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:
- There have been hundreds of public comments against this development sent to the Board of Supervisors.
- There was a standing room only Planning Commission meeting on January 14, 2020.
- 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.
- Residents in EDH oppose this project:
- In 2015 91.4% of registered voters in EDH voted “NO” on the rezone.
- In 2019 87% of 1617 voters on a poll on Nextdoor in 2019 voted against the rezone.
- In 2020, over 1,900 EDH Citizens signed a petition to stop the rezone on the Parksnoparker.org website.
- There are approximately 4600 residences in the Serrano El Dorado Hills Community.
- Each property owner pays approximately $8000 per year in Property Tax.
- Each property owner pays approximately $850 per year in Mello Roos special tax.
- Each property owner pays approximately $1200 per year in Mello Roos schools tax.
- 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 .
- Property owners do not have a dedicated clubhouse.
- Property owners do not have a public golf course.
- Property owners do not have community tennis courts.
- Property owners do not have acommunity swimming pool.
- Property owners do not have community bocce ball.
- Property owners do not have community pickleball.
- The Village Green was never developed per original specs. It turns out to be a nice setting for Parker Development Offices.
- The equestrian area was never developed as per original specs.
- The second golf course was never developed but was turned into rooftops instead. See
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- It has been shown for the past 5 years that the citizens of El Dorado Hills are unanimously against this project.
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
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
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
- An Assessment District could be formed to fund road operation and maintenance costs.
- 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