roos, and Stephen Miller)

Email Petitions – caution, large downloads. The text is repetitive, most notable is the volume of residents signing the petition.

Email Petitions 01-12-20 to 01-22-20 PC 02-13-20, 214 petitions 

Email Petitions 01-06-20 to 01-11-20 PC 01-13-20, 263 petitions 

Email Petitions 01-02-20 to 01-05-20 PC 01-13-20, 81 petitions 

Email Petitions 12-22-19 to 01-01-20 PC 01-13-20, 513 petitions

Email Petitions 12-15-19 to 12-22-19 PC 01-13-20, 133 petitions 

Email Petitions 12-08-19 to 12-15-19 PC 01-13-20, 35 petitions 

Email Petitions 12-01-19 to 12-08-19 PC 12-12-19, 83 petitions 

Email Petitions 11-24-19 to 12-01-19 PC 12-12-19, 48 petitions 

Email Petitions 11-17-19 to 11-24-19 PC 12-12-19, 347 petitions F

Keep your will to fight against the development of the EDH Old Executive Golf Course.

This group is one willing to fight against the Developer’s continued push to build on the El Dorado Hills old Executive Golf Course. If he succeeds, the quality of life in EDH will be in jeopardy. Please don’t lose your will to fight against this development as it will soon be at your doorstep.

Don’t forget, over 1,900 of you signed the petition to stop the rezone here on this website.  We appreciate your support and may call on you again in the future.

Cheers.

A Couple of Walks Down Memory Lane – 2015 Vote No on Measure E

Here are a couple of videos about Town Hall meetings that were held near the end of 2015 to discuss Measure E:

Measure E Text
Should the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors re-zone the approximately 100 acres of the former executive golf course in El Dorado Hills from its current land use designation as “open space recreation” to a designation that allows residential housing and commercial development on the property?

Townhall Meeting, September 29, 2015 – NO on Measure E

00:00 Introduction – Jim Pridemore
03:59 Measure E – Wayne Haug
05:49 Impartial Analysis – Wayne Haug
06:20 Argument in Favor of E – Wayne Haug
07:02 Argument against Measure E – Wayne Haug
13:13 Absentee voting – Wayne Haug
14:42 Q & A – Wayne Haug
38:04 Previous Surveys – John Hidahl

CEDAC El Dorado Hills Community Survey Start here

EDH CSD Revenue Feasibility Survey Results Start here

50:20 Vision – John Hidahl
56:54 Ron Mikulaco
01:05:00 Brainstorming – Jim Pridemore
01:20:00 Financing – Jim Pridemore
01:27:16 Ron Mikulaco
01:31:00 – Summary and Next steps – John Hidahl
01:43:00 – Greg Prada EID Director
01:48:49 – Darwin Throne
01:50:39 – Q & A John Hidahl
01:51:17 – Ron Mikulaco
01:55:00 – Q & A
02:00:00 – End

Town Hall October 13, 2015

00:00 Welcome/committee into – John Moreno
03:37 CSD Measure E November Ballot -Terry Crumpley
26:22 Next Steps  – John Hidahl
37:39 General Q&A – John Hidahl
51:34 End

And here are the results of the November election: