supervisor jack sweeney in the news

Activities of the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors:Notes About Supervisor Jack Sweeney

Sacramento Bee (California)

July 8, 2009 Wednesday METRO FINAL EDITION

EL DORADO COUNTY; Recall backers accuse supervisor of pro-development bias; GROUP SAYS OFFICIAL'S WORK SHOWS INTENT TO DISMAN-TLE GENERAL PLAN

BYLINE: Cathy Locke [email protected]

SECTION: OUR REGION; Pg. B1

LENGTH: 448 words

The ever-contentious issue of development in El Dorado County has sparked an effort to recall veteran county Supervisor Jack Sweeney.

A group calling itself Save Our County accuses the Placerville-area supervisor of working with real estate and development interests to dismantle the general plan, the county's blueprint for growth.

"He has repeatedly shown disregard for both the spirit and intent of the 2004 General Plan by introducing and supporting amendments, resolutions and reinterpretations that have effectively eliminated key protec-tions of agricultural, historical, cultural, recreational and natural resources that the general plan was specifi-cally designed to protect," says the notice of intention to recall the supervisor.

At age 71, Sweeney said, "There's nothing developers can do for me that I can't do for myself. I do have things to gain for my community."

He said he has pursued changes needed for the general plan to function as it was intended. He noted, for example, that an amendment to reduce agricultural buffers in some areas was supported by the agricul-tural community.

Save Our County spokesman Tripp Mikich said the general plan, ratified by voters in 2005, represents a hard-fought battle to reach consensus, and residents have a right to expect that land-use designations and zoning will be respected.

Mikich said Save Our County takes issue with the board majority's argument that changes in the general plan are necessary for economic development and has targeted Sweeney as the most vocal proponent of those changes.

"The Board of Supervisors has a 1950s vision of what economic development is," he said, arguing that more houses and big-box stores won't create a sustainable economy.

"People can't live off of Wal-Mart wages," Mikich said, arguing that the county should capitalize instead on its natural, cultural and historical resources.

Sweeney said he supports citizens' right to seek a recall but questioned why they didn't recruit a candi-date to challenge him in 2008.

Sweeney first served on the board from 1985 to 1993. He was elected again in July 2003 to fill the va-cancy created by the death of Supervisor Carl Borelli and ran unchallenged in 2004 and 2008.

Save Our County will have 120 days to collect the signatures of at least 3,950 District 3 residents, said Bill Schultz, county registrar of voters. The district includes the city of Placerville, and the communities of Dia-mond Springs, El Dorado, Camino and most of Cedar Grove.

http://www.recalljack.com/


Schultz said he doubted there was enough time to qualify a recall measure for the November ballot. He estimated a special election would cost between $57,000 and $76,000.

Call The Bee's Cathy Locke, (916) 773-6866.


August 3, 2003 Sunday METRO FINAL EDITION

New supervisor back in saddle

BYLINE: Cathy Locke Bee Staff Writer

SECTION: EL DORADO FOLSOM RANCHO CORDOVA; Pg. N2

LENGTH: 786 words

For Jack Sweeney, Wednesday was homecoming day.

Less than 24 hours after winning El Dorado County's District 3 supervisorial seat, he was meeting with county employees and reviewing documents, preparing for tasks he will face when the Board of Supervisors returns from summer break Aug. 19.

"The rest of the board has had the general plan and the budget," he said. "Since the general plan's been out, I've been campaigning."

But for Sweeney, who held the District 3 seat from 1985 to 1993, Wednesday's activities were familiar.

"I don't think there have been many significant changes," he said, reflecting on county government over the past decade. "The process is not much different."

Seven or eight of the county's current department directors were appointed while he was on the board, Sweeney said.

Sweeney captured 52.8 percent of the 6,232 votes cast in Tuesday's special election to fill the seat left vacant by the death of Carl Borelli in April.

Placerville City Councilwoman Kathi Lishman received 33.5 percent, and Allen Amaro, a newcomer to county politics, drew 13.6 percent.

Amaro, who spent only about $4,600 on the race, said he was pleased with his showing. His opponents outstripped him in fund raising, he noted, and they had the name recognition he lacked.

Amaro's initial venture into local politics likely won't be his last, he said, adding that he would consider running again in the March primary.

Lishman, who lost to Borelli in 2000, said she was disappointed with Tuesday's results and the low voter turnout.

The El Dorado County Elections Department reported that only 35.7 percent of the district's 17,604 vot-ers participated.

"I feel that big money made the difference in the election," said Lishman, who raised about $22,500 com-pared with Sweeney's $58,000. "I still believe I'm on the right team. I just believe my team lost."

Lishman maintained that most of Sweeney's money came from development interests.



Sweeney made clear Wednesday that he has some specific development goals. Foremost is to provide affordable housing for people who work in the El Dorado Hills Business Park. Business park tenants have told him that their employees can't afford to live in the area, he said.

In addition, he favors developing a retail center in the Placerville, Missouri Flat Road or Diamond Springs area.

"I'm talking about the 'big boxes' that everybody hates," he said, adding that residents of central El Do-rado County shouldn't have to travel to Folsom or Sacramento to shop.

But he acknowledged that the county budget likely will be the most pressing issue.

Sweeney said he favors a hiring freeze until it is clear what level of staffing the budget will support.

He noted, however, that the board must consider filling four top positions: chief administrative officer, agricultural commissioner and the directors of planning and human resources.

Citing talk of changing from a chief administrative officer to a chief executive officer, Sweeney said, "I don't think the county is ready for that."

Directors of the various county departments, he said, should answer to the Board of Supervisors, rather than to a chief executive officer.

He also is skeptical of any reorganization that would create what he termed "super departments," such as a single department combining planning, building and transportation.

Such a proposal was studied during his previous tenure on the board.

"We just decided that it made the pyramid higher and harder to access for the public, and it didn't accom-plish any more," he said. "It just put on another layer of government."

Sweeney said he would like to see more public review of department policies and operations, beginning with public discussions of departmental budgets.

"Last year, the sessions were more open to the public," he said. "I think the board wants budget work-shops to be open to the public."

Sweeney said he also wants to work with the El Dorado County Water Agency to promote development of additional water resources for the county.

The most promising project, he said, is an Alder Creek reservoir. The reservoir could store water for use in drought years and in other years feed water to the El Dorado Irrigation District's hydroelectric plant.

The project, he said, was supported by a Bureau of Reclamation study in the 1990s and also has been backed by the Water Forum, a Sacramento-based group seeking to solve the region's long-term water prob-lems.

"I believe that could be built without too much controversy," Sweeney said.

In addition, he said, he will work with the Sacramento Municipal Utility District to try to obtain more water through SMUD's facilities on the upper American River.

* * *


July 30, 2003 Wednesday METRO FINAL EDITION

Sweeney will return to El Dorado board




SECTION: METRO; Pg. B3

LENGTH: 474 words

The two-month campaign for El Dorado County's District 3 supervisorial seat ended Tuesday with the election of former Supervisor Jack Sweeney.

Sweeney, who won the three-way race with 52.8 percent of the votes, will return to the post he held from 1985 to 1993.

Placerville City Councilwoman Kathi Lishman was second with 33.5 percent, and Allen Amaro, a new-comer to El Dorado County politics, finished third with 13.6 percent.

The special election was held to fill the seat of Carl Borelli, who died in April.

"I'm real happy that I get a chance to serve these people again," said Sweeney as he celebrated his vic-tory with about 130 supporters Tuesday night. "I'm so thankful that the voters understood the issues. I want to get out and meet with people and get these issues settled."

Lishman said she believed development interests prevailed, citing the financial contributions Sweeney received from people in the real estate and building industry.

But, she said, "It's been a fun campaign, and I said what I wanted to say. I have no regrets."

Amaro said he was pleased with his showing. "Without the name recognition of the other two, I think I did pretty well," he said.

The county Elections Department reported a 35.7 percent voter turnout.

Growth and the budget were identified by all three candidates during the campaign as the major chal-lenges facing the county.

Growth will be determined largely by the new general plan, which will serve as the county's blueprint for development through 2025.

El Dorado County has operated under a court writ of mandate since 1999, when a Sacramento Superior Court judge ruled that the 1996 general plan document failed to specify the effect that planned residential growth would have on traffic, water supplies and the quality of life.

Sweeney and Amaro said they favor the 1996 general plan, with changes to satisfy the court. Lishman said a new plan should include the best features of the 1996 plan and alternatives that recognize environ-mental and roadway constraints.

As for tackling the county budget, all three cited their experience in handling financial issues. Sweeney and Lishman noted that they had dealt with tight budgets as elected officials, and Amaro touted his experi-ence as a businessman.

Supervisorial races typically are campaign marathons, consisting of a March primary and a November runoff. By contrast, the special election, called in May, was a sprint, and the candidates said last week that they preferred it that way.

"It subjects the voters to less harassment, and that's good," Sweeney said.

But neither he nor District 3 voters will have much of a respite. The new supervisor was elected to com-plete a term that expires at the end of next year. And the primary for the 2004 election is only seven months away.

* * *


July 28, 2003 Monday METRO FINAL EDITION



Money race won; voters' choice next; El Dorado County rivals remain unfazed by lopsided donations.



LENGTH: 939 words

If dollars translate to votes, former El Dorado County Supervisor Jack Sweeney would appear to have the inside track for the District 3 seat in Tuesday's special election.

With campaign contributions totaling about $58,000 late last week, Sweeney has raised more than twice as much as his two opponents combined.

Sweeney said donors approached him. "This is the first time in my life that I didn't have to go out and ask people for money," he said.

Although he has received some large contributions from development interests, he said most donations have come from "moms and pops" - senior citizens, small-business owners and small builders.

Candidates Kathi Lishman and Allen Amaro are undaunted.

"I have what I believe is a real grass-roots organization," said Lishman, who has raised about $22,500 - much of it from a fund-raising auction featuring donated items. She stresses well-planned growth and says her support in the nonpartisan race crosses party lines.

"Residents need to be in charge," she said, "not the developers."

Amaro, with about $4,600 in his treasury, said he has raised what he needed. He has relied on door-to-door campaigning and appearances before community groups to get his message out. Much of his support, he said, has come from senior citizens and veterans.

Voters will select one of the three candidates Tuesday in a special election to fill the seat of Carl Borelli, who died in April.

In the special election, the candidate with the most votes will win, even without gaining a majority; a runoff election will not be held.

Michele MacIntyre, county registrar of voters, projects a 40 percent voter turnout in District 3, which in-cludes the city of Placerville and the communities of Camino, Diamond Springs, El Dorado, Greenstone Country, Newtown and most of Cedar Grove.

Sweeney, 65, owns a land surveying business. He served on the board from 1985 to 1993, but was de-feated in the primary in his bid for a third term.

Lishman, 59, has been a member of the Placerville City Council since 1988. She and Borelli served on the council together and both sought the District 3 seat in 2000. A second-grade teacher, Lishman said she would take a leave of absence from her teaching job if elected.

Amaro, 56, is making his first run for public office, although in advocating for disabled veterans he has worked with state agencies, including the Department of General Services' Small Business and Disabled Veterans Business Enterprise Program. He owns a construction services firm.

All three agree that major issues facing a new supervisor are how the county will grow and how it will pay for services given the budget's constraints.

Growth will be determined largely by a new general plan, which will chart development in the county through 2025.



The county has operated under a court writ of mandate since 1999, when a Sacramento Superior Court judge ruled that the 1996 general plan document failed to specify the effect that planned residential growth would have on traffic, water supplies and the quality of life.

Sweeney and Amaro favor the 1996 general plan, with changes required to satisfy the court, while Lish-man says the new plan should include the best features of the 1996 plan and alternative plans that would permit less growth.

All three candidates generally support the current board, but they say their experience could help super-visors through the budget crisis.

During their terms in public office, Sweeney and Lishman said they helped guide agencies through tough financial times, while Amaro cited his business experience.

Amaro said his biggest disappointment in the campaign has been partisan overtones. He and Sweeney are Republicans, and Amaro said some party members had urged him to drop out of the race, seeing him as a spoiler who could draw votes from Sweeney.

"If someone chooses to vote for someone else," he said, "you never had their vote."

Amaro said he comes to the race without political baggage, and he aims to offer voters a choice.

Sweeney discounted the impact of Amaro's candidacy on his campaign, saying that he and Amaro sought the backing of the county's Republican Central Committee and Sweeney received the endorsement.

Much of Sweeney's financial support has come from the development community, but he takes exception to a Lishman flier that says 71 percent of his campaign contributions for the 30-day period ending July 17 came from real estate, engineering and development-related businesses.

"The people she's listed in El Dorado Hills are tenants of the El Dorado Hills Business Park," Sweeney said. "Their concern is that they don't have any affordable housing near the business park for their employ-ees."

Sweeney has received large contributions from development interests, including $3,000 each from the El Dorado Builders' Exchange Political Action Committee and the California Real Estate Political Action Com-mittee, and $2,500 from the Building Industry Association's Committee for Home Ownership.

But Sweeney said the largest single donation, $5,000, was made by KFRD Investments Inc. of Plac-erville, a firm owned by his cousin.

Lishman argues that the county must recognize the limits of its resources. She said she is particularly concerned about the effects of increased traffic in the Camino, Diamond Springs and Placerville areas. She has made it a point in her campaign to alert voters to how various facets of the general plan could affect their communities.

The current Board of Supervisors, Lishman said, has done the right thing in trying to give county resi-dents control over development.


May 20, 2009 Wednesday METRO FINAL EDITION

El Dorado supervisors vote to streamline permit system

BYLINE: Cathy Locke


LENGTH: 226 words



DATELINE: PLACERVILLE

El Dorado County officials vowed to speed up the planning and permitting process, and to reduce devel-opment costs in a bid to boost the local economy.

A plan approved Monday by the Board of Supervisors calls for regulatory changes, including reducing the time to process permits and consolidating fee schedules so people know upfront how much it will cost to obtain a project application through the planning process.

The board also directed the Department of Transportation to reduce fees developers must pay for road improvements that serve growth.

Several residents criticized the plan, arguing that it emphasized new development over assistance to ex-isting businesses.

They urged the board to build on the county's recreational, historical and agricultural assets instead.

Bob Smart, a resident of Diamond Springs, a community targeted for residential and commercial growth, said an economic development plan should emphasize job creation, instead of more housing.

People want to know, he said, "How might my world get better? How might I not lose my job?"

"We can maintain standards and still be (development) friendly," said board Chairman Ron Briggs.

Businesses are needed to generate the tax dollars that support basic government services, "or the police and fire guys aren't going to show up in a couple of years," he said. "We're going to be out of money."


Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Business News

February 5, 2009 Thursday

El Dorado cuts board's budget, not supervisors' pay

BYLINE: Cathy Locke, The Sacramento Bee, Calif.

SECTION: STATE AND REGIONAL NEWS

LENGTH: 295 words

Feb. 5--Members of the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors agreed to cut the board's budget on a district-by-district basis, saying they hope to set an example as county departments face midyear budget re-ductions.

The board chose the individual approach over two other cost-cutting options, a 5 percent reduction in su-pervisors salaries for the remainder of the fiscal year or a 7 percent reduction in services and supplies, either of which would have resulted in less than a 1 percent reduction in the total board budget.

Suzanne Allen de Sanchez, clerk of the board, said individual supervisors had identified cuts in their dis-trict budgets totaling nearly $82,617, for a 5.21 percent reduction in the board's $1.58 million 2008-09 bud-get. Most supervisors said they will not seek reimbursement for mileage, conferences and other travel ex-penses. Some also have chosen to forgo various benefits or equipment purchases.

The board also supported a recommendation by Supervisor Jack Sweeney to develop uniform district budgets for 2009-10, with a differential for the District 5 supervisor, who must travel from the Tahoe Basin.



This year's district budgets range from $191,407 to $245,320. Establishing a uniform amount of $200,000 or less, Sweeney said, would reduce the board's overall budget by about 6.5 percent.


January 22, 2009 Thursday METRO FINAL EDITION

El Dorado supervisors to set example?; THEY MAY REDUCE OWN SALARIES OR GIVE UP EXPENSE ACCOUNTS



LENGTH: 420 words

Declaring their desire to lead by example, El Dorado County's supervisors will consider reducing their salaries or eliminating their expense accounts.

"We're asking people to cut, cut and cut. ... It's time we stepped up to the plate," Supervisor Jack Sweeney said Tuesday.

The board in recent months has eliminated more than 100 employee positions and implemented fur-loughs in some departments to stave off a projected $20 million deficit in the next fiscal year.

"Leadership starts with the Board of Supervisors," said Supervisor Ray Nutting. "We need to reduce our expenses, or reduce our salary."

Each board member earns $77,172 a year. With benefits, totals range from $99,900 to $106,000, said Suzanne Allen de Sanchez, clerk of the board.

Sweeney suggested either cutting supervisors' salaries by 5 percent, or eliminating the approximately $65,000 budgeted for board transportation, mileage and staff development expenses.

Because board salaries are set by ordinance, a change would not take effect for 60 days. Board expense accounts, however, could be eliminated immediately and would result in greater savings, Sweeney said.

But Nutting argued that the action is intended not only to cut costs, but to make a public statement.

"In the eye of the public, a salary reduction would be clearer than (cutting) our expenses," he said.

Eliminating expense accounts means supervisors would pay for mileage, travel and conference costs out of their salaries.

"I think it's a good sign to the employees that they're willing to share the pain," said Jere Copeland, exec-utive director of the El Dorado County Employees Association.

The board directed staff members to provide a comparison of the options Feb. 3.

No similar cuts have been proposed by boards in nearby counties.

Beth Gabor, public information officer for Yolo County, said some board members have joined about two-thirds of the county's employees in taking voluntary time off. Yolo supervisors receive $59,000 in salary, plus $19,606 annually in health-related benefits.

In Placer County, any change in board salaries requires voter approval. In November, voters rejected a measure that would have boosted supervisors' salaries from $30,000 to $48,000. County spokeswoman



Anita Yoder said the supervisors do not receive health benefits, but a total of $30,000 is budgeted for board-related travel expenses.

In Sacramento County, where supervisors' salaries are $98,334, no reduction is contemplated, said county spokesman Zeke Holst.


January 15, 2009 Thursday METRO FINAL EDITION

El Dorado plans on 13,000 new homes



LENGTH: 268 words

El Dorado County supervisors on Tuesday agreed to tailor their 10-year capital improvement program to serve a projected 13,000 new homes.

The Board of Supervisors rejected a more conservative forecast of 9,000 new homes in favor of the rec-ommendation of a diverse advisory panel that included development and real estate interests and a group that has worked to ensure that developers pay for the roads needed to serve growth.

The link between area road projects and the housing forecast becomes crucial because of the county's Measure Y, which levies fees on developers to fix traffic problems caused by their projects.

The county chief administrator's office noted the lower forecast for homes would reduce capital improve-ment program funds by about $120 million, meaning some large projects would not be included. Most af-fected would be Highway 50 interchange projects at Cambridge Road and Cameron Park Drive in Cameron Park and Ponderosa Road in Shingle Springs.

Under Measure Y, a subdivision that would worsen congestion at those interchanges could not proceed until necessary improvements were included in the capital improvement program or the developer advanced funds for the work. Underestimating the number of permits could delay subdivision developments that couldn't afford to advance the improvements.

Overestimating the the number of permits would create fewer problems, members of an advisory panel said. If growth occurred quickly, traffic impact fees would pay for the projects. If it occurred slowly, the trans-portation improvements wouldn't be needed.


October 9, 2008 Thursday METRO FINAL EDITION

El Dorado gives developers a break amid tough times

BYLINE: Cathy Locke


LENGTH: 174 words




El Dorado County supervisors moved to provide relief to individuals and developers whose construction projects have been delayed by the economic conditions.

The board agreed Tuesday to authorize a one-year extension of building and grading permits active as of May 30.

Exceptions are permits issued as part of a code enforcement action and those regulated by the Tahoe Regional Plan.

The move was prompted by numerous requests from people whose permits were about to expire. Under the county code, extending or reactivating a permit can be a time-consuming and expensive process. But un-der a measure approved by the board, the permit holder need not apply or pay a fee to obtain the one-year extension.

Cindy Shaffer, a developer who served on an ad hoc committee to streamline the county's permitting process, praised the action.

"It helps people move forward at a slower pace," she said. "It also reduces the number of applications that have to come back through for repermitting, which reduces the workload (in the Planning and Building Departments)."


August 28, 2008 Thursday METRO FINAL EDITION

Iowa Hill inaction angers residents; THEY SAY BOARD SHOULD HAVE REVIEWED EIR


SECTION: EL DORADO FOLSOM RANCHO CORDOVA; Pg. F1

LENGTH: 694 words

The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors was accused of shirking its responsibility by failing to review the environmental study for a water storage and power project proposed by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District in the county's watershed.

Camino residents vented their frustrations during the public forum portion of the board's Aug. 19 meeting.

They urged board members and county staff to analyze and submit formal comments on the environ-mental study for SMUD's proposed Iowa Hill pumped-storage facility.

Failure to do so, they said, would indicate to federal regulators that the county had no concerns with a project in a high-fire-risk area that would involve five years of construction, including two years of blasting and rock crushing, and building a new road through an environmentally sensitive area.

The finished project would pump water from Slab Creek Reservoir uphill through a shaft for storage in a reservoir that would be created by building a 140-foot-high berm atop Iowa Hill, between the communities of Camino and Mosquito.

The water would be released to generate electricity during peak demand periods.



Camino residents say the construction would create noise, heavy truck traffic and fire hazards in the heart of the popular Apple Hill area.

Although El Dorado County residents would have to contend with the problems, SMUD customers in Sacramento County would receive the benefits of the facility.

"My neighbors and I are here out of a sense of frustration," Bob Penn, a 32-year resident of Camino, told the board.

"This certainly warrants more attention than who's cutting what oak trees," he said, referring to the nearly two years of studies and meetings the county devoted to developing an oak woodland management plan.

Camino resident Jim Summers said the details and scope of the Iowa Hill project were not known when the county, as a member of the El Dorado County Water and Power Authority, agreed in 2005 to support fed-eral relicensing of SMUD's Upper American River Project.

SMUD has operated the system of 11 reservoirs and eight hydroelectric plants in El Dorado County for 50 years, supplying electricity to Sacramento County and water to the city of Sacramento. As part of the 2005 agreement, water agencies in El Dorado County will be allowed to use SMUD facilities for water deliv-ery and drought storage.

But Camino residents characterized the Iowa Hill project as an afterthought.

Summers, in a letter presented to the board, noted that one of the options in SMUD's application to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission was to approve relicensing of the Upper American River Project without the Iowa Hill project.

Penn said Supervisor Jack Sweeney, who represents the Camino area, had encouraged residents to submit written comments on the environmental report, and residents expected the county to do so as well. According to Penn, Sweeney had said the county would never give up its policing authority over such a project.

"But in failing to comment on the (environmental) document, I think you are doing just that," Penn said.

The agreement with SMUD, he said, did not relieve county officials of their responsibility to represent the best interests of county residents.

Because requests made during the public forum period are not on the agenda, state law prohibits the su-pervisors from acting on them during the meeting.

But Sweeney said the pact with SMUD included establishing the Iowa Hill Joint Advisory Committee to discuss ways to lessen the project's effects on the surrounding community.

He said he participated on the committee, which held about a dozen meetings over two years and sub-mitted some 170 comments on the environmental impacts.

"The appearance that I've ignored these folks I don't think is quite true," he said.

"SMUD will have to come and talk to us about use of our roads and how they want to use them," Sweeney said, "and that's where our police power will come in."

After the meeting, residents said the advisory committee's comments were not a substitute for a county analysis prepared by staff members with technical expertise and endorsed by elected officials.


August 22, 2008 Friday METRO FINAL EDITION

Supervisors accused of ignoring water-project study



BYLINE: Cathy Locke


LENGTH: 172 words


El Dorado County supervisors were accused of failing to review the environmental study for a water stor-age and power project proposed by the Sacramento Municipal Utility District.

Camino residents urged the board and county staff to analyze the study for the proposed Iowa Hill pumped-storage facility.

Jim Summers of Camino said the details and scope of the project were not known when the county, as a member of El Dorado County Water and Power Authority, agreed to support federal relicensing of the Upper American River Project.

SMUD has operated the system of 11 reservoirs and eight hydroelectric plants in the county for 50 years. As part of the 2005 agreement, water agencies in El Dorado County will be allowed to use SMUD facilities for water delivery and drought storage.

Supervisor Jack Sweeney said he sat on the Iowa Hill Joint Advisory Committee, which had about a dozen meetings and submitted about 170 comments on the environmental impacts.

"The appearance that I've ignored these folks I don't think is quite true," he said.


July 10, 2008 Thursday METRO FINAL EDITION

Board orders revamp of winery ordinance; Staff is told to blend an industry proposal and county alternative.


SECTION: EL DORADO FOLSOM RANCHO CORDOVA; Pg. G3

LENGTH: 500 words

In the latest move to balance the needs of winery owners and nearby residents, the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors called for melding an industry-proposed ordinance with an alternative developed by the county Planning Department.

The board last week backed off its decision in October to pursue an environmental impact report on an ordinance largely drafted by the industry.

The supervisors, in calling for the comprehensive environmental report, also had directed staff members to prepare an alternative draft ordinance.

Supervisor Jack Sweeney described the staff's alternative as "a less impactive ordinance."

Sweeney said he believed the alternative ordinance, which would require use permits for many activities that the industry-backed ordinance would allow by right, was perhaps too restrictive.



He suggested taking the staff's version and allowing some "wiggle room" to incorporate some of the pro-visions from the industry document.

Industry representatives said they preferred the format of the alternative ordinance but objected to its emphasis on use permits.

"The permit process is scary," Paul Bush of Madrona Vineyards said, citing the uncertainty, time and cost involved.

Bush said the concern was not for existing wineries, but for the effect the process would have on people who want to start wineries.

Someone considering buying agricultural land in El Dorado County might have second thoughts, Bush said. They would have to go through the special use-permit process to even decide whether they should in-vest in property, he said.

Bush noted that the special use permits are driven primarily by residential property owners' concerns about special events at wineries. But he said residents appear to have no problems with existing wineries In-stead, they cite fears about activities that might occur at new wineries.

Supervisor Ron Briggs said the special use-permit requirement was intended to give neighboring prop-erty owners a review process on which they could rely.

If the permits were free and issued over the counter, that would be OK, but as it is, Bush said, the special use-permit process is tedious and long.

"It just doesn't make sense," he said.

Sweeney said Bush's comments echoed those of land developers. They, too, think the permit process is scary, long, cumbersome and unfair, he said.

"We cannot give you free permits over the counter," he said. "It's not going to happen anymore than it is for a 60-lot subdivision."

But Sweeney said he believes there is potential for a blended ordinance with a less extensive and less expensive environmental study done by staff members rather than a consultant.

The board unanimously approved a motion by Supervisor Helen Baumann to draft a "hybridized" ordi-nance using provisions of the industry version as the starting point, but the format of the staff's alternative.

Staff members said they would bring a revised draft to the board for consideration before circulating an environmental study.


June 26, 2008 Thursday METRO FINAL EDITION

Airport's neighbor wins; Cameron Park resident is victorious in a three-year fight to build a boathouse without granting an easement.


SECTION: EL DORADO FOLSOM RANCHO CORDOVA; Pg. H1

LENGTH: 664 words



A Cameron Park resident who has waged a three-year battle for a building permit will be allowed to con-struct a boathouse without granting an easement for overflights by airplanes using a nearby airport.

The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors, on the advice of county counsel, voted last week to tempo-rarily suspend a code section requiring an avigation (aerial navigation) easement as a condition of building permits for structures near airports. The decision was a victory for Bobby Dutta and the Pacific Legal Foun-dation, a Sacramento-based organization known nationally for fighting for the rights of private property own-ers.

The foundation filed suit in El Dorado Superior Court last year on behalf of Dutta, who in 2005 applied for a building permit for a one-story boathouse at his residence.

Dutta's property is on Majar Court, east of Cameron Park Drive, and across the street from the Cameron Park Airport runway. He balked at granting the easement, arguing that the 14-foot-high structure would have no effect on airport operations, and the county refused to issue the permit.

The county, as part of a negotiated settlement, agreed to temporarily suspend the avigation and noise easement requirement and to pay $1,000 to cover Dutta's litigation costs, said Meriem Hubbard, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation in Sacramento.

"I'm pleased that the county is cooperating and making an effort to update their ordinance to make it con-stitutional," Hubbard said in a telephone interview.

The avigation easement has been required to obtain a building permit for any structure in the vicinity of one of the four municipal airports in the county.

"That is unconstitutional unless the project would have some kind of direct impact on airport operation," Hubbard said.

Michael Ciccozzi, deputy county counsel, told the supervisors the 45-day suspension of the code section was sought so staff members could consider possible revisions to comply with court rulings that have oc-curred since the avigation and noise easement requirement was adopted in 1987.

For a required easement to pass constitutional muster, he said, the county must show that there is a di-rect connection between the conditions of the easement and the proposed project's effect on airport opera-tions.

"There has to be an analysis of each project on its merits," Ciccozzi said.

The current code section takes a broad-brush approach, he said.

In addition to Dutta, Ciccozzi said the easement requirement had been challenged by a property owner who wanted to build a swimming pool. In neither case would the structures violate height restrictions for air-port safety districts, nor would they result in distracting light, glare or electronic interference that could pose a hazard for airplanes, he said.

Ciccozzi said staff members will meet with representatives of the state Department of Transportation and state Aeronautics Board to discuss potential revisions.

Joe Fuller, a Cameron Park Airport District director, said he was concerned about the effect suspending the easement requirement would have on development around the airport. He cautioned against allowing structures that would interfere with airspace and jeopardize the airport's operations.

"We're not going to let someone put a high-rise in front of the airport," board Chairman Rusty Dupray as-sured him.

The Pacific Legal Foundation in its lawsuit cited a precedent that it believes was set by a 1987 U.S. Supreme Court case, Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, which established that governments can't im-pose unrelated demands as the price of permits and other regulatory actions.

Avigation easements are a common method of protecting airports from the effects of nearby develop-ment, but under Sacramento County Airport System policies, for example, granting of an easement is volun-tary.



"There's nothing wrong with government asking for an easement," Hubbard said, "as long as you have the right to say 'no.' "


May 1, 2008 Thursday METRO FINAL EDITION

Roads funded at what cost?; Measure Y has been blamed for high traffic impact fees.



LENGTH: 525 words

With a deadline looming to place a measure on the November ballot, El Dorado County supervisors launched an effort last week to clarify and modify Measure Y, a controversial transportation initiative adopted by county voters a decade ago.

The recommendation by Supervisors Ron Briggs and Jack Sweeney was met with rare consensus in an often factious county, with Measure Y backers and longtime opponents voicing support for the move.

The 1998 measure, approved by nearly 61 percent of voters, requires new development to pay for the cost of road improvements to serve growth. Its provisions have been incorporated in the general plan, the county's blueprint for growth. But the measure included a sunset clause, which some believe requires it to go back to the voters this year. A decision is required by early July.

Although the measure has generated funds for roads, it has been blamed for high traffic impact fees that critics say discourage commercial development and thwart efforts to provide affordable housing.

Creating stumbling blocks to projects that could help solve the county's traffic problems was not the mea-sure's intent, Bill Center, a spokesman for the Measure Y Committee, said in an interview.

In the proposed modifications, Center said, "We see a clear path to actually resolving issues on all fronts."

The Board of Supervisors directed staff members last week to prepare a general plan amendment and analyze the environmental impacts of the proposed changes and to schedule a public hearing before the Planning Commission.

The matter is to return to the board by late June so the supervisors can decide whether to adopt the clar-ifying measure, adopt the clarifying measure and place it on the November ballot, place Measure Y on the ballot in its original form, or take some other action.

Supervisor Briggs said in an interview that the recommendation resulted from meetings that he and Sweeney held with members of the Measure Y Committee and representatives for the development commu-nity.

"Dysfunctional government (in the county) is due to everybody beating each other up over the general plan," Briggs said.

He said the meetings have been helpful in clarifying with Measure Y proponents the intent of the initia-tive's provisions, which in some cases are less restrictive than the county's interpretation.

"The staff errs on the side of the extreme, because they don't want to get sued," Briggs said.

The board will solicit public comment on the proposed changes before deciding whether to pursue a bal-lot measure, he said.



Center said he believes Measure Y in its original or modified form should be placed on the November ballot, and the Measure Y Committee favors the proposed modifications.

They include:

* Specifying that Measure Y applies to traffic from single-family residential subdivision development projects of five or more parcels.

* Allowing the Board of Supervisors by a four-fifths vote to exempt certain roads or highways from the measure without getting voters' approval.

* Allowing use of funds other than developer-paid traffic impact fees to pay for road capacity improve-ments.


April 3, 2008 Thursday METRO FINAL EDITION

County 'open for business'; El Dorado supervisors back streamlining of development permit process.



LENGTH: 687 words

A plan for speeding up the permitting process for new development and announcing that El Dorado County is "open for business" received preliminary but unanimous endorsement by the Board of Supervisors.

The board last week approved in concept recommendations by David Storer, a consultant serving as the county's interim assistant chief administrative officer.

Storer said organizational changes are needed in county management as well as within the Develop-ment Services Department to ensure greater accountability for performance.

He called for producing a condensed, consumer-friendly version of the general plan, the county's blue-print for growth, and establishing an ad hoc committee to prioritize the plan's implementation measures.

Describing the Development Services Department as "top-heavy," he recommended eliminating some supervisory positions, reassigning others and hiring contract employees to reduce the department's backlog.

He also proposed hiring an assistant chief county administrative officer with a background in land-use planning to serve as a "caseworker" to handle complaints and shepherd special projects through the process.

Finally, Storer recommended that the board pursue a county charter amendment to let the chief adminis-trative officer hire and fire department directors.

Such an amendment was rejected by voters in 2004. But Storer said the county suffers because "no one person is responsible for the success or failure of private development review."

Board members function as five CEOs, going directly to staff members with problems and complaints, rather than working through the chief administrative officer's office, Storer said.

"The board needs to deal with policy issues instead of day-to-day operations," he said.



In preparing his report, Storer said he interviewed 45 people -- staff members and representatives of the business community.

About 684,000 square feet of retail development is needed to stem the leakage of an estimated $229 million a year in sales tax revenue, Storer said. But development in the county is impeded by a slow and ex-pensive permitting process.

Storer said greater speed and certainty are needed if the county wants to promote economic develop-ment

The Planning Department has a backlog of 208 projects that require hearings for approval. Of the 144 for which environmental documents have been completed, 115 need work to get them to hearings, Storer said. To eliminate the backlog with current staffing would take at least six months if no new applications were sub-mitted, Storer said.

The permitting process also is hampered by the county general plan. With more than 617 policies and 219 implementation measures, Storer said, "The general plan is particularly difficult to navigate."

He recommended producing a condensed version that would retain the substance of the plan but be easier for staff members and the public to review.

Storer suggested establishing an ad hoc committee to prioritize the measures. "Figure out which of the implementation measures you're deadly serious about as a county," he advised.

Representatives of the real estate and development communities generally supported the recommenda-tions.

Developer Cindy Shaffer said, "They offer a good framework for moving forward."

Josh Wood, government affairs coordinator for the Sacramento Builders Exchange, said the organization supported Storer's proposal and urged the board to take steps to "make that happen."

The most contentious issue among board members was the recommendation to give the chief adminis-trative officer authority to hire and fire department directors.

Supervisor Ron Briggs said he favored the motion, adopted by the board, directing the CAO to report back April 29 with a proposed organizational chart, time line, fiscal impact analysis, training program and fee audit. But Briggs said he would not support a charter amendment.

Supervisor Helen Baumann said the board needed to have the courage to move forward.

"We get bogged down in micromanaging," she said, adding that the supervisors need to make sure their role is clearly defined.


March 13, 2008 Thursday METRO FINAL EDITION

Developers push ahead on Missouri Flat Road projects



LENGTH: 580 words

Developers say they are eager to move forward with two proposed retail centers in El Dorado County's Missouri Flat Road corridor as soon as road financing issues are resolved.



John Lambeth, representing partnerships pursuing commercial development north and south of Highway 50, said the projects would help stem an estimated $229 million-per-year reduction in sales tax collected and provide jobs for some of the approximately 32,400 residents who now commute out of the county for work.

Lambeth and developer Leonard Grado updated the Board of Supervisors on the El Dorado Crossing and Diamond Dorado Retail Center projects last week.

El Dorado Crossing, a 446,000-square-foot commercial center proposed north of the Highway 50-Mis-souri Flat Road interchange, is expected to include a hotel and restaurants. It would be served by an exten-sion of Headington Road that will connect El Dorado and Missouri Flat roads.

The 450,000-square-foot Diamond Dorado Retail Center is planned on 44 acres south of the proposed Diamond Springs Parkway, on land now occupied by the county's recycling center. The recycling center, known as the materials recovery facility, is operated by Folsom-based Waste Connections Inc., which pro-vides garbage collection services for much of western El Dorado County.

Waste Connections plans to relocate the facility and invest $11 million to make it a state-of-the-art opera-tion with less impact on the surrounding environment, Lambeth said.

Grado said, "It is very important that the relocation occur to promote economic development for the corri-dor."

Market studies indicate a demand for 700,000 square feet of new retail space, Lambeth said.

Grado has said he envisions the Diamond Dorado Retail Center as a "power center" with businesses similar to those along Folsom's East Bidwell Street. Grado said he expects it to include a home improvement store such as Home Depot or Lowe's, as well as stores like Target or Kohl's, and a discount grocery or Sam's Club.

Lambeth said the goal is to open the first phase of El Dorado Crossing in June 2010 and the Diamond Dorado center in July 2011.

"We've been pushing forward quite quickly on both projects to meet these deadlines," he said.

Construction of the Diamond Dorado center is contingent on relocating the recycling center and building Diamond Springs Parkway, planned as a four-lane road extending from Missouri Flat Road, north of China Garden Road, east to Highway 49.

Board Chairman Rusty Dupray said that under the state Transportation Department's five-year capital improvement program, the developer would have to front money for the parkway.

"You're on the hook for $31 million," Dupray said. "Are you prepared to put up $31 million to make that happen?"

Lambeth said project developers have been working with engineers to redesign the roadway. "Our num-ber is in the range of $22 million," he said.

David Storer, interim assistant chief administrative officer, said the Transportation Department had not yet approved the road alignment that Grado submitted.

Supervisor Norma Santiago praised the project proposals and said she was committed to seeing that they do not get bogged down in the county planning process.

Supervisor Jack Sweeney, who represents the Missouri Flat Road area, said last week's presentation was intended to make sure all board members had an overview of what was proposed.

"In three or four weeks," he said, "we'll be back with some deal points."


December 13, 2007 Thursday METRO FINAL EDITION



Supervisors OK 143-lot subdivision near Placerville; Some area residents, others raise concerns about encroachment, affordable housing.



LENGTH: 756 words

A project to create 143 residential lots on former ranchland southwest of Placerville has won the El Do-rado County Board of Supervisors' approval.

The Shinn Ranch subdivision, on 177.7 acres south of Mother Lode Drive and east of Kingvale Road in the unincorporated Kingsville community, is to be developed in three phases, beginning with the southwest portion of the acreage, said county planner Pierre Rivas.

The board approved the project last week despite concerns raised by area residents and the Agricultural Commission that it would not aid in meeting the county's affordable housing goals, and that it would result in residential encroachment on agricultural lands.

The project, proposed by Rancho Cortina Properties, calls for lots ranging in size from 13,500 square feet to 10 acres. It also will feature 70 acres of open space, with a pond, creek and walking trails.

Some area residents were concerned about the effect that increased density would have on neighboring property.

Mardi Morris said her parents own adjoining acreage and would end up with six houses along the bound-ary of their property if the Shinn Ranch project were built. That area currently is a haven for wildlife, she said.

Morris complained that her parents, who moved from the Bay Area for the rural atmosphere, "will be sur-rounded by high-density, low-income housing."

Not so, responded Camille Courtney, president of Rancho Cortina Properties. Homes in the develop-ment, she said, will sell for upward of $600,000.

Because of the topography, Courtney said, "these are not small lots."

The lack of housing affordable to people with low to moderate incomes raised concerns among afford-able housing advocates.

"I would remind the board that this will probably affect the housing element total," said Noah Briel, an El Dorado Hills resident who has been involved with the county's affordable housing task force.

The state requires that the housing element of the general plan, the county's blueprint for growth, demonstrate that land is appropriately zoned to meet the housing needs of people in various income cate-gories. The county has struggled to provide housing for people with moderate and lower incomes.

Briel noted the Shinn Ranch property has sewer access, a service that is necessary to support high-den-sity housing projects and which is lacking in many parts of the county.

John McCoy, another affordable housing advocate, said he lives near the Shinn Ranch property and also was concerned that the project would not provide housing for people who typically work in the community.

McCoy also questioned the developer's request to waive standard right-of-way requirements on Kingvale and Shinn Ranch roads.

"Mother Lode Drive is a combat zone," he said, adding that few roads in the county are pedestrian and bicycle friendly.



"I don't know why you would want to forgo a chance to create roads that are compatible with people as well as cars," McCoy said.

Supervisor Jack Sweeney said the county was reducing only the right-of-way requirement.

"It's not a significant narrowing of the road improvements," he said. "It's the right-of-way we're narrow-ing."

Access to the subdivision will be via Kingvale and Pleasant Valley roads, with an emergency-only gated entry off Shinn Ranch Road, according to the staff report.

Jim Ware, deputy director of transportation, said the project also will help fund improvements to the inter-sections of Pleasant Valley Road and Highway 49, and Pleasant Valley and Forni roads.

The county Agricultural Commission recommended the board deny a portion of the developer's request that called for splitting a 10-acre parcel next to agricultural land into two 5-acre parcels.

Agricultural Commissioner Bill Stephans argued that the general plan requires parcels of at least 10 acres next to land that is under a Williamson Act contract, to avoid conflicts between agricultural operations and other types of development. Structures on parcels adjoining agricultural lands also must be at least 200 feet from the property line.

Thaelia Georgiades, owner of the 10-acre parcel, said the 5-acre portion closest to the agricultural prop-erty, currently planted with grapes, contains a house that is more than 500 feet from the property line. She argued that a permanent 200-foot setback would provide an adequate buffer.

Board members agreed.

Supervisor Sweeney said photographs of the parcels showed a large area of oak woodland between the house and neighboring vineyard.

"I can't see the conflict," he said.



Supervisors OK park fee hike; Increase will help pay for new recreation facilities



LENGTH: 512 words

A long-stalled fee increase to help pay for parks and recreation facilities needed to serve new develop-ment in El Dorado Hills won final approval last week.

The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors approved capital improvement plans along with increases in park and recreation impact fees for the El Dorado Hills and Cameron Park community services districts.

For the El Dorado Hills district, the July 10 action concluded six months of negotiations that saw the dis-trict reduce its proposed fee increase in response to building industry and county Planning Commission con-cerns. Commission members argued that the initial proposal for a 118 percent increase would interfere with the county's efforts to provide affordable housing.



Under the schedule approved by the Board of Supervisors, the fee for a new single-family home in most of El Dorado Hills will be $9,807, a 38.6 percent increase. In Cameron Park, it will be $8,021, an approxi-mately 92.5 percent increase.

El Dorado Hills resident Rob Vomund urged the board to approve the fee increase for his community but said he was not happy with it.

"I feel the fee increase is too low," Vomund said.

Construction of park and recreation facilities has not kept pace with population growth in El Dorado Hills because the district has not collected enough money from developers, he said.

Vomund noted that a number of residents lobbied for the higher fees during a May meeting of the com-munity services district board. They complained that the neighborhood parks they were promised years ago have not been built.

He criticized home builders for using the promise of the parks to sell houses, then opposing the fees needed for the parks.

Bill Vandegrift, vice president of the El Dorado Hills Community Services District board, said he sup-ported the lower fee increase.

"There's only so much money to go around," he said. "We all have to live within the parameters of our in-come."

Bob Johnston, a longtime Cameron Park resident, said he has seen few improvements at parks in that community and questioned why the Cameron Park district needed more money.

"Building is down 33 percent," he told the supervisors. "What we're doing here is going to create a down-ward spiral."

The supervisors noted that their role is not to evaluate the amount of the fee, but rather whether the capi-tal improvement plan is consistent with the general plan, the county's blueprint for growth.

Bob Smart, a member of the county Parks and Recreation Commission, said the effect of fees on afford-able housing was a legitimate topic for discussion but praised the supervisors for leaving decisions about funding mechanisms to the community services district boards.

The county needs more such districts, Smart said, arguing that it is important "to have citizens at the grass-roots level decide how their lives should be managed."

The board approved the fees for both districts on a 4-1 vote. Supervisor Ron Briggs opposed the in-creases, citing concern about their effect on housing costs.

GRAPHIC: Sacramento Bee / Mitchell BrooksNew El Dorado Hills park and recreation fees approved The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors ap-proved a new park and recreation impact fee scheduled for the new residences in the El Dorado Hills Com-munity Services District to help pay for park and recreation facilities to serve new development. The fees are payable upon applying for a building permit.Type of dwelling / Old fee / New fee Single family / $7,073 / $9,806 Single-family Serrano* / $2,906 / $2,452 Age-restricted / $4,157 / $5,736 Multifamily / $7,073 / $8,103 Multifamily Serrano* / 0 / $2,025 Mobile home / $4,780 / $7,184*Fees for homes in Serrano are less because the developer builds the parks in those neighborhoods.Source: El Dorado County/Cameron Park Community Services DistrictSacramento Bee / Mitchell Brooks New Cameron Park park and recreation fees approved The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors approved a new park impact fee schedule for new residences in the Cameron Park Community Services District to help pay for park and recreation facilities to serve new development.Type of dwelling / Old fee / New fee Single-family detached / $4,167 / $8,021 Single-family attached / $4,167 / $5,938 Multifamily unit / $3,810 / $6,141 Mobile home / $3,810 / $3,970Source: El Dorado County/Cameron Park Community Services District




October 4, 2007 Thursday METRO FINAL EDITION

Board backs traffic fee hike; Builders call move a new blow to the new-home market.



LENGTH: 716 words

El Dorado County supervisors last week approved a 14.6 percent increase in traffic-impact fees for new construction in the county.

Builders predicted the move would further depress the market for new homes.

The fee, required under the county general plan, is designed to cover the cost of traffic improvements for new development. Beginning Nov. 24, the fees for new single-family homes will range from $13,670 to $42,400, depending on location.

The increase, an annual adjustment for inflation, is based on the state Department of Transportation's Construction Cost Index as well as actual costs of ongoing and recently completed transportation projects in the county, said Richard Shepard, transportation director.

But John Costa, legislative advocate for the North State Building Industry Association, questioned boost-ing the fees during a downturn in the housing market.

Costa also questioned the figures used to arrive at the fee increase. He said he understood that current Caltrans bids were coming in lower than expected.

"It's unfortunate the inflationary adjustment is going forward as the market continues to go down," he said.

Costa asked the Board of Supervisors to postpone action on the increase for 30 days to allow building in-dustry representatives to review cost estimates with the county staff members.

He also asked the supervisors to reconsider the distribution of fees between residential and commercial development. Currently, 84 percent of the cost of traffic improvements required for new development are as-signed to residential construction, and 16 percent to commercial construction.

Kirk Bone of Parker Development Co. also questioned the costs used to justify the fee hike, but he noted the traffic-impact fee is only one of many fees that contribute to the cost of new homes.

"As a practical matter, no- body's pulling building permits anymore. ... We're just not producing housing right now, and a lot of it has to do with these costs," Bone said.

Transportation Director Shepard said some recent bids for El Dorado County projects have come in be-low engineers' estimates, but the department's estimates typically fall in the middle of the bid range.

Placerville resident Kathi Lishman urged the board to approve the fee increase. She noted that supervi-sors who campaigned for a 2005 ballot measure asking voters to ratify the 2004 general plan touted the doc-ument as a plan that would provide for managed growth and traffic relief.

"I think (the Department of Transportation) has done a marvelous job of doing exactly what they were asked to do," Lishman said.



Others urged the board to consider the financial effect that higher fees would have on the average county resident.

Chris Alarcon of Placerville said he grew up in El Dorado County and attended Tuesday's hearing "to de-fend the survival of the middle class."

Affluent homebuyers can afford the fees, and people with low incomes are eligible for subsidized hous-ing, he said.

"When you address fees like this, look at the big picture, at how this prices out the middle class," Alarcon told the board.

Supervisor Ron Briggs said he voted for Measure Y, the 1998 ballot measure that required new develop-ment in the county to pay for traffic improvements needed to serve growth.

"I would do it again," he said.

But Briggs said he was concerned about the cumulative effect of county fees and the accuracy of figures used in calculating the traffic-impact fee increase.

He recommended postponing action on the fee increase and suggested one or two board members meet with Measure Y proponents and building industry representatives "so we can make Measure Y work."

But board Chairwoman Helen Baumann argued that the board was obligated under the general plan to adjust the fees to keep pace with inflation.

"It would be irresponsible of this board not to approve the fee structure before us," she said.

The board approved the increase on a 4-1 vote, with Briggs dissenting.

The supervisors were unanimous, however, in approving a motion by Supervisor Jack Sweeney directing Transportation Department staff members to assemble an advisory group to review the fees and methodol-ogy before coming to the board in January with an updated capital improvement program.


Distributed by McClatchy-Tribune Business News

August 27, 2006 Sunday

El Dorado slaps traffic fee on home construction: The price tags on new houses in the county will include as much as $37,000 to help fund roads.

BYLINE: Cathy Locke, The Sacramento Bee, Calif.

SECTION: STATE AND REGIONAL NEWS

LENGTH: 928 words

Aug. 27--The cost of a new home in El Dorado County will include as much as $37,000 to help pay for roads, after a fee hike approved by the county's Board of Supervisors.

The magnitude of the fee increase ranges from less than 1 percent to 30 percent, depending on location. The hike received guarded backing from the building and real estate industry, but some say it may set the course for a building moratorium.



Funding the services needed for new homes is an issue in all growth areas, and governments take differ-ent routes to pay for them, including one-time fees and special assessments. In El Dorado County, officials primarily use one-time fees on each new home and commercial building.

The fee increase puts the majority of the burden for handling traffic growth on new residences rather than on new business construction.

The Board of Supervisors adopted the traffic impact mitigation fee program to meet requirements of the 2004 general plan, the county's blueprint for growth. The new fees replace higher interim fees that were ap-proved in June to keep pace with rising road construction costs.

"There are people who say we're wrong and people who say we're right." board Chairman Jack Sweeney said.

The board approved the new fee program on a 3-1 vote. Supervisor Rusty Dupray favored retaining the higher interim fees. "I don't want to do to future boards what past boards have done to me," he said, arguing that current problems result from a failure to collect enough money.

Transportation Director Richard Shepard said the new program meets general plan requirements for level of service on various roads and provides money to offset fees for affordable housing. The county antici-pates it will need $608.5 million in traffic impact fees over the next 20 years.

By allocating 84 percent of the costs to residential development and only 16 percent to nonresidential construction, Shepard said, the program satisfies board concerns that higher fees for business and commer-cial construction could stymie economic development. He said the division of costs is justified because ap-proximately 65 percent of nonresidential growth, such as new grocery stores, results directly from increased population.

Fees for new homes in the county will range from $13,670 to $37,000, depending on where they are built. The highest fees will be charged for development in the Cameron Park-Rescue area, and the area along Highway 50 west of Placerville.

Shepard said $1 million in federal and state transportation funds will be set aside annually to allow the county to offer reduced fees for affordable housing. In addition, $92.4 million in state and federal funds will be used to reduce nonresidential fees.

Art Marinaccio, a Shingle Springs resident who has served on advisory committees to develop the fee program, commended Transportation Department staff members for the new plan. He praised the $1 million annual set-aside for affordable housing.

"I don't think it's the ultimate fix," Marinaccio said, "but it's a darn good start."

Dolly Wager, representing the El Dorado County Builders Exchange, made up of people in the construc-tion trades, said county staff members were faced with a difficult task.

However, Wager questioned placing so much of the financial burden on new residential development, saying the decision is likely to discourage individuals and small developers from building in the county. "It af-fects electricians, roofers ... and the family that would have our members build their home," she said.

Critics also said that by spreading costs over 20 years, the program won't raise enough money to fund traffic improvements needed to serve growth projected within the next 10 years.

Some also objected to using state and federal road funds to offset fees, arguing that money should go toward correcting existing road deficiencies.

"I'm real happy I'm not a member of the Board of Supervisors, because you don't have a lot of great op-tions in front of you," county Auditor-Controller Joe Harn told the board."

Board members must either change general plan policies governing traffic improvements and how they are funded, or ask voters to approve a sales tax increase to help pay for road projects, Harn said.

Otherwise, he said, Tuesday's action will, in effect, lead to a moratorium on issuing building permits in five to 10 years.



Former county Supervisor Bill Center said, "I couldn't agree more with Joe Harn. That is a little frighten-ing."

Center said he was speaking as an advocate of Measure Y, an initiative approved by voters in 1998, which requires developers to pay for roads to handle traffic generated by their projects. The measure's provi-sions are part of the general plan and require that road improvements keep pace with growth.

Center said the new fee program "simply does not work."

The county can't count on receiving the projected amount of state and federal money, and furthermore, he said, Measure Y doesn't allow using that money to pay for projects required because of new develop-ment.

Center noted that Shepard had acknowledged that if growth continued at a steady pace, the program would experience a $130 million shortfall in 10 years.

Board members said the fees will be reviewed and adjusted annually to meet changing needs and costs.


June 25, 2006 Sunday METRO FINAL EDITION

Board ups traffic fees on building; El Dorado approves 44% hike to cover rising cost of roads.



LENGTH: 449 words

The cost of building a new home in El Dorado County could include more than $40,000 in traffic impact fees under a resolution adopted by the Board of Supervisors.

The board Tuesday approved a 44 percent inflationary increase in the fees to reflect rising road-con-struction costs.

"I won't say, 'What's the pleasure of the board?'" Chairman Jack Sweeney commented in calling for a motion on the fee hike. "I don't think it's the pleasure of anybody."

The board in September approved an interim fee program to fund road construction and improvements to accommodate traffic generated by new residential, commercial and industrial development in the county. The September resolution directed the Department of Transportation to update the fee schedule on or about April 1 of each year to reflect increases or decreases in construction costs.

Transportation Director Richard Shepard said the adjustments are based on the California Department of Transportation Price Index for specific construction items.

The fees approved in September were based on project cost estimates at the end of the third quarter of 2004, Shepard said. The fees approved Tuesday reflect increases in the Caltrans index for the 12-month pe-riod of Oct. 1, 2004 to Sept. 30, 2005, he said.

Shepard noted that the county has seen significant increases in transportation project costs in recent months. In April, for example, the bid for widening Green Valley Road from Francisco Drive in El Dorado Hills to the Sacramento County line came in 48percent higher than the engineer's December 2005 estimate.



The fees apply only to new construction. Under the new schedule, which becomes effective in 60 days, fees for single-family residences will range from $18,513 to $40,886, depending on location. Fees for general commercial development will range from $10.85 to $14.89 per square foot.

Unlike the September hearing, where builders and prospective homeowners complained that the traffic impact mitigation fees would price them out of the county, Tuesday's discussion drew little public comment.

Todd Schwenk, a Greenstone-area resident, asked the board to consider exemptions for people who in-tend to occupy the homes they build. He particularly urged a waiver of fees for secondary dwellings, or granny flats.

County Auditor-Controller Joe Harn said the county's sales tax is not raising enough money, and the higher fees will make it almost impossible to attract new retail businesses.

He suggested the board consider offsetting the fees by granting retail enterprises a partial credit for sales taxes generated during their first three to five years in business.

GRAPHIC: Sacramento BeeFee options The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday approved a 44 percent inflationary in-crease in traffic impact mitigation fees, which apply to new construction. Under the new fee schedule, which becomes effective in 60 days, the cost of building a new home in some areas of the county will include more than $40,000 in traffic impact fees.Locator map of El Dorado County with Zones 1-8 outlinedZone / Area / Single-Family home / General commercial* 1 / East of Pollock Pines / $18,364 / $10.85 2 / Cameron Park/Rescue / $40,886 / $14.89 3 / West of Placerville along Hwy. 50 / $40,886 / $14.89 4 / North-west area of county / $19,582 / $11.77 5 / Along Hwy. 50 east of Placerville / $18,513 / $11.77 6 / Southeast of Placerville / $24,301 / $11.77 7 / Southwest area of county / $21,012 / $11.77 8 / El Dorado Hills / $32,678 / $12.05* Per square feetSource: El Dorado County Department of Transportation


November 6, 2005 Sunday METRO FINAL EDITION

El Dorado looks at commercial restrictions; Old rules make it difficult to compete, developers contend.



LENGTH: 751 words

With a new general plan in place and local land-use authority restored, the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors has targeted building restrictions widely seen as obstacles to effective commercial development.

On Tuesday, supervisors are scheduled to consider alternatives to the regulations, one of which limits the amount of floor space that can be built in proportion to lot size, the other that limits impervious surfaces - what the general plan identifies as roofs, roads, sidewalks or paved parking lots.

Those alternatives will be presented in a staff report that was ordered by supervisors Oct. 18.



Voter support of a board- approved general plan in March's election led to the lifting of a court order that had governed the county's land use since 1999. Having the general plan in place gives county leaders more discretion in charting the course of development.

"We've been unable to resolve it because we haven't had our land-use authority," Supervisor Helen Bau-mann said. "Now we have it."

Even factions typically at odds over growth and traffic issues in the county agreed during last year's gen-eral plan hearings that the floor area ratio should be revised. The ratio restricts floor space to about 25 per-cent of the total size of the parcel being developed.

Developers, particularly in the El Dorado Hills Business Park, have criticized the floor area ratio and lim-its on impervious surfaces. They say the rules leave the park unable to compete.

The surface restrictions mean "you have to leave half the land in weeds," business park developer Sammy Cemo said in an interview.

The general plan, adopted by the Board of Supervisors in 2004, was based on a version written in 1996 that included the restrictions. They were not changed because supervisors said they feared change at that point would have required recirculating environmental documents and delayed the plan's adoption.

County staff members could not explain during the 2004 general plan hearings why the restrictions were included in the 1996 document.

Developers have argued that traffic generated by El Dorado Hills Business Park activities is limited by a cap on the number of full-time employees. Similarly, water quality and drainage, which are affected by build-ings and paved surfaces, are covered by state regulations and county ordinances.

"It's frustrating when there really isn't an identifiable reason for it," said Art Marinaccio, a consultant who represents property owners in land-use matters, of the floor area ratio.

"I don't know of any constituency in the county that thinks it doesn't need to be fixed."

Supervisor Jack Sweeney said, "We want people to put a project on that property that looks nice and works nice."

The county, he said, has spent years planning for residential growth and not enough time planning for economic growth.

"We've provided a place for people to sleep, but not to work," Sweeney said.

Floor area and impervious surface restrictions should be revised countywide, he said, arguing that they also affect business operations such as agriculture.

Representatives of the El Dorado County Farm Bureau and El Dorado County Association of Realtors supported pursuing changes countywide.

Limits on floor space could affect wine-tasting rooms, cold-storage facilities and other agriculture-related construction, especially on small parcels, said Valerie Zentner, Farm Bureau executive director.

Kimberly Beal, government affairs director for the Association of Realtors, said county staff members would have to consider such revisions in updating the zoning ordinance to comply with the new general plan. In some cases, she said, the changes would affect traffic.

But Beal said economic development is as important as residential development.

Virginia Crespo, a member of the Affordable Housing Coalition of El Dorado County, said easing the re-strictions on business developments would aid the push for more affordable housing by improving the jobs-housing balance. "It's much easier when you have good economic development in the county," she said.

Marinaccio said the county must allow denser development if it hopes to attract light-rail service to the business park.



Development Services Director Greg Fuz said he would provide supervisors with a scope of work and a schedule for bringing an amendment to them. The general plan amendment process, he said, would include an environmental review and hearings before the Planning Commission.


September 25, 2005 Sunday METRO FINAL EDITION

Road fees draw anger; El Dorado supervisors want new construction to take up the slack for the time being.



LENGTH: 993 words

The long-running debate over who should pay for roads needed to serve new development in El Dorado County boiled over again as the Board of Supervisors adopted interim fees to accommodate increased traf-fic.

Approval followed a three-hour hearing Tuesday, during which residents protested that they were being priced out of the county, while others maintained the fees were inadequate to prevent gridlock on county roads.

Supervisors unanimously declared the transportation impact mitigation fees too low but were divided on whether to proceed anyway or lose revenue while county staff members refine the plan.

"For each week we wait, we're going to lose a half-million dollars," said Supervisor Jack Sweeney. "We're in a right position today to adopt an interim fee and at least raise it some."

The board voted 3-1, with Chairman Charlie Paine dissenting, to approve an interim fee program that will take effect in 60 days, replacing a fee program adopted in 2002. They also directed staff members to con-tinue analyzing project costs and funding options and to report to the board Jan. 10.

The fees apply to new construction. In response to the board's concerns that significant fee hikes for commercial development could discourage businesses from locating in El Dorado County, the new fee schedule reflects no increases for non-residential development.

Economic studies show that substantial non-residential uses are attributable to the population or residen-tial growth in the county, the staff member report says.

As a result, the report says, 84 percent of project costs were allocated to residential development, and 16 percent to non-residential growth.

That distribution drew complaints from representatives of the El Dorado Builders Ex- change and prospective homeowners.

Juline Aguilar said she grew up in Placerville and recently returned with her family after living in the Bay Area. They bought property and planned to build a home, but "this may break the deal for us," she said of the transportation impact fees.

The fees for single-family residences will range from $12,749 to $28,384.

"We were priced out of the Bay Area, and now we're being priced out of here," Aguilar said.



Developers of large subdivisions should bear a larger share of the burden, she argued.

Several people accused Sweeney and Supervisor Helen Baumann, who campaigned for the 2004 gen-eral plan in the March referendum, of failing to fulfill their promise to limit growth and fix traffic.

Harry Mercado of Lotus noted that the county Transportation Department reported in July that of nearly $630 million for road projects needed over the next 20 years, about $446 million would have to come from transportation impact fees.

"Now we see some sort of creative accounting," he said, noting that the $446 million had been reduced to $241 million in Tuesday's staff member report.

Staff members said the reduction was due in part to analyses showing that six Highway 50 interchanges could be developed incrementally, spreading the costs over 20 years, rather than 10 years, as initially pro-posed.

Former Supervisor Bill Center said the interim fee program is based on hope rather than knowledge. "You should also hope for divine intervention," he said.

Tom Infusino, a land-use attorney who has represented environmental groups in lawsuits against the county, urged supervisors to postpone adopting the fee program for a week, saying revenue and cost data had not been made public fast enough.

The interim fee is inadequate to offset the effects of new development, he said, and the distribution of costs is unjust. If the board adopted the fees, he said, residents would "seek justice elsewhere."

Kimberley Beal, government affairs director for the El Dorado County Association of Realtors, questioned the division of costs between residential and commercial development. She asked the board to re-evaluate the program within six months

Representatives of the Tax-payers Association of El Dorado County and Surveyors, Architects, Geolo-gists and Engineers encouraged the board to adopt the fees.

Art Marinaccio, who represented the Taxpayers Association on an advisory committee that helped de-velop the program, said fees could not be set so high that they would stop commercial activity. Large upscale residential developments also will pay a fair share, he said, noting that the highest fees will be charged for new homes in the El Dorado Hills, Cameron Park and Shingle Springs areas .

"I think this is a good first step," he said.

Paine and Supervisor Rusty Dupray said the fees don't reflect cost escalation factors and questioned spreading costs of the interchange projects over 20 years.

Dupray said he voted reluctantly for the interim fee program. "We need to stop the bleeding," he said. "That's the only reason I want to do it."

The Bee's Cathy Locke can be reached at (916) 608-7451 or [email protected]

DRIVING UP COSTS

Under the interim transportation mitigation impact fee program adopted by the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors, fees for different types of new development depend on geographic zones:

* Zone 1, area east of Pollock Pines: single-family home, $12,749; general commercial, $7.53 per square foot.

* Zone 2, Cameron Park and Rescue: single-family home, $28,384; general commercial, $10.34 per square foot.

* Zone 3, area west of Placerville along Highway 50: single-family home, $28,384; general commercial, $10.34 per square foot.

* Zone 4, northwest area of county: single-family home, $13,594; general commercial, $8.17 per square foot.



* Zone 5, area along Highway 50 east of Placerville: single-family home, $12,852; general commercial, $8.17 per square foot.

* Zone 6, area southeast of Placerville: single-family home, $16,870; general commercial, $8.17 per square foot.

* Zone 7, southwest corner of county: single-family home, $14,587; general commercial, $8.17 per square foot.

* Zone 8, El Dorado Hills: single-family home, $22,686; general commercial, $8.36.



Supervisors boost their salary



LENGTH: 601 words

With the support of fellow elected officials and a county taxpayers group, the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors voted itself a 39 percent pay raise over the next 18 months.

The board, on a 4-1 vote, gave preliminary approval to the salary adjustment, which initially would in-crease board members' salaries from $55,390 annually to $56,775. Additional increases over the next 18 months would boost the figure to $76,875 by January 2007.

Final action is scheduled for Tuesday.

Board Chairman Charlie Paine dissented without explanation. In an interview, he said some pay adjust-ment was warranted but added that he found it difficult to vote for his own raise.

"I knew what the pay was when I ran, and that's what I signed up for," Paine said.

Jim Wiltshire, assistant county chief administrative officer, explained during the board's June 28 meeting that board members' pay is set by a county ordinance. It specifies that supervisors' salaries and benefits shall increase in proportion to increases in the salary and benefits for elected department heads.

A recent compensation survey showed that salaries for many job classifications within El Dorado County government were below those of comparable counties. To be more competitive in recruiting employees, the board has undertaken to boost salaries.

Wiltshire said the supervisors' raises are consistent with the method used to calculate increases for members of employee groups and elected department heads.

Supervisor David Solaro, who will retire from the board July 15, said he was comfortable supporting the increase. "It's important to keep salaries competitive so we can get qualified people to run," he said.

People may not realize that most board members devote more than 45 hours a week to the job, he said.

Auditor-Controller Joe Harn also supported the increase, saying board members will have to work very hard to oversee implementation of the county's general plan.

Joining him in endorsing the raise were Sheriff Jeff Neves and Treasurer-Tax Collector Cheri Raffety.

The Taxpayers Association of El Dorado County also submitted a letter of support.



El Dorado County board members currently rank second in terms of salary among boards in a five-county area including Sacramento, Placer, Yolo and Nevada counties.

In Sacramento County, board members receive $79,116 a year. The salary is set at 55 percent of the salary for a Superior Court judge, said administrative services officer Sandra Leahy.

In Yolo County, supervisors received a 3.7 percent raise July 1, boosting their annual salary to $49,223. The figure is based on 33 percent of the salary for county Superior Court judges, said John Clark, the county's deputy chief administrative officer.

In Nevada County, board members receive $37,185 annually, with a 5 percent differential for the board chairman. Pat Ward, the board's senior analyst, said increases are considered annually as a weighted aver-age of adjustments provided to all employee groups.

Board members in Placer County trail their counterparts in the five-county region with an annual salary set and capped by voters at $30,000 in 1992.

COMPARING THEIR PAY El Dorado County supervisors on Tuesday are expected to give final approval to increases in their salaries that by January 2007 will make their annual pay $76,875. The raise will continue the supervisors' ranking as the second-highest paid in the region. Here's a comparison with supervisors in neighboring counties:

Sacramento: $79,116 El Dorado: $56,775 Yolo: $49,223 Nevada: $37,185 Placer: $30,000


June 26, 2005 Sunday METRO FINAL EDITION

Fee increases are approved

BYLINE: Cathy Locke


LENGTH: 100 words

The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors last week approved a 16 percent increase in the hourly rate for services performed by the Environmental Management Department.

Effective July 1, the rate will increase from $100 to to $116 an hour. Environmental Management Director Jon Morgan said the fees reflect the actual cost of service.

He said the additional $227,500 in revenue the increase will provide will help fund positions to handle im-plementation of the county general plan, naturally occurring asbestos issues, monitoring for West Nile virus and mosquito abatement in the western part of the county.


February 26, 2005 Saturday Correction Appended

METRO FINAL EDITION

Spending spree on El Dorado measures;



Efforts to influence voters on a controversial county land-use issue reach an unusual level.



LENGTH: 1499 words

Two ballot measures related to land use and traffic have pushed campaigning in El Dorado County into a new and expensive arena.

Efforts to influence voters that began last fall with neighborhood coffees and community forums moved to the airwaves as a group calling itself "We Can't Afford Measure D" began running television advertisements.

The ads, featuring El Dorado County growers and vintners, appear on broadcast and cable television at a cost of $181,475, according to campaign finance statements filed Thursday.

Barbara O'Connor, a political analyst and communications professor at California State University, Sacramento, questions how effective the ads are in an election dealing with complicated land-use issues.

"Typically, if you buy for a market of that size, you would need close to $1 million to have it make a dent," she said.

She noted, however, that the anti-Measure D ads have an advantage of not competing with other televi-sion campaign ads in the March election.

Political veterans on both sides of the ballot issues say it is unusual for El Dorado County campaigns to be waged via television.

"I think they are trying to buy the election," said former county Supervisor Bill Center, a leader of the group that circulated petitions to place Measures B and D on the March 8 ballot.

Campaign finance statements released through Thursday showed that three campaign committees op-posing Center's group had raised slightly more than $645,000 and spent approximately $777,000. Center's "No Gridlock Committee" had raised approximately $136,500 and spent about $71,400, according to cam-paign statements.

Art Marinaccio, a Measure D opponent, said the television spots and campaign expenditures illustrate the election's importance. A large voter turnout is necessary for a decisive outcome, he said.

"Voters just have to understand how important this is. It is difficult to explain to people how it is relevant to them," Marinaccio said.

Measures B and D are part of the county's long-running land-use battles.

Measure B is a referendum on the county general plan, adopted by the Board of Supervisors in July. Measure D, a related initiative, would amend the county charter to tie approval of new development to im-provements to Highway 50. It would prohibit supervisors from adopting a general plan that at buildout would cause gridlock conditions on the highway during peak periods.

To avoid gridlock, Measure D would prohibit supervisors from approving single-family residential lot splits or subdivisions of three or more parcels until Highway 50 is widened to eight lanes between Cameron Park and the Sacramento County line. Proponents say the measure would not restrict building on the more than 20,000 parcels already approved nor would it affect commercial, agricultural or multifamily residential devel-opment.

Petition drives to place the measures on the ballot were led by a group of current and former elected offi-cials who objected to the board's decision to select, from three alternatives, the plan that allows the most



growth. They have squared off in recent months against other elected officials who maintain the board-adopted plan is a compromise between pro-growth and slow-growth interests.

Supporters of the board-adopted general plan urge a "yes" vote on Measure B and a "no" vote on Mea-sure D. Opponents of the general plan say vote "no" on B and "yes" on D.

The "Yes on B" campaign, the "We Can't Afford Measure D" committee and the similarly aligned "Tax-payers for Responsible Government" have raised significantly more than their opposition.

"We calculate we're being outspent at least 10-to-1," said Nancy Campbell, president of the League of Women Voters, El Dorado County. The league opposes Measure B and supports D because the 2004 gen-eral plan did not adequately involve regional and state transportation agencies, she said.

Measure B proponents cite broad support from the business, agricultural and educational communities, as well as endorsements from state Sen. Dave Cox, R-Fair Oaks, Assemblyman Tim Leslie, R-Tahoe City, and Rep. John Doolittle, R-Roseville.

Opponents of Measure B, including Center and Supervisor Charlie Paine, say traffic is the key issue in both measures. Development already approved would require an eight-lane Highway 50 between Cameron Park and the Sacramento County line to avoid gridlock during peak periods, they say. They contend the gen-eral plan would allow 78,000 new homes and boost population from 121,000 to 317,000 over approximately the next 20 years.

They say that growth would triple traffic on county roads, while the only improvement to Highway 50 planned during the next 20 years is adding a car pool lane between El Dorado Hills and Cameron Park.

"The issue that drove us was that the entire plan is based upon a fiction," Center told voters during a re-cent forum in Camino. An eight-lane Highway 50 isn't funded and hasn't been approved by any state or re-gional agency, he said.

Supervisors Jack Sweeney and Helen Baumann, Measure B supporters, say general plan opponents are focusing on the wrong figures.

Those who say the 2004 plan allows too much growth cite housing and population projections for build-out, figures Sweeney said won't be reached.

He said with a projected average of about 1,300 building permits being issued each year, by 2025 ap-proximately 30,000 new homes would be constructed. Topography, road and environmental restrictions in the plan also would keep growth in check, he said.

Sweeney agreed that Highway 50 isn't likely to be widened to eight lanes in the next 20 years.

"I don't think we would want eight lanes," he told a Camino audience. "We ought to adopt a general plan and encourage people to live and work in El Dorado County."

Center countered that a balance of jobs and housing is ideal, but to afford the county's upscale homes, residents typically work in high-paying jobs elsewhere.

Sweeney and Baumann argue that Highway 50 traffic can be alleviated by improving parallel thorough-fares such as Green Valley and White Rock roads.

David Pratt, a grower featured in the anti-Measure D television ad, said traffic fees from new develop-ment finance improvements in more populated areas that otherwise would siphon county money from work on rural roads.

Measure B proponents claim support from an electorate they say is weary of years of debate and the cost - an estimated $15 million - of creating a general plan. Sweeney calls the election the most important in El Dorado County.

"We need to stop general planning and get back to county business," he told an El Dorado Hills audi-ence.

Supporters of Measure B say rejection of the 2004 general plan would start another long, expensive process to develop a new plan.



But opponents point out that environmental studies were done for three alternatives and say supervisors could adopt one within a few months. They also point out that 70 percent of voters a year ago rejected a measure calling for adoption of the 1996 general plan alternative, on which the 2004 plan is based.

Measure B backers counter that many people opposed last year's measure because they dislike "ballot-box planning."

But Center, the no-on-B, yes-on-D advocate, argues it was a clear message that residents want to limit growth and traffic congestion, noting that Measure B proponents have incorporated that sentiment into their campaign.

"They're telling the public what the public wants to hear," Center said.

* * *

The Bee's Cathy Locke can be reached at (916) 608-7451 or [email protected]

Tale of two measures

Two key ballot measures facing voters in El Dorado County on March 8 are Measure B and Measure D. Both have generated intense interest on both sides of the issues they address. Here is a brief look at each:

Measure B

* A referendum on the 2004 El Dorado County General Plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors.

* A "yes" vote is a vote to adopt the plan. A "no" vote is a vote to reject the plan.

Measure D

* A county charter amendment.

* Prohibits the Board of Supervisors from adopting a general plan that would result in gridlock conditions on Highway 50 during peak traffic periods at buildout.

* Prohibits the Board of Supervisors from approving single-family residential lot splits or subdivisions of three or more parcels until Highway 50 is widened to eight lanes between Cameron Park and the Sacra-mento County line.

* The measure would not restrict building on parcels already approved, nor would it affect commercial, agricultural or multifamily residential development.

* A "yes" vote is a vote to amend the charter. A "no" vote is a vote against the amendment.

Major campaign donors

* "Yes on B" and "No on D" - California Alliance for Jobs Rebuild California Committee, $180,000; Ser-rano Associates, $84,000; Doug Veerkamp General Engineering Inc., $59,900; Wetsel Oviatt Lumber Co., $45,000; attorney John G. Sinadinos, $20,000.

* "No on B" and "Yes On D" - Moore Methods, $47,119 in nonmonetary contributions; EPIC of George-town, $6,000; Sierra Club-Maidu Group, $5,923.


October 3, 2004 Sunday METRO FINAL EDITION

County approves its final budget; Auditors warns against the rising cost of employees' and retirees' benefits.





LENGTH: 559 words

El Dorado County supervisors adopted a final 2004-05 general fund budget totaling $173.2 million amid warnings from the auditor-controller that more needs to be done to protect the county against the rising cost of employee benefits and retiree health insurance.

The budget adopted Tuesday represents an 11.1 percent increase over last year, said Laura Gill, county chief administrative officer. Although total projected revenue for all county funds is $350.1 million, a 23 per-cent increase over last year's figure, Gill said the actual growth is about 6.2 percent.

The remainder results from a new accounting standard that requires departments that have trust fund revenues for operating expenditures to appropriate that money in a new "special revenue" fund. As a result, Gill said, budgets appear larger than in previous years.

The final budget also reflects a year-end fund balance for 2003-04 of about $14.8 million, nearly twice the amount projected in the preliminary budget approved in June. Gill said about $1.3 million of that could be relied upon in coming years.

She noted that the budget also includes a $4.8 million, or 3 percent, contingency and an $8 million, or 5 percent, reserve for economic uncertainties. The two funds combined give the county a "rainy day" reserve sufficient to cover a month of operational costs, she said.

"The board has done very well building up reserves over the last two years," Gill said.

Although the board voted unanimously to adopt the budget, Supervisor Helen Baumann said she was concerned that the county was committing one-time money to ongoing expenses.

"I want to make sure I'm not making promises I can't keep," she said.

Baumann and Auditor-Controller Joe Harn said they are concerned that despite increases in reserve and contingency funds, the county is not keeping pace with the rising costs of employee and retiree benefits.

Harn raised the specter of the city of San Diego, which has found itself in the red because it underfunded its employee pension program.

Like many public agencies, El Dorado County enhanced its employee retirement program in the late 1990s when the stock market was at its peak, Harn said. The Board of Supervisors adopted a retirement plan that he described as "buy now, pay much later."

Acknowledging that the county has a compensation problem that has made it difficult to attract and retain employees, Harn said, "I'm not saying tear up the contracts with the unions." But, he said, what is happening in San Diego is going to be a topic of discussion statewide.

If the county doesn't roll back benefits, he said, it must build up its reserves to cover costs in years to come. Although the county has increased its reserve funds, Harn said, "Our obligation to employees and re-tirees is going up faster than we're socking it away in our general reserve."

Supervisor Jack Sweeney asked why Baumann and Harn hadn't voiced their concerns earlier during budget hearings. He urged Harn to provide the board with figures about the county's long-term financial obli-gations.

Gill said consultants are conducting an actuarial study.

Harn urged the board to adopt the budget Tuesday and said he could provide more specific information in four to six weeks on the long-term effects of retirement and benefit programs.

* * *





El Dorado County voters won't decide term limits

BYLINE: Cathy Locke

SECTION: EL DORADO FOLSOM RANCHO CORDOVA; Pg. H4

LENGTH: 97 words

El Dorado County voters won't be asked to decide this year on term limits for members of the county Board of Supervisors.

The supervisors agreed unanimously July 13 to drop the term-limit question from the proposed county charter amendments that will appear on the November ballot.

The charter review committee had recommended asking voters to eliminate term limits for the board members, but the supervisors said the issue had become highly politicized and that the amendment likely would have been defeated.

Supervisors currently may serve no more than two consecutive four-year terms.


February 1, 2004 Sunday METRO FINAL EDITION

Supervisor takes on free speech; Jack Sweeney finds that his proposal to restrict public comment is an unpopular one.



LENGTH: 846 words

The right to free speech and the orderly pursuit of government business collided when a member of the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors sought to limit one to further the other.

Even as he introduced his proposal to restrict public comment during the open forum part of board meet-ings, Supervisor Jack Sweeney acknowledged that he appeared to have run afoul of popular opinion.

"It looks like I stepped in something," he said.

Sweeney had placed an item on Tuesday's agenda asking the board to limit to three the number of speakers addressing the same topic during open forum, a time set aside during the meeting for people to speak about subjects not on the agenda. Speakers are advised that the board can listen to their comments but may take no action.



Sweeney said he was concerned that members of the public and the county staff who have come to meetings to discuss items on the agenda have had to wait through lengthy open forums.

Such was the case at several meetings in the fall as members of the El Dorado County Employees Asso-ciation used the open forum to air their dissatisfaction with the progress of labor negotiations.

Sweeney opened the discussion by withdrawing his initial request and recommending that the board consider an alternative proposed by the Taxpayers Association of El Dorado County.

The association suggested limiting the open forum at the beginning of board meetings to 30 minutes and providing an extended session as needed at the conclusion of the meetings.

Neither proposal found much favor among people who spoke to the issue during Tuesday's meeting.

Heidi Weiland, executive director of the El Dorado County Employees Association, said the association was concerned about the proposal "because we felt like it was a direct slap at our membership."

Such a measure, she said, would infringe upon the rights of county residents and taxpayers, as well as county employees.

"We're concerned about taking those rights away from anyone," Weiland said.

County employee Patricia Gaylord said she had a son fighting in Iraq to secure basic rights for people there, and she was dismayed to see those rights threatened by local government.

"It may be an inconvenience to sit and listen to all of us," Gaylord said, "but we are the people."

Mary Jane Battaglia of Pleasant Valley said she had seen many occasions when the boardroom was filled with people wishing to speak on an issue and suggested the board consider a compromise. When a speaker makes a point, she said, the board could poll the audience to determine the number of people who agree. Succeeding speakers would have to raise new points, she said.

Sam Koch, chief shop steward for the employees association, said lengthy open forums in recent months have been driven by unusual circumstances. Employees have been concerned about reductions in health benefits, county budget cuts and the prospect of layoffs, he said, describing the situation as "an anomaly."

"I see this as a knee-jerk reaction, rather than something really thought through," Koch said of the pro-posed restrictions on open forums.

Splitting the session between the beginning and end of a board meeting would break the continuity, he said.

Others argued, however, that the right to free speech must be balanced with the right of citizens to have government business conducted efficiently.

"The fact is free speech is important, but you have to understand that free speech isn't really free," said Art Marinaccio, a taxpayers association member. "When open forum goes on and on, it's not free to the county, it's not free to employees, and it's not free to people here to have business done," he said.

The county can't afford to have people sit through long, drawn-out open forums, Marinaccio said, adding, "It's a financial issue that needs to be dealt with."

Sweeney said his recommendation was not directed at the employees association, nor did he intend to take away people's rights. "It's about protecting people's rights," he said.

Sweeney said it had been pointed out to him that "someone could come in in the guise of open forum and wreak havoc on our meetings."

While acknowledging their colleague's concerns, Sweeney's fellow board members said they were not inclined to change the open-forum procedures.

"I would ask that we let this die," said board Chairman Rusty Dupray. In his three years on the board, Dupray said open forums had lasted more than 30 minutes on only a few occasions.



Supervisor Helen Baumann said she knew Sweeney was concerned about inconveniencing people scheduled to make presentations to the board. For that reason, she said, the period for formal presentations or recognitions has been moved ahead of open forum on the agenda.

"I think we all have an obligation to listen to people," said Supervisor Charlie Paine. Many board meet-ings are lengthy because of questions posed by the supervisors themselves, he said.

"I would say something," said Supervisor David Solaro, "but three members of the board have already spoken on the issue."

The Business Journal-Sacramento

July 24, 1989

Regional Mall Proposed in Placerville

BYLINE: Mike Pulley

SECTION: Vol 6; No 17; Sec 1; pg 1

LENGTH: 1081 words

DATELINE: Placerville; CA; US

With one proposal to build a new regional shopping mall in Placerville apparently on the skids, fortunes appear to be rising for a competing project now proposed for a nearby site.

El Dorado Plaza Partnership, a venture led by Citadel Equities Group Inc. in Rancho Cordova, has gained control of 85 acres on the outskirts of Placerville at Highway 50 and Missouri Flat Road.

The partnership wants to develop a 400,000-square-foot shopping mall -- roughly the size of County Fair Mall in Woodland -- within the next two to three years, said Doug Sutherland, managing general partner.

The El Dorado Plaza group is seeking a joint venture with a major mall developer, he said. He declined to reveal the identity of the potential venture partner, saying negotiations are still under way.

The Sammis Co., a powerful development firm based in Irvine, had previously proposed to build a 400,000-square-foot shopping plaza in Placerville at the current site of the El Dorado County fairgrounds. Sammis waned to arrange a swap. The company would buy another site, where it would build the county a facility, in exchange for the fairground's 52 acres centered on on the Placerville Drive shopping district.

(A Sammis spokesman previously told The Business Journal that his company also was interested in the Missouri Flat site where the El Dorado Plaza group wants to build a mall. He could not be reached last week.)

Prospects for the Sammis swap for the fairgrounds appear to have dimmed, opening the door for the El Dorado Plaza project, said Richard Buchanan, El Dorado County's real estate property manager.

El Dorado County has some compelling reasons to push for the El Dorado Plaza plan, and members of its Board of Supervisors appear to be leaning in that direction.

The county would ingest all of the sales-tax revenues from the El Dorado Plaza mall. But it would have to share revenues from a mall at the fairgrounds site with the city of Placerville, since the county-owned fair-grounds is within city limits.

The county is nearing completion of a new comprehensive development plan for the Missouri Flat Road area where the mall is proposed.



Quad Consultants, a Sacramento planning firm that is coordinating the project, has designated the El Dorado Plaza land as a major commercial site, said Anders Hauge, a Quad vice president.

The developers have not made a formal application to the county on the El Dorado Plaza project, but they have reviewed it with the county and asked the county to consider it as it completes the new developme plan, said Ed Crowley, a principal planner for the county.

But Hauge and other sources point out that the project site has some serious environmental constraints that would have to be overcome before a mall could be built.

The El Dorado Plaza site is marked by steep hills, a creek and a wetlands area, Hauge said. The envi-ronmental impact section of the county's new development plan will not sufficiently deal with the mall site's environmental issues, he said. That means the developers would have to do their own environmental impact report to convince agencies like the state Fish and Game Department that the wetlands would not be harmed by a shopping center.

Given such constraints, a large neighborhood shopping center in the range of 200,000 square feet is probably more realistic for the site, said Fred Rogers, a retail broker with The Henderson Group in Sacra-mento.

The El Dorado Plaza group plans to deal with the environmental constraints of the site by designing the project to fit its steep topography, said Sutherland. His group envisions a mall with a stairstep design that would be built in a series of terraced levels.

No final decisions have been made on whether the mall would be enclosed or have an open design, he said. The project would probably cost between $ 50 million and $ 60 million to develop.

Sutherland's Citadel Equities Group has been involved primarily in the development of nine ministorage facilities in the Sacramento area. It also is developing a 140,000-square-foot Roseville project embracing of-fice and industrial space.

The spread would include three anchor tenants, Sutherland said. The task of finding anchor tenants would go to the major mall developer Citadel hopes to bring in as a partner.

Exactly what kind of anchor tenant is found would probably have an effect on the politics of getting the site approved for development. Sutherland said he expects the mall to draw anchor tenants like J.C. Penney Co. Inc., Mervyn's and Target Stores. He said Placerville may even be able to support an upscale retailer like Emporium Capwell.

His company has studied the area's population base, which he estimates at 100,000 and growing, is ad-equate for a 400,000-square-footer. Anchor retailers he's spoken with indicated the area should support somewhat downsized versions of their stores. For example, while Penney typically opens 60,000-square-foot outlets in urban areas, it also opens 20,000-and 40,000-square-foot shops in smaller towns.

Monthly rents for smaller tenants at the mall would probably run about $ 1 a square foot, Sutherland said.

Construction probably will not begin until early 1991 and be completed by 1992, he said.

While Sutherland's group controls 85 acres, the plaza would take up only about 35 acres, he said. The developers plan to develop an additional 50,000 square feet to 100,000 square feet of retail and office projects on adjacent acreage, he said, hoping to draw in bank branches, medical and dental offices and pos-sibly a supermarket.

Before the development can be completed, the county has to complete major road improvements in the area that will cost between $ 10 million and $ 20 million, said planner Crowley. To finance those costs, the county would probably have to form a redevelopment district or some other assessment district to issue bonds, he said.

The county's incentive to have a mall built comes as many of its residents drive to Sacramento County to shop, he said. And in Folsom, just over the county's western boundary, two other major shopping centers are in the works.



Developers Angelo Tsakopoulos and Marvin "Buzz" Oates are close to breaking ground on the first phase of a 1 million-square-foot mall in Folsom dedicated to factory outlet discount stores. And Elliott Homes has announced plans to build a major mall on a 100-acre site at Highway 50 and Scott Road some time within the next three to five years.

The Business Journal-Sacramento

January 2, 1989

El Dorado Hills Business Park Climbs Out of the Doldrums

BYLINE: Mike McCarthy

SECTION: Vol 5; No 40; Sec 1; pg 4

LENGTH: 1059 words

DATELINE: Sacramento; CA; US

After years of being little more than an empty stretch of rolling hills, El Dorado Hills Business Park is find-ing a growing number of buyers for its parcels.

The roughly 880-acre development in the foothills along Highway 50 has been the region's largest busi-ness park since it was created in the mid-1980s as a joint venture of Sammy Cemo, Mary Anne Ingemanson and Bill Cotten. But its distance from Sacramento's urban core, coupled with a legal tussle involving land use, kept the lid on building activity.

Yet within the past year, nine companies have purchased land in the park, most notably Jackson Proper-ties Inc., one of Sacramento's more successful industrial-space builders. The developer is betting that the lo-cale will continue to fill at a steady clip.

"The park's been in an incubator stage for three or four years. We're thinking that things are starting to happen," said John Harris, project director for Jackson.

Much of the park's new popularity is attributed to the March 1987 decision by CableData to build its headquarters and research facilities there. CableData, a firm that provides data processing equipment and services to the cable television industry, has already completed a 211,000-square-foot building and has an-other 55,000 square feet under construction.

The spurt in sales also has revived Cemo's own ambition to develop within the park. He currently con-trols some 320 acres, the original partnership having since been dissolved. This year, Cemo Inc. plans to erect as many as six small buildings totaling 81,000 square feet in a subpark called One Sierra Business Center. By April, Cemo expects to begin three of the structures, and if they find buyers, he will go ahead with the others in August, he said.

He is starting with a 22,000-square-foot building, some 15,000 square feet of which is already preleased to CWC-HDR Engineering Inc. The 45-employee firm will move from its current quarters in El Dorado Hills.

Such activity stands in stark contrast to a yearlong chill on the park starting in September 1985, when a state appeals court ruled that the acreage's exemption from the Williamson Act was invalid. The Williamson Act gives tax breaks to farmers who placed their land in a 10-year preserve from construction. The ruling dis-couraged would-be users, even after the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors properly exempted the park the following May.

Even Cemo's own early building efforts ran into trouble. Cemo Inc. had developed two office buildings to-taling about 65,000 square feet. The partner in one, Farmers Savings of Davis, was taken over by federal regulators in 1985 and closed its doors. That prompted Cemo, on behalf of the partnership, to file for protec-tion from creditors under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in May 1987.



Since then, Cemo has resolved the Chapter 11 by selling the property to Commonwealth Equity Trust, he said. He sold his other building to Guided Wave Inc.

The park did attract some buyers through 1987, notably land speculators who acquired some 130 acres. One major user, Roebbelin Engineering Inc., bought 20 acres in 1985 and built its 30,000-square-foot head-quarters there.

Another site was acquired in mid-1986, by John Wagner Associates, which erected a 55,000-square-foot building for its Impact Photographics subsidiary.

But not until CableData's entry did potential users begin to examine the park in earnest. And while recent sales aren't big, there are enough to indicate a healthy trend, especially since the park was designed with small-parcel sales in mind, said Jim McDevitt, an industrial expert with Iliff, Thorn & Co.

The recent wave of purchases began late in 1987. Trade Source International, an importer and manufac-turer of fighting fixtures and gag items, kicked it off by buying 2.5 acres for an an 18,000-square-foot head-quarters and warehouse to be built this year, said Don Spearing, a consultant for the firm.

Trade Source, currently in temporary quarters at the park, previously had its office in El Dorado Hills and its warehouse in Sacramento.

Spearing said the company was drawn to the park because it sensed the start of real growth there and wanted to get in on it early.

The timing may have been just right, for sales soon picked up.

In February 1988, Key-Bell Corp., a Rancho Cordova-based vendor of heavy construction equipment, bought 1.6 acres. This year it plans to build 20,000 square feet of office and warehouse space to replace the Rancho Cordova quarters, said Keith Harry, company president.

One of Harry's prime motives for moving is that he lives near the park. Although that may not seem like much incentive, commercial brokers say it is a major force behind the success of suburban business parks.

"If the people who own the companies want to live up there and they don't want to drive into town and they want to be above the fog, it makes sense to locate there," said McDevitt.

Sales continued in April, when West Coast Taxidermy, a San Francisco wholesaler, bought two acres on which it plans to build a 21,000-square-foot facility. Soon after came the purchase of 8.4 acres in two sepa-rate deals by Sacramento's Central Striping, a street-painting firm.

Sales took an even steeper climb in October, when Whole Shot Enterprises Inc., a sportswear distribu-tor, bought two acres. A month later, Sierra Prototype Machine Products Inc. also bought two acres, and Jackson Properties bought 10 acres.

Sierra, a Placerville-based precision turning and milling firm, wants to move to El Dorado Hills to take ad-vantage of likely growth in the area, said Stephen LaRock, president.

His firm can reap some prestige from being alongside CableData, Guided Wave Inc. and other prominent firms in the park, he said. Moreover, as other large companies migrate to the park, they will probably need his firm's services, he predicted.

Jackson Properties plans to construct a pair of buildings totaling 34,000 square feet this year, said project director Harris.

"We felt there was a tremendous amount of growth in foothill residential, and with all the commercial de-velopment along Highway 50 bringing traffic problems, a lot of people might want to work closer to where they live," he said

Still another 2.3 acres is scheduled to close next week, said Cemo, who would not disclose the buyer.


supervisor jack sweeney in the news

Documents