California Wildfire Mitigation Program
El Dorado County Defensible Space and
ALIFORN
Home Hardening Grant
County of El Dorado
Oflice of Wildfire Preparedness Weber Creek Project
and Resilience
Post wildfire damage assessments reveal that defensible space around structures combined with ignition resistant construction play a critical role in protecting homes and slowing wildfire spread. Over two thirds of the homes in El Dorado County are located within the High or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones and are in need of assessment and treatments to reduce the potential for catastrophic loss.
El Dorado County has applied to the California Wildfire Mitigation Program for funding to support a pilot project creating defensible space and retrofitting homes for ignition resistant construction. If approved, the 3-year project will focus on 525 homes at high risk from wildfire along the Weber Creek drainage south of Placerville (see attached map). In addition to the funds requested, El Dorado County is also committing funding to this effort.
Each home in the project area will be evaluated for the defensible space and home hardening improvements that are necessary to meet current ordinances and standards.
With the approval of the homeowner, eligible homes will receive defensible space and home hardening improvements up to a maximum dollar limit at no cost to the homeowner. This program will be open to all residents within the project area, including those meeting the California Wildfire Mitigation Program social vulnerability criteria.
El Dorado County's pilot project is one of five demonstration grants in California which will focus on defensible space and home hardening improvements to mitigate wildfire risk. The El Dorado County Office of Wildfire Preparedness and Resilience is working with the California Office of Emergency Services on the grant application and project details. More information will be available if and when the grant is approved.
California Wildfire Mitigation Program - http://www.caloes.ca.gov/office-of-the- director/operations/recovery-directorate/hazard-mitigation/california-wildfire- mitigation-program/
El Dorado County Office of Wildfire Preparedness and Resilience - https://www.edcgov.us/Government/CAO/OWPR/Pages/Wildfire-Preparedness- Resilience.aspx
EXIT 4487
GREEN ST EXIT 48]
CANAL ST CINDY CT CARSONRD.
- MOLLY LN BEDFORD AVE MIS BM- BROADWAY
PLACERVILLE DR MARIA VIST LOCUSTAVE, OF
ĐУ NK3 12800M ORMANE MOSOI I SANT
USHWY SO US HIM SO BACO DR
4S COOM CIRST- MAIN ST ELTSE CT
FAIR LN AS NOW THOMPSON WAY IS NONS
FORNIRD. PERCE "CRESCE (PACIFIC ST HERITAGE LN
20000 VICTOR LN CYPRESS LN
EXIT 45. MARSHALL WAY
CHAMBERLAJ
WASHINGTON ST
SKYLINE OR SACRAMENTO ST FIST
SOUTHVIEWCT CLARKCT
CHERRY LN
GOLD NUGGET WAY SKYLINE Cİ SIERRA DR LI GERLEYAL Bo NOLF
NORDIC WAY
STAPHAVEN OR STATE HWY 49| HIDDEN
CEDAR RAVINE RD
VSONVINOW NICKS UN
COZY LN
TWELVE OAKS HENHOS WIN
COONHOLLOW CT
SRICELN
BLUE BRICEVAVOR TOWNEE LN?
ANTHIS CT HARRIS RD HARRIS CT
ANTHIS® LONGHRUT RO
N7INO1 SURRONT
CHAPIN&' SLUMBER~
BOT CANYON RD
ELLIES ALLIE PRAIRIE VIEW I•
DONOVAN RANCH ROY
LEGEND
WEBER CREEK PROJECT
Roads Parcels Structural Water Resources
Information
HIGHWAY A
Structures built within Flowlines
COUNTY OF EL DORADO MAJOR 20 years
BE ORACH MAY COER ACATION AREAS OUTSCE CE THE
MINOR Structures older than
STATE OF CALIFORNIA RAMP • 20 years
Vacant Parcels
GREEN ST CINDY CT EXIT 48 (EXIT248)
- MOLLY LN MARIA VISTA WAY (SPRING ST 10035
ANTO SMIT- LOCUST AVE ROTES BROADWAY
PLACERVILLE DR 90 103 12304 LOT, MASSM NOSOUTORO
US HI. SO US HIY SO COTTAGE SANTE
BACO DR
13AN- COON CONRAD MAIN ST 45 ЗНИА КВІН ВА
FAIRLA 1S DIDAS RESERVOIR STY SITSE
SEROL 1S NOW RESERVI THOMPSON WAY
FORNIRD (PACIFIC ST VICTORLN CYPRESS LN HERITAGE LN
EXIT 45 H3NOT09
SKYLINE OR SACRAMENTO FISKE ST
CHERRY LN SOUTHVIEW CT CLARKCT
SKYLINE CT
GOLD NUGGET WAY NORDIC WAY STAPHAVEN ORT SANTO DAN ASLEE GERLEYAL STATE HWY 49 HIDDEN I NOLOMATOE CEDAR RAVINE RD
PARDONE
VSONVINOW -BIG CUTRO •COZY LN NICKS UN
HEATHES WAN DO VISA B 340838078
COONHOLLOW CT ВПШе
BLUE GRICE LN 1O IN
TOWHEE LN
BRIDGEVIEN® TANTHS CT HARRIS RO HARRIS CT
LONGHRUT RD BOSTO RO
N7INO1 CHAPINRO LUMBEROT
10C
BACKTAILE
BOT CANYON RD
ELLIES ALLIE PRAIRIE VIEW LN JAW BONE RD
PRAIL DONOVAN RANCH RDY
LEGEND
WEBER CREEK PROJECT
Roads Parcels Structural Water Resources
Information
HIGHWAY ^
Structures built within Flowlines
COUNTY OF EL DORADO MAJOR 20 years
MINOR Structures older than
STATE OF CALIFORNIA RAMP 20 years
Vacant Parcels
California Wildfire Mitigation Program
El Dorado County Defensible Space and
CALIFORN
Home Hardening Grant
County of El Dorado
Ollice of Wildfire Preparedness Weber Creek Project
and Resilience
Post wildfire damage assessments reveal that defensible space around structures combined with ignition resistant construction play a critical role in protecting homes and slowing wildfire spread. Over two thirds of the homes in El Dorado County are located within the High or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones and are in need of assessment and treatments to reduce the potential for catastrophic loss.
El Dorado County has applied to the California Wildfire Mitigation Program for funding to support a pilot project creating defensible space and retrofitting homes for ignition resistant construction. If approved, the 3-year project will focus on 525 homes at high risk from wildfire along the Weber Creek drainage south of Placerville (see attached map). In addition to the funds requested, El Dorado County is also committing funding to this effort.
Each home in the project area will be evaluated for the defensible space and home hardening improvements that are necessary to meet current ordinances and standards.
With the approval of the homeowner, eligible homes will receive defensible space and home hardening improvements up to a maximum dollar limit at no cost to the homeowner. This program will be open to all residents within the project area, including those meeting the California Wildfire Mitigation Program social vulnerability criteria.
El Dorado County's pilot project is one of five demonstration grants in California which will focus on defensible space and home hardening improvements to mitigate wildfire risk. The El Dorado County Office of Wildfire Preparedness and Resilience is working with the California Office of Emergency Services on the grant application and project details. More information will be available if and when the grant is approved.
California Wildfire Mitigation Program - http://www.caloes.ca.gov/office-of-the- director/operations/recovery-directorate/hazard-mitigation/california-wildfire- mitigation-program/
El Dorado County Office of Wildfire Preparedness and Resilience - https://www.edcgov.us/Government/CAO/OWPR/Pages/Wildfire-Preparedness- Resilience.aspx
RECEIVED
the October 10, 2023 Agenda: This Letter is to address the City Council members on item 12,4 Attachreify OF PLACES ADMINISTBATGYEULE
12.4 (Mr. Rivas) Att. A: Draft Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance CITY CLERK/HUMAN RESOURCES OCT 10 2023
My name is Larissa Lujan, CITY OF PLACERVILLE
3101 CENTER STREET
PLACERVILLE, CA 95667
I spoke on this Ordinance on 08-08-2023 and how it relates to Short-Term Rentals, STR'S, within the city limits of Placerville, there was much confusion by City Council members and the public and how this ordinance relates to Short-Term Rentals. My intention of this letter and exhibits is to explain this to you.
The reason this Zoning Ordinance, Agenda Item 12.4 Att. A. directly relates to STR's is this Ordinance will define Occupancy rules and laws that will be applicable different residential properties owned by City residents. That is the very issue of Short-Term Rentals, it is an occupancy issue.
12.4 Att. A. proposes:
"Vacation or short-term rentals are prohibited in all ADUs. ADUs shall not be rented for a period of less than 31 days."
On the 08-08-2023 Council meeting | addressed that Sacramento County made a legal allowance for ADU's in their jurisdiction, to be used for STRS in residential zones, See Attachment #1. Previously, Mr. Rivas had repetitively told our City Council and the public that state law did not allow ADU's to be used as Short-Term Rentals. On 08-08-2023 Mr. Rivas acknowledged that city staff was incorrect on this issue and that per the city attorney, CA State law does allow local governments, like Placerville to decide if an ADU can be rented for less than 30 days.
El Dorado County also has established a Short-Term Rental permitting process for their residential zones. City of Placerville is operating completely out of sync with our neighboring counties, in fact Placerville is intending to outright ban this option as noted in Agenda Item
12.4 Att. A. The ordinance directly contradicts the Council meeting held on January 25, 2022 in which council members told the public they would work on creating an ordinance in the future to address a wholistic and City-wide approach to STR's and would consider community input.
The only remaining council members part of that meeting are Michael Saragosa and Jacki Neau. I hope you both review that meeting to remind you of the position you took that has lead to where we are at now- Please see Placerville IT video recording on youtube from approximately the 4.5 hours-5.5 hour recording time.
The problem we have here is what the City Council intends to do for the public, and what the City Staff put in writing are not in harmony. At the meeting on 08-08-2023 Mr. Rivas stated that all Short-Term Rentals were illegal in the City limits of Placerville, until the new Ordinance was created for STRS in 3 commercial zones only in July, 2022 and this harmonized with our General Plan. The Housing Element in our current 2021-2029 General Plan can be seen in Attachment #2; it was written that City Council should, "Consider a ban on short-term rentals within residential zones." How can the City consider a ban when staff have been telling the public and council members that there already was a ban? ! believe this can be explained during the Januarv 25. 2022 taking liberties on this unclear subject. Mr. Rivas repetitively recommended what the staff felt was a priority, what the staff was highly in favor of; Mr. Rivas even went so far as to state that "staff has no intention of allowing them (short-term rentals) in residential zones". That is an incredibly bold and biased statement by Mr. Rivas, when it is not a staff's job to decide what is and is not allowed in our city. That is for the vote of our council members appointed by the public they serve. Perhaps this is all due-to-the-fact that Mr. Rivas has made repetitive recommendations based on his misinterpretation of state law.
The definitional changes recommended on January 25, 2022 set in motion where we are at now. It was intended to be a temporary solution to address STR's in commercial zones.
Thereafter, City Council members told the public that a wholistic, city-wide approach was going to be established later. That is not what has happened. On the contrary, supporting staff under our current council have taken an active city-wide approach to targeting all property owners with any Airbnb/ Short-Term Rental listings in our City.
Residential property owners throughout Placerville have recently received Notices and Administrative fines to discontinue renting their homes, or rooms, or ADUS for less than 30 days. I recently saw a neighbor's Notice that stated they were going to be fined a $100.00 Administrative fine. The new zoning proposal identifies the city will be taking a very aggressive position, and reads as follows:
"(x) Penalties: Every person violating any of the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punishable by a fined in a sum not to exceed one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) for any one offense, and the person may be confined in the county jail for a period of not to exceed six (6) months, or both. A misdemeanor violation offence shall be deemed committed each day that the violation occurs or the obligation remains unperformed)."
This zoning ordinance, is proposing criminalize property owners. A property owner who builds an unpermitted ADU, or doesn't provide a separate entrance to their new unit, or who rents their unit to a person for less than 30 days, can now be charged with a misdemeanor and thrown in jail. How did we get so far off course? Do you remember the goals you told to public you intended to put into effect? Renting a room or an ADU is what we intend to criminalize in Placerville? El Dorado county will give you a permit for it.
The disappointment in how far off course we have gotten is discouraging, I ask you what can you do to fix this? A moratorium until a wholistic approach is settled on? Direct your staff to make the changes that the public was promised? It is not your staff's decision it is the vote of you 5 council members to make the difference. I ask that the City Council consider this information, and to not keep passing this issue further down the road, that's why we got here in the first place. Staff was looking for and recommended a "quick fix solution" and look at where it got us on this subject.
Thank you,
Larissa Lujan La
10/10/2023
Atachment 2 pages
• I% DaySmart Salon × | "= ARTICLE III HEARINGS X | I° [j Indifference/Vals X | E (90,566 unread) - lari: × | B : SRADL × | 7.5_Att. 1-Ordinance 1-Ordinance. X | CP Title 5 - BUSINESS TA X | Q. sacramento countysi g Short-Term Rental Pe: X + G https://planning.saccounty.gov/appliconts/Pages/Short-Term-Rental-Permits.aspx SAGRAT ENTO LIVE VISIT BUSINESS GOVERNMENT Select Language Scoy a Translato
Planning and Environmer Review Search...
CUSTOME PLANS, PROJECTS, PROGRAMS • MEETINGS - ABOUT/CONTACT - Short-Term Rental Perm
*Short-Term Fed ermit FAQ Handout*- New!
Purpose
Sacramento County issues Short-Term Rental (STR) Permits 10 : short-term home and/or room rental services for 29 days or less, on an accessory basis. The purpose of this permit is to implement ope property for short-term rental purposes will be compatible with t inding neighborhood.
If the property owner or a long-term renter lives at the properl! C st six (6) months out of the year, the property may be eligible for a Short-Term Rental Permit. All or a portion of the primary dwelling and lega... ed Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)" may be rented on a short-term basis. *Please note, ADUs constructed after January 1, 2020 carne ised as a Short-Term Rental. See Sacramento County Zoning Seclion 3.9.3 AA and Section 6.5.6 for applicable standards and findings for Shot. entals.
Please note, any approved Short Term Rental Permits prior to Fel 2, 2023 that limit guest occupancy pertains only to adults over the age of 18.
Minors are not included in guest occupancy restrictions. *The short-term rental mus so! an accessory use to your full-time occupancy.
Under no circumstance shall the short intal services become the primary use of the property." Interested in operating a Short-Term Rental or r property? Please visit RentalScape to apply for a Permit, Business Licens register to pay Transient Occupancy Tax. We no longer accept Short-Term Rental Permit (STRP) applications in our office, through the ina ough the [email protected] email. The RentalScape Type here to search
1044 Sunny A @O (ad)
Attachment # 2072 pages
• | = DaySmart Salon x | um ARTICLE III HEAR: x | [° 4) Indiferencel x | a (90,566 unread) - 1 x | 7.5.A11.2.CCSR- x | 75 At. 1-Ordinar: x | C) Tille 5 - BUSINESS x | Q sacramento coun: x / E Short-Term Renta x 19 Short_Term_Renta
Ghttps://planning.saccounty.gov/applicants/Documents/Short_Term_Rentals_Hondout_v4.pd.
EBraw=/Readaloud +
online application.
Can I Operate a Short Term Rental on My Property?
If you meet the following Use Standards and obtain the required Permit and Business License, you can operate a Short Term Rental (per Section 3.9.3.AA of the SZC):
• Residency requirement: The property owner or renter (with long term lease) must live on-site a minimum of six months per year, and can provide proof of residency. • Maximum ocupancy for the rental shall not exceed more than two adults per bedroom. • No public or commercial events permitted.
Do I Qualify for a Short Term Rental Permit?
Before applying for a short term rental permit through RentalScape, please make sure you meet the minimum qualifications below:
• Is your property located within Unincorporated Sacramento County? • is the proposed rental unit a legally permitted primary dwelling or an ADU legally permitted prior to January 2020?
• Is the proposed Short Term Rental your Primary Residence? • Are you either the property owner or a renter with owner's consent and a long term lease?
• Do you have the required documentation to prove Primary Residency and Proof of Ownership/Owner's Consent?
The County of Sacramento cannot permit short term rental operations as the primary use of a residential property with the exception of qualifying properties located within certain zones of the Locke Special Planning Area (SPA) or Walnut Grove Neighborhood Preservation Area (NPA) Applications outside qualifying zoning districts of the Locke SPA or Walnut Grove NPA that do not demonstrate the acessory nature of the use will be denied. If you answered no to any of the above questions, you likely do not qualify to use your dwelling or ADU as a Short Term Rental.
All fees submitted are non-refundable.
Can 1 Use my Acessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), Junior Acessory Dwelling Unit (JADU), or Guest House as a Short Term Rental?
An ADU cannot be used for short term rental activity unless it was a legally permitted ADU prior to January 1, 2020. JADUs and Guest Houses cannot be used for short term rental activity in any V4.0, 1/24/23
• Type here to search
104°t. Sunny rap)
Attachment #2
Section 1. Introduction
City Council could consider this in future actions as a result of public and community outreach workshops that would occur under Implementation Program B-1 during the planning period. • Allow rooming and boarding house uses and provide incentives to landlords to establish these.
Boarding houses by definition are housing facilities that provides lodging, with or without food, for paying guests. As a type of lodging facility as opposed to a multi-family use, boarding houses are outside the scope of the Housing Element. Boarding houses are difficult to regulate and are better supplanted by single-room occupancy (SRO) facilities which are a form of housing that is aimed at residents with low or very low incomes who rent small single rooms with common kitchen and bath facilities.
• Suggestion that the 90 lower income category Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) units for the City should be reversed with the 169 units for the higher income category with 169 higher income, as the City needs more affordable housing units and not as many higher income units.
The City is obligated under state statutes to meet its RHNA for all income categories.
Due to complaints from neighbors and from other interested parties regarding short-term vacation rentals since 2013, and the City's concerns about the potential loss of affordable housing, in 2017 staff requested and received City Council authorization under Resolution No. 8530 to initiate amendments to the Zoning Ordinance regarding definitions of types of lodging facilities, and the regulation of short-term rentals. This work has not been completed but is expected to be completed by the end of 2021.
Public Hearings
Prior to adoption of the Housing Element, the Planning Commission held a noticed public hearing on August 17, 2021 to consider a final draft of the Housing Element that addressed comments from HCD and those received from members of the public and other interested parties and entities on the Public Review Draft. Notice of the public hearing was published in the Mountain Democrat newspaper on August 2, 2021, posted on the City's website and Facebook page and sent to the housing organizations and those identified above as having an interest in the Housing Element update. The Planning Commission considered public input, 1o 20 20e les and recommended the he city council aprone th adopt the 2021-2029 Housing Element.
Chapter II - Housing 2021-2029 6th Cycle Housing Element 1-10 General Plan Background Report
City of
Placerville Regina O'Connell <[email protected]> Memorandum of Planning Commissioner Kirk Smith regarding appeal of September 5, 2023 Decision
[email protected] < [email protected]> Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 3:37 PM To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] [email protected], [email protected]
Planning Commission Member Kirk Smith's Memorandum Regarding Paul and Andria Coggiola Appeal of September 5, 20223 Decision The Planning Commission on September 5, 2023, voted 3 to 2 to allow the applicants to use fiberglass windows with one commissioner voting to permit vinal windows, as petitioners Paul and Andrea Coggiola requested. And I voted to deny the applicants' request to change the windows altogether. As a review of the video recording of those proceedings confirm, this appeal raises the same issues presented to the Planning Commission on each of three occasions and my response to those issues and the reasons for my vote are explained below.
1. It is a basic maxim of contested proceedings that the moving party has the burden of persuasion, and the applicants did not come close to meeting it. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties With Guidelines For Preserving, [often called The Interior Secretary's Guidelines] have several steps for property owners to follow and the first is to determine whether what is present now can be repaired and maintained. If any portion of the property, such as the windows, cannot be repaired or maintained because of things such as extensive wood dry rot, then homeowner can move to a further stage, what replacement materials can be used and whether the replacement looks like the original. But the applicants did not do that, although they were given three different hearings at which this could have Instead, the applicants' position expressed several times that they did not want to maintain the present windows, they viewed vinal windows as virtually maintenance free. But no evidence was ever presented to show that the present windows could not be used. Furthermore, there was no showing that innovative answers to increased isolation, widely described as less expensive and easy to install than vinal windows, were considered. Having failed to meet their burden of proof, despite three opportunities, their application must be denied, I asserted.
2. Applicants' argument that this building was only 29 years old when the city adopted Ordinance 1280 is of no moment since the standard of consideration is whether it is historic as of now, not 1981. And this house, as petitioners note, is part of what was called the 1941 Cedar Vista Subdivision and is of a Ranch home style that was popular in the 1950's. It matters not that any homeowner does not like the esthetics of this style or deem it attractive, those are not part of the Ordinance or the Guidelines. It matters not that these homes do not look anything like the Blair Combellack, or the Judge Thomas homes on Cedar Ravine or like any other home from that mid-1800's> Homes in an historic district that are 70 or more years are historic, including the 1950's Ranch style. The argument that other homes of that style in the area have had vinal windows, if true, actually supports keeping the original windows in this Ceder Ravine home since it would necessarily be more historic with more original features. Again, petitioners did not come close to their burden of persuasion.
3. Petitioners raised the unverified assertion that "50% of the houses" in that area have vinal windows. But regardless of whether the figure is 5% or 55%, whatever it might be, there is nothing in the record to explain why any home in that historic district has vinal windows. If the city ordinance was violated in any of those cases it would be like the large number of people who violate posted speed limits and coast past stop signs, ignoring those laws does not mean when should get rid of them. And nothing presented by the Petitioners supports getting rid of the city's ordinance regarding historic districts.
4. The problem with applicants arguing that the August 28th Council/Commission joint meeting offered the conclusion that reasonable and appropriate standards should apply is that this meeting was for many like a Rorschach test, people could see what they want to see but nobody could reasonably conclude that the present structure could be replaced with a personal subjective case by case evaluation in place of the standards mandated by Ordinance 1280. That the rules should be applied in an amorphous reasonable and appropriate way does not mean to ignore the present standards. The petitioners did not meet them, and their application should be denied, and the Commission's decision of September 5, 2023, should be reversed and vacated WHEREFORE, based on reasons including those described above, my position remains that commission's decision should be vacated and the petitioners' application for vinal windows should be denied.
Submitted by,
/s/
Kirk Smith, PO Box 654, Placerville, Ca 95667 [email protected] Phone: (530) 503-7400 CC: Paul and Andrea Coggiola anentnaulenaainlaMamail.com Jackie Nau [email protected]
John Clerici [email protected]
Nicole Gotberg [email protected]
David Yarbrough [email protected]
Pierre Rivas [email protected]
Kristen Hunter [email protected]
Mona Ebrahimi [email protected]
Regina O'Connell [email protected]
City of
Placerville Regina O'Connell <[email protected]> City Council Meeting Letter for tonight
Paul Coggiola <[email protected]> Tue, Oct 10,2023 at 9:57 AM To: Regina O'Connell <[email protected]>, Kristen Hunter <[email protected]>, Pierre Rivas <[email protected]>
Good Morning Regina,
I am hoping you can distribute this to the city council members tonight before the meeting. It is from a council member who was part of the council when the ordinance was enacted. We really appreciate the help.
Thanks so much,
Paul and Andrea Coggiola
Letter to City Council By Tustin.docx
13K
1769 Country Club Dr.
Placerville, CA
October 9, 2023
Placerville Council
Re: Item #11.1 - Appeal of Paul & Andrea Coggiola re vinyl windows Dear Mayor and Council Members:
I was a member of the Placerville City Council when the historic district ordinance was passed, and possibly later amended. In fact, I may be the only living Councilmember from that era.
The ordinance was created to preserve the integrity of "historic residences" in Placerville, however that was defined. Our main focus at the time was to preserve the beautiful old Victorians in the Cedar Ravine, Bedford Avenue, Spring Street and Coloma Street areas. It was never our intention to prevent homeowners from improving their property. It was also not our intention to designate a house as "historic" simply because it was old.
The house that is the subject of this appeal may be old, but it certainly is not historic in my mind. It's basically a boxy small house in need of substantial updating. If the owners wish to improve the property with viny! windows replacing the original wooden ones, more power to them! Anything they do to the urrent status of the propertv wou be animorovomont
I have no idea how the boundary lines of the historic district were determined, or who was in charge of making such a determination. However, common sense would tell us that the boundary should stop when the Victorians cease to exist, and that is further north on Cedar Ravine. Across the street (Darlington) is an accountant's office, and further up the street is a non-historic but old business and an apartment complex. Maybe the City Council needs to revisit the boundary lines.
In any event, I don't see the harm in permitting the applicant to proceed with their plans as submitted.
Nitpicking is not conducive to good community relations.
Sincerely,
Karen Tustin
Placerville City Council Member, 1977-1987, 1990 - 1994 (Mayor 1982 - 84) CommENTS PReEuRO LATE.
City of HOT PRONDED GO COUNCIL
Regina O'Connell <[email protected]>
Placerville
BEFORE MEETING.
Fwd: City Council Letter Дето
Paul Coggiola <[email protected]> Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 4:06 PM To: Regina O'Connell <[email protected]>
I know it may be too late to forward this on to the city council members and the Mayor, but if possible we would appreciate it if you would. We just received it about five minutes ago. We will also bring copies for everyone. -- Forwarded message --.
From: Henderson, Kelly <[email protected]> Date: Tue, Oct 10, 2023 at 4:00 PM
Subject: City Council Letter
To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Hey Paul!
Since I can't be there in person, sending this character letter for you guys. Feel free to revise/delete, etc. to meet your needs.
I am cheering for you!
Kelly Henderson
Workforce Labor Relations Consultant - Standardization and Policies Sutter Health System Office
Cell: 530-409-8660
[email protected]
We Want to Hear from You!
Provide your valuable feedback by taking the 2023 Experience of Work and Culture of Safety Survey between Sept. 11 - Sept. 29.
Survey Link: SutterEOWCOSS2023.com
Resources for HR Business Partners: EOW and COS SharePoint site Resources for leaders and employees: MySutter Connection 3 attachments
KUST TARE WN TEG
E OW image001.jpg
9K
SEST SARE WIT E
E OW image001.jpg
9K
Coggiola Letter.docx
14K
October 10, 2023
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I am writing this letter in support of the Coggiola family. I am urging you to reconsider requiring them to use wood composite/wood frames and ask that you permit them to use vinyl.
I have had the privilege of knowing the Coggiola family for the last five years. They have offered me, my family, and the community unwavering support. Paul is a first responder and soccer coach. He has committed his life to serving the community. Andrea treats my children as if they were her own and is one of the most loving and kind people I know. Their home is a safe haven for all children who cross their path; mine included. They have both have been a positive influence in my life.
They and their children are a very special gift to this world, and you would be hard pressed to find a more loving and compassionate family.
They have beautiful plans for this home. Please don't make this renovation more unduly burdensome and costly for them. I beg you to please reconsider.
Regards,
Kelly Henderson (Cover)
Workforce Labor Relations Consultant
Sutter Health
Cell: 530-409-8660
[email protected]