Promontory Resident For Truth

CSD's Planning Skills

2005-03-23T14:26:00.000-08:00

Over the last few months I have resisted blogging on the CSD's incompetence but this one was just too hard to pass up.

In yesterday's El Dorado Hills Telegraph, there was an article announcing a watershed moment for the management of the EDHCSD. At March's monthly Board of Directors meeting, they managed to approve a phasing plan for the renovation of the Stephen Harris Park, "home to the area's dedicated tennis enthusiasts." The Board of Directors also "sought more specifics for the planning stages of the renovation."

Forget for the moment that the Board approved a plan for a project for which they wanted more details.

On its own this sounds like a reasonable approach. However, the Board was just as uninformed at February's Board Meeting about the details of this park's renovation. What exactly did the park planners accomplish on the plans for this park since last month's meeting? Anything?

Next, consider Wayne Lowery's response to the Board's request for more details.

"The danger of having a plan is people will be waiting for you to do the next thing."

This statement is truly amazing! If I used this line with my boss I'd be shown the door. What exactly is Mr. Lowery saying here? Planning is dangerous? Sharing your plans with the public is dangerous? Actually getting some work done is dangerous? As a taxpayer that is paying part of Mr. Lowery's salary, I find this statement to be unacceptable. Furthermore, the fact that the Board of Directors did not call Mr. Lowery on this approach to project management is, dare I say, "tragic".

CSD attempts to circle the wagons

2004-10-29T07:17:00.000-07:00

When times get tough the true motives of individuals and organizations become self-evident.

Witness this week's latest political maneuvers by the CSD to attempt to defend their actions on the Promontory Park and even defend a crony up for re-election that was caught in a lie.

First, in a letter published in the October 27th Village Life, Wayne Lowery (General Manager, EDHCSD) responds to letters in the previous editions by stating that he is "more than a little disappointed" and that "it is unfortunate to see opinions offered as facts and facts presented out of context or distorted."

Unfortunately Mr. Lowery offered no specifics on how these letters distorted the truth or took facts out of context. Could it be that the CSD is indefensible on this issue just as it was in the "yellow house" case? Instead Mr. Lowery challenges the integrity of those that oppose the CSD with a baseless and fact-less rebuttal. We've seen this tactic from the CSD's playbook more than a few times.

I also found it preposterous that Mr. Lowery expresses his disappointment and is making claims that opponents to the CSD's railroad job on the park are making distortions. If anyone has the right to be disappointed it is the citizens of EDH. The CSD knows all about distortions since that's exactly what they're doing with the Promontory Park; they're distorting what was planned as a Village Park in the middle of a residential neighborhood into a sports complex juggernaut.

In yet another letter published in both the El Dorado Hills Telegraph and Sacramento Bee, CSD Board member Justin Masters defends the record of Larry Brilliant and endorses Mr. Brilliant's campaign for another term on the CSD Board.

Although I cannot speak to Mr. Brilliant's years of public service and dedication to the community in years past, I can speak to Mr. Brilliant's recent record when it comes to the Promontory Park. Mr. Brilliant was given the opportunity here and via email to explain the backroom games he is playing on the Promontory Park but he has been silent. How does Mr. Masters explain away Mr. Brilliant's deceitful actions? He does not because he can't. How does Mr. Masters explain Mr. Brilliant's change in campaign platform where he removed preserving quality of life as a priority? How is this "in the best interest of the community"? The community absolutely needs more parks and more sports fields but I've yet to hear or read anyone that is willing to pursue this need with complete disregard for sensible community development. That is, until Mr. Brilliant changed his platform. How can Mr. Masters defend Mr. Brilliant's taunting Promontory residents after the last CSD Board meeting when he boasted that the CSD's lawyer works on a fixed price basis (i.e. not hourly). The Promontory residents are fighting for their quality of life and Larry Brilliant chooses to taunt them with this "bring it on" mentality. What kind of integrity is this?

Mr. Brilliant may have indeed made positive contributions to the community in the past and he should rightfully be commended for his work in those areas. However, when it comes to the Promontory Park Mr. Brilliant has lost the moorings that Mr. Masters so eloquently and passionately defended in his letter.

Finally, no where in any of the public comments made by the CSD related to the Promontory Park have they acknowledged the quality of life of the residents of the Promontory. Instead they have systematically refuted and downplayed the concerns of the Promontory residents in an effort to pursue their agenda. It is the CSD that is pursuing a lighted sports complex in the Promontory. The youth sports groups made their priorities clear at the second public workshop on the park when they were willing to trade the lights for an additional sports field. And the interests of the Promontory residents should be clear at this point.

So, I welcome anyone from the CSD to defend themselves here. I know you're there. Post a comment and be heard.

Brilliant Must Go!

2004-10-24T08:15:00.000-07:00

Larry Brilliant must be defeated in his bid for a another term on the EDHCSD Board.

The reason is very simple. Mr. Brilliant cares more about saving his political hide and serving his own personal interests than making responsible decisions for the community.

At the October 14th CSD Board meeting, Mr. Brilliant publicly proposed a negotiation process be started between Promontory residents and representatives of the sports groups. Why would Mr. Brilliant be making such an offer when just a few weeks ago the CSD shot down talks that were initiated by the sports groups back at the final public workshop on the park? At that meeting a representative of one of the sports groups (with others present in agreement) was willing to trade the lights in the park for the return of a softball field that was removed from the previous plan. Clearly the message being sent by this sports representative was that a sports field was more important than lights. Regardless, the CSD shutdown talks before they began stating that "the design process is NOT a negotiation process."

Now back to the October 14th CSD Board meeting and Mr. Brilliant's apparently sincere suggestion. After the Board meeting, Mr. Brilliant even met with 4 Promontory residents (including myself) in the back of the room. He looked the four of us in the eye and clearly stated that he would vote for NO lights in the park if the sports groups agreed to accept the park without lights. There were no conditions to this commitment.

Mr. Brilliant was quoted in a Village Life newspaper article covering the Board meeting:

"Let's try something different. I'm not sure how we can do it, but
I'm willing to give it a try."

However, just a few days later (incidently the same day the article in the Village Life was released), Mr. Brilliant sent an email to several parents involved in youth sports groups where he stated the following.

"I want to reassure you that I am fully committed to building Promontory Community Park with lighted sport fields. Additionally, I am also working on an even larger "sport complex" in the 40 acre community park site south of highway 50.

In order to accomplish these commitments I need your help. First, you will need to attend the November 18th Board meeting. This is when the Board will vote to approve the design of Promontory Community Park. I would encourage you to review our web site http://www.edhcsd.org/ Second, I must be re-elected in order to continue to champion sport fields for the community. Please note I was very active in getting Promontory Community Park on the fast tract so we could get more sport fields on line within the community."

So which is it Mr. Brilliant? Were you lying to me, your other constituents at the Board meeting, and the Village Life or are you willing to give negotiation a try? Why didn't you mention the negotiation in your email to your sports group supporters? Were you trying to prevent a backlash from the sports groups when they read your comments in the Village Life? What are you afraid of in a negotiation between your constituents? A satisfactory ending for everyone but you? The sports groups have already expressed willingness to build the park without lights. Perhaps you want the maximum number of lights installed at the Promontory Park so the need for putting lights back up at the El Dorado Hills Community Park is reduced? And why would you care if lights were re-installed at the EDH Community Park? Could it be that it would impact your quality of life since you live in the community across the street from this park?

El Dorado Hills simply cannot afford another 4 years of your irresponsible and self-serving leadership.

Finally, I have a message for those of you that happen to be on the same side of the Promontory Park issue as Mr. Brilliant. If Mr. Brilliant is re-elected there will come a day when your interests are not aligned with his personal interests. The legitimacy of your concerns won't matter. Mr. Brilliant may even tell you what you want to hear but he cannot be trusted to make the right decision. Watch your back!

CSD's weak alcohol defense

2004-10-18T13:34:00.000-07:00

When confronted with concerns about alcohol use at the Promontory Park, the CSD has consistently dodged the issue by stating the CSD does not have nor intend to pursue a license to sell alcohol. Although this is nice to know, it really doesn't address the issue.

It is undeniable that mixing adult and youth sports features in the same park will bring adults drinking alcohol together with children. I have never witnessed an adult drinking alcohol at a youth sporting event such as a soccer or baseball game. However, adults drinking beer as spectators or as participants at an adult sporting event is a very common scene.

Now, I think mixing adults consuming alcohol at adult events in the same park as kids playing youth sports is both expected and even acceptable in sports complexes. However, the Promontory Park was never intended to support adult sports and its location in a residential neighborhood makes it even less appropriate for this type of configuration. Furthermore, with the addition of a gas station that will certainly include a mini-mart on the commercial property next to the park site, alcohol will be easy to obtain. Is this the message that the CSD wants to be sending?

The CSD isn't going to actually sell alcohol in the park but they'll condone the construction of a gas station with a mini-mart on the property adjacent to the park? How is this responsible leadership?

Do you agree or disagree? Post a comment and be heard!

Promontory residents shamefully slandered by "concerned parent"

2004-10-16T10:28:00.000-07:00

The following open letter written by an unnamed "concerned parent" was published in the October 6-12, 2004 edition of the Village Life newspaper.

Dear editor,

This is an open letter to all Promontory residents who are against the community park with lighted sports fields. Why should children and residents of this community suffer as a result of your obliviousness to the posted signs advertising the park with lights and/or careless oversight on your part when you received the disclosure prior to your purchase? In case you need a reminder, this information was given to you by the developer before close of escrow. If it wasn't, then take it up with the developer, but do not punish our community as a result. As a homebuyer, it is your responsibility to check out the general plan and know what is being developed. It was wrong of you to purchase your home with the intent to change what was already planned. If this was not your intent, because you say you didn't know, then as I said
before, that's not being a responsible homebuyer, and that's no ones fault but your own.

Your actions are extremely selfish and inconsiderate to the needs of our children and residents. El Dorado Hills is an extremely beautiful place to live and raise children. As a resident of this town for 20 years and as a parent, I feel very lucky to live here. If you think it will be so bad to live here because of a few lights, then maybe you need to reassess your family's priorities and consider whether this is the right town for you. I am sure there are many families who would love to live in your beautiful home even when the lights are on.

Concerned Parent
El Dorado Hills

Like the narrow-minded and belligerent representatives of the sports groups that malign the Promontory residents in the public park workshops and CSD board meetings, this letter was obviously written by a misinformed resident that is more comfortable throwing verbal bombs and running than investing the time to truly understand the issues surrounding the Promontory Park.

Frequent readers of this blog will be able to systematically debunk every argument made by this "concerned parent". The MIA park disclosure sign, disclosures in the public report, and our public statements defending a park for kids all support the desire of the Promontory residents for a sensibly designed park that is consistent with the disclosures and provides the balanced benefit to the children of our community.

But this "concerned parent" wasn't satisfied with simply stating their opinion on the relevant issues. They had to get personal by challenging the integrity and motives of the homeowners of the Promontory, the homeowners that will be funding a disproportionate share of the construction and operational costs for this park.

Public viewing of park video thwarted by CSD

2004-10-14T22:45:00.000-07:00

Promontory residents were slated to the show the Davis Playfields Park video during the public comments portion of the CSD's monthly board meeting on October 14th but were hastily removed from the agenda just hours before the meeting started. The reason for the last minute change in position offered by the CSD was that they wanted to ensure that all interested parties could view the video. In addition, they said that showing the video at the November 18th meeting would be more appropriate since that is when the final vote will be made on the park plan.

Like the move to delay the final vote on the park plan until after the elections, this is another blatant political maneuver. The CSD is doing its best to obstruct any attempts that would raise awareness of the mess they have created with the Promontory Park before the election. After all, they're hardly on a roll. Fresh off their "yellow house" debacle and Bass Lake Regional Park disaster, the CSD cannot afford yet another legal and public black eye so close to the elections.

Once Larry Brilliant and Norb Witt are re-elected and reunited with their cronies on the board, they'll return to their old tricks.

Promontory Park Video Preview

2004-10-12T08:19:00.000-07:00

If you just want to see the video preview of the Promontory Park, please see the links at the bottom of this posting. Otherwise, read on.

The CSD has encouraged concerned residents to visit 3 different parks to see the "proposed sport lighting system... in action."

McCabe Field in El Dorado Hills. As the name implies, there is only ONE lighted field at this park (a dual-use softball and youth soccer field). This field has 5 light poles.
Mann Family Park in Folsom, has only ONE lighted field. This park is NOT a valid comparison to the Promontory Park (video: high resolution or low resolution).
Davis Playfields Park in Davis, CA, has 2 lighted softball fields, 1 lighted baseball field, 1 lighted soccer field, snack bar, covered play structures, and a 200 stall parking lot. There are 24 light poles. According to the CSD, this park is "very visible". Huh, I wonder why? See the video links at the bottom of this post for this park.

Now, ask yourself which of these parks most closely matches the CSD's Promontory Park plans? The obvious answer is the Davis park. In fact, the CSD's Promontory Park plans include everything in the Davis Playfields Park PLUS tennis courts, basketball courts, bocce court, a dog park, and a community building. All this with 40 fewer parking stalls. It makes one wonder if the CSD used the Davis park as a model for the Promontory Park.

To get a preview of what the CSD is proposing in the Promontory residential neighborhood, please take 10 minutes to watch a video of this park in-use at night.

Davis Playfields Park Video (Promontory Preview):
Lowest Resolution - Dialup Connection (3.2 MB)
Low Resolution - DSL/Broadband (11.2 MB)
High Resolution - DSL/Broadband (24.1 MB)
Best Quality - T1/Broadband (78.0 MB)

In search of the Promontory Park disclosure sign

2004-10-11T21:14:00.000-07:00

As I mentioned in Disclosures Don't Lie, the CSD and the sports groups have gone to great lengths to point out that the true intentions of the Promontory Park as a sports complex have been clearly disclosed. Well, I've already addressed the real estate disclosures so now I'd like to move on to the ever popular "you should have read the sign" argument.

In order to fairly research this issue, I decided to set out on a field trip to see if I could find the actual sign. However, this endeavor turned out to be more challenging than I was anticipating. Certainly the sign would be displayed prominently in a position that is easy to see by all those that visit the Promontory? Certainly great care was taken in the positioning of such a critical exhibit? Unfortunately, like most aspects of this park issue, what I found was yet another disappointing and frustrating situation.

First, I drove over to the park site since that would be the most obvious place to locate the disclosure sign. But the sign was no where to be found. When I was just about ready to give up and go home, I noticed what appeared to be something white behind a tree about 1/4 mile up a closed road (Alexandra Way).

Since this was too important a trip to come home empty handed, I decided to get out of my car and walk passed the "ROAD CLOSED" signs to see exactly what was behind that tree. And wouldn't you know, that was the park disclosure sign hiding behind that tree!

Just like the facts in the public report, the pictures don't lie:

Yes, I think it actually is a sign.

Yep, that is the sign... hiding behind a tree... 1/4 mile up a closed road!

BEWARE: Anyone interested in buying a new home in El Dorado Hills is advised to explore all closed roads, look under every rock, and peek behind every tree and shrub. You never know where CSD is hiding their next disclosure!

Sports Field Lighting Double Standard

2004-10-11T17:23:00.000-07:00

An obvious question that deserves a credible answer from the CSD is why the double standard when it comes to lighting sports fields in El Dorado Hills. Specifically, why aren't the sports fields lighted at the El Dorado Hills Community Park (EDH's only Community Park). This park is nearly 40 acres in size, already has several sports fields, and is strategically located in the center of El Dorado Hills along the district's main artery (El Dorado Hills Blvd). If any park in El Dorado Hills should have lighted fields, it should be the El Dorado Hills Community Park.

So far the CSD has only offered lip service and made conflicting statements as to this glaring inconsistency.

"The El Dorado Hills Community Park was designed in the late 1980s and included lights on the two softball fields located in the northwest corner. After construction, when these lights were tested in January 1990, a number of residents complained to the District that the lights had a negative impact on their homes. The park was not dedicated until June of that year and by September, the sports field lights were modified—shields were installed, 40% of the light fixtures removed and lighting angles adjusted. Many people with complaints commented that they were comfortable with the changes, however, by that time the issue had become politically charged and in November five new directors were elected to the CSD board. The new board members had the lights removed commenting that they recognized the value of having lighted sports fields and would support lighted fields in the next available community park if the topography and space allowed. Many directors over the past ten years have commented that they are disappointed that the lights were removed and have given consideration to having them replaced but have not developed consensus on this issue."
-- New Questions & Answers for Promontory, prepared by CSD

So what are we to make of this statement? The CSD board in 1990 had no backbone and was simply passing the buck to a future board? All CSD boards since the 1990, including the current board, have not done their job in selling "new field lighting technology" to the residents around the park? Are the concerns of the residents around the EDH Community Park from 1990 still valid today? As history confirms, the answer to all of these questions is "yes".

Today the residents of the Promontory have the same concerns as the residents that lived around the EDH Community Park back in 1990. However, the rules are somehow different when it comes to the Promontory. The hypocrisy of this position and the CSD's inability to recognize it are yet another example of how far they have deviated from their charter.

The opinions of two of our sitting board members, both of whom are up for re-election, tell it all.

When recently asked about his position on installing lights at the EDH Community Park, Larry Brilliant responded that he learned a lesson from the first attempt to install lights in the park and would not support installing lights again unless the residents of Stonegate (the neighborhood adjacent to the EDH Community Park) asked to have them installed. How can Mr. Brilliant make such a statement given the fact that he so openly supports forcing lights on the residents of the Promontory? Perhaps his position is motivated by the fact that he lives in the development across the street from the EDH Community Park.

When recently asked about his position on installing lights at the EDH Community Park, Norb Witt responded that he had never been asked that question and that the idea had never occurred to him. This answer is particularly puzzling considering the CSD's official statement above that consensus has not been reached on the issue. If Norb Witt was caught off-guard by the concept of installing lights in the park and had never considered it, one has to wonder if consensus has ever been attempted on the issue?

To maintain the integrity of the CSD, lights must be installed in the EDH Community Park before they are installed in any other park in El Dorado Hills. Common sense and responsible leadership mandate this position.

Is it fair that the Promontory bear the brunt of all night sporting activities in EDH when a park over twice its size does not have lights and therefore cannot be used at night? I challenge anyone to argue that this is fair by posting comments.

Coming Soon: Custom Homes in Village Witt at Norbertory Point (formerly the site for the North Promontory Neighborhood Park)

2004-10-11T01:52:00.000-07:00

As a follow up to my sports-fields-at-any-cost and CSD board member, Norb Witt, profiting from park site posts, consider the following photograph of the site that the CSD deemed unsuitable for a Neighborhood Park... or was it... a sports field. Obviously it's suitable for 10 custom home sites! Click on the image to see a larger version and decide for yourself.

CSD Strategy: "Regional scale parks at edge of EDHCSD boundary... that offer high level of active sports facilities in a major recreation complex"

2004-10-08T07:25:00.000-07:00

In light of my Right Park, Wrong Place post, consider this "strategic point" from the EDH CSD Recreation Facilities Master Plan (RFMP).

"Develop regional scale parks at the edge of the EDHCSD boundary in tandem with El Dorado County, Cameron Park CSD, and private interests. Such regional facilities would offer a high level of active sports facilities in a major recreation complex including picnic areas, sports fields, and a community center. Such facilities should be located at Bass Lake and south of Highway 50."
-- EDH CSD RFMP 6.1.2 (page 41)

Look familiar? The park that the CSD is proposing for the Village Center Park in the Promontory is at the edge of the EDHCSD boundary (200 yards from El Dorado/Sacramento county line), is being touted by the CSD to serve "the entire 31,000 people living in EDH", is dominated by sports facilities (9 fields and/or courts for 6 different sports), and includes picnic areas and a community center. Every single park feature described in this "strategic point" is represented in the CSD's Promontory Park plan.

One glaring inconsistency between this "strategic point" and the CSD's Promontory Park plan is that the Promontory is not at Bass Lake and is not south of Highway 50. Could it be that since the CSD was thwarted at the Bass Lake area and has claimed that they have no control south of Highway 50, that they're now targeting the Promontory area for this beast? Another example of responsible leadership at its finest.

CSD: Neighborhood parks won't be built unless they include sports fields

2004-10-08T06:30:00.000-07:00

The PRFT has learned that the criteria used by the CSD to approve the land-swap of the still missing North Promontory Neighborhood Park was that a park could not be built on this site in such a way to include a sports field.

"The rescue school district was supposed to work with the CSD on joint use of their fields and the park, but the school district went ahead with their plans without CSD input, resulting in an elevation change of 14 feet. The CSD asked Promontory Developers for other land in liue[sic] of this, as active field use was desired, and the sentiment was that the 3.86 acre site was too small to accomodate[sic] that. In Dec. 2001, the (then) CSD board authorized the General Manager to negotiate a land swap with more suitable land."
-- Email reply from Justin Masters to Promontory resident, 10/7/2004

However, this position is clearly inconsistent with the definition of a Neighborhood Park according to the EDH CSD Recreation Facilities Master Plan (RFMP).

"Neighborhood parks primarily focus on serving children's walk-to or bike-to recreation needs. When possible, neighborhood parks should be adjacent to schools, and may include a playground, tot lot, turf areas, and picnic tables."
-- EDH CSD RFMP 6.1.1 (page 28)

This definition says nothing about sports fields. But it does seem to perfectly fit what this park site was originally intended for. This site is adjacent to the Promontory Elementary School and is conveniently located within walking and biking distance of all of the homes in the northern portion of the Promontory. This site is a perfect match for a Neighborhood Park according to this definition. In addition, this Neighborhood Park would "ensure that there is a mix of park and recreation opportunities" (RFMP 6.1.1) within the Promontory.

This is yet another example of how the CSD's parks-with-sports-fields-at-all-costs mentality is clouding their judgment and leading them to make poor decisions. Couple this with a board member removing the preservation of quality of life from their re-election platform and the rogue agenda becomes clear.

CSD pushes back decision on park design until after elections

2004-10-07T09:50:00.000-07:00

Email from Dianna Hillyer, CSD Planning Director, sent 10/7/2004 9:23am:

"The District is postponing Board action on the design for the Promontory Community Park originally scheduled for its regular meeting on October 14 to November 18. Because of the large volume of public comments still being received related to the park design the CSD is continues to review a number of issues. The meeting on Thursday, November 18 at 7:00 p.m. will be held in the Community Activity Building at 1021 Harvard Way.
Once the Board of Directors approves a final design for the 18 acre parcel, construction plans and specifications will be developed for Promontory Community Park. Bids will be solicited in the spring with construction expected to start that summer 2005. The park should open for use by spring 2006."

On the surface this is fantastic news. I would like to think that the CSD is genuinely pulling back on its aggressive push for getting their design approved so they can ensure they are building a sensible park on this site. But I can't help but be concerned about the timing. With elections just a couple weeks after the original October 14th decision date, are the board members running for re-election (Larry Brilliant and Norb Witt) concerned about the political backlash to their decision? Push the decision passed the November 2nd elections so their chance of being re-elected is not jeopardized?

Only the CSD's actions over the next couple weeks will tell if they are really taking the additional time to work on the park plan or if they are simply stalling until after the elections.

I'm cautiously optimistic.

Right Park, Wrong Place

2004-10-06T19:37:00.000-07:00

When I first learned of what the CSD was up to, building a regional sports complex in a residential neighborhood, my first thought was that this type of park is simply not appropriate in this location. Certainly they realize that? It's a classic square peg in a round hole scenario.

As I have described in other posts, the Village Center Park was supposed to be a Village Park (a much more limited scope type of park). However, before the CSD could build their sports complex on the flat land in the Promontory they have been drooling over for the last decade, they had to expand the Village Center Park. Now let's humor the CSD for a moment and consider a Community Park at the Village Center Park location.

According to the CSD, a Community Park has the following definition.

"Community parks and recreation facilities provide a focal point and gathering place for the larger community. Community parks are for use by all sectors and age groups, and may include multi-purpose fields, ball fields, group picnic areas, playground, tot lot, multi-purpose hard courts, swimming pool, tennis courts, and a community center."
-- Page 28, EDH CSD RFMP

Furthermore, a Community Park targets serving populations of 5,000-25,000 people within a 1 to 3 mile service area (page 29, EDH CSD RFMP).

Okay, so that all makes sense. A Community Park should be the focal point for the larger community. I assume that "focal point" means center or at least centrally accessible and that "larger community" means El Dorado Hills. And of course it would make sense that a park that is the "focal point" would be surrounded by 5,000 to 25,000 people in a 1 to 3 mile radius. This all sounds good so far.

Now overlay what we just learned about a Community Park on top of the Village Center Park site. The Village Center Park site is literally 200 yards from the El Dorado/Sacramento county line! How in the world can a Community Park on the edge of the county be a focal point of anything? Well, let's push that aside for a moment and look at the population served numbers. Certainly the CSD has done there homework somewhere in here. The Promontory will contain 1,100 homes with approximately 3,500 citizens when fully built out. A one mile radius from the Village Center Park (on the El Dorado County side only) barely gets you outside of the Promontory. So how can the CSD get our money's worth for a Community Park when the bottom end of their target served population requirement (5,000) cannot even be met? Perhaps they meant to include Folsom in their calculations? Well, you would certainly quickly get up to 25,000 served if your 1 to 3 mile radius could include Folsom. In fact, I bet the Folsom City Hall is within 3 miles of the Village Center Park!

Things actually go from being a bit comical at this point to just plain sad when you think about "larger community" access to a Community Park in the Promontory. There will be 2 access roads for El Dorado Hills residents that live outside of the Promontory to the Village Center Park site. One is via Sophia Blvd from Green Valley Road (an intersection even closer to the El Dorado/Sacramento county line than the park!) and the other is through the Crown Valley residential neighborhood on Brittany Way. Due to the inconvenient Green Valley to Sophia approach, most residents will choose to cut through Crown Valley, an already overused route. At this point you may be wondering if the new Sophia extension to Highway 50 would be of any use here. Unfortunately there are no connections to El Dorado Hills from this road extension. But there are several to Folsom which makes access to this park site more convenient for Folsom residents than the greater El Dorado Hills community that CSD is trying to serve with this park.

Nope, sorry CSD, a Community Park in the Promontory is simply the right park in the wrong place. In your overzealous pursuit of developing parkland on any flat land that you can get your hands on you forgot to make sure it passes the common sense test. Test failed, try again.

Adult sports park features

2004-10-06T19:07:00.000-07:00

It has already been made clear in this blog that the intentions for the Village Center Park were for Promontory residents and youth oriented sports. The need for more sports fields for the recreational leagues in El Dorado Hills is immense as the statistics show. However, all 3 of the park designs offered by the CSD so far have featured adult park features that dominate the park's space. Specifically, the adult softball and synthetic soccer fields take up over half of the sports portion of the park plans.

The CSD contends that since the synthetic soccer field can also be configured as two U-10 soccer fields that this area can be used for kids as well. That may be the case but when my daughters played recreational soccer in Folsom, I never once saw a recreational soccer player or team step foot on any of Folsom's synthetic soccer fields. These fields were always being used by adults or select soccer teams. If the overwhelming need is for the recreational sports groups, why is the CSD catering to select groups for the soccer field(s)? I want to see my daughters practice and play soccer games on these fields but I fear that the adult and select groups will take these field(s) over for their games and tournaments.

The presence of the adult softball field has not been explained away yet as a dual youth/adult field so I can only assume that it is an adult only field.

I am not an expert on the sizes of softball/baseball/soccer fields for each age group so I welcome anyone from the sports groups to help clarify this issue.

Finally, consider the following comment made by Dianna Hillyer, CSD Planning Director, in the El Dorado Hills Telegraph on 9/22/2004.

“And don’t forget about the adult leagues.”

Huh, and I thought this was all about the kids?

Parks, parks and more parks

2004-10-06T11:49:00.000-07:00

In today's El Dorado Hills Telegraph, current CSD board member and incumbent candidate, Larry Brilliant reaffirmed his position on building parks, parks, and more parks.

Sadly, Mr. Brilliant's parks-at-any-cost position is shared by other CSD board members as well as the CSD staff. Consider the totality of their positions and ask yourself if this is responsible leadership as the CSD's mission statement claims.

"When we find flat land, we usually try to maximize it's[sic] potential."
-- Frequently Asked Questions, Community Park in the Promontory prepared by CSD

When the opportunity came up to expand the size of the Promontory park by adding 4 acres under the power lines and swapping the land for the neighborhood park, "we jumped on it!"
--Wayne Lowery, CSD General Manager, email to Promontory resident

“The Promontory site is crucial to the district’s agenda.”
--Wayne Lowery, CSD General Manager, El Dorado Hills Telegraph 9/22/2004

“New sports fields have been our number one priority since 1994, but we’ve never had access to large flat acreage land.”
--Wayne Lowery, CSD General Manager, El Dorado Hills Telegraph 9/22/2004

To date the concerns of the Promontory residents have only received lip service from the CSD. The park remains 19 acres in size (it was originally 10 acres), it will be a lighted sports complex, and the neighborhood park involved in the land-swap is gone.

We're really in trouble if it ever becomes the priority for the CSD to build shooting ranges or nuclear generators because they'd build them in the middle of residential neighborhoods if there was any flat land available.

Larry Brilliant changes election platform

2004-10-06T11:26:00.000-07:00

Well, Larry Brilliant, current CSD board member running for re-election has finally done it. He has flip flopped on his position of responsible park development.

His position for his current term as CSD board member was:

Committed to ensuring the development of large community sport complex parks in areas that will not impact quality of life of the community residences

It has been changed to:

Committed to increasing the number of sport facilities, recreation programs and senior citizen's facilities to meet the needs of the community

So now he's just for increasing the number of sports facilities and the impact to quality of life doesn't matter. Apparently Mr. Brilliant was for quality of life before he was against it. We already know he's a numbers guy but now we know he's willing to sacrifice quality of life to get those numbers.

See www.smartvoter.org for Mr. Brilliant's complete platform.

CSD board member Norb Witt building homes on park site

2004-10-06T07:53:00.000-07:00

With all the controversy surrounding the development of the Village Center Park (Promontory Park) in the Promontory, one subject is not getting the attention it deserves. That is, the original plans for the developing the parklands in the Promontory included 2 Neighborhood parks and 1 Village Park. The CSD's own Recreation Facilities Master Plan (RFMP) clearly spells this out. However, one of these Neighborhood parks has disappeared. Instead we are being forced to accept one Neighborhood park (Kalithea Park in Village 6) and one regional sports complex (the Village Center Park reclassified as a Community Park).

Where did our Neighborhood park go? Well, let me tell you. The site where the 2nd Neighborhood Park was supposed to be built is instead being used to build 10 lake view custom homes by Norb Witt, a sitting CSD board member. Let me say this again since it is almost unbelievable. An elected official entrusted by the developers of the Promontory to responsibly develop the parklands dedicated to the residents of the Promontory and the children of the community is profiting by building homes on one of the park sites.

Now, Mr. Witt would have you believe that he purchased that land before he was elected to the CSD board and that everything with the transaction was legit. Even if this is true (which is unclear at this point), I don't see how it changes anything? Is he saying that he was a shrewd business man out for his own interests before he was elected but now he can be trusted to make decisions in our best interests? Mr. Witt and the CSD would also have us believe that the park site wasn't suitable for building a park in the first place. Okay, so it's not suitable for a small park but it is suitable for building 10 custom homes? In addition, did Mr. Witt own the multi-family parcel that was next to the Village Center Park before it was swapped for the neighborhood park site? If so, that seems like a pretty sweet deal. Swapping 4 acres zoned for multi-family development next to power lines, lighted sports complex, and commercial property for prime lake view custom home lots next to an elementary school. C'mon Mr. Witt and CSD!

Besides the plain stink of this land-grab (which the CSD cannot produce the meeting minutes from when it was approved), the loss of this particular neighborhood park in light of the sports complex that's currently being forced down our throat is especially critical. This neighborhood park was going to be walking distance from my home. Now I will have to get in my car to take my 2 year-old daughter to either the Village 6 park or the proposed sports complex.

My journey to the Village 6 park is quite interesting since I have to exit the Promontory on Sophia, drive up Green Valley to El Dorado Hills Blvd, and access Kalithea from the back side of the community. Let me repeat that. I have to exit the Promontory to access the Promontory's only neighborhood park. This trip is about 4-5 miles. Now, once I get there I won't find a parking place on a Saturday or Sunday since the parking lot and streets around Kalithea Park are filled with the cars of parents and spectators of youth soccer or baseball/softball or guests at a park party/event. Assuming I do find a place to park, my 2 year-old will have to contend with older children playing on the tot play structures. Where youth sports fields are adjacent to tot play structures, there is a real problem with older kids playing on these structures before, after, and between games.

If I instead decide to take my 2 year-old to the proposed sports complex, I will just get more of the same. The parking will be worse since the sports complex will have more fields and will host soccer, baseball, and softball tournaments. In addition, the community building will be available to rent for events such as weddings, parties, and meetings. And let's not forget about the cars for all of the people at the dog park. Should I be fortunate enough to find a parking place at the sports complex, my daughter will have an even harder time safely playing in this environment.

The lost neighborhood park would not have any of these issues since it would not include any of the features that attract the crowds at the other parks. Neighborhood parks are intended for this very purpose. How can the CSD not see this major mistake?

My best option will be to get in my car and drive back into Folsom to the neighborhood park in my old community, Briggs Ranch. In fact, with the loss of the 2nd neighborhood park in the Promontory, the Briggs Ranch Neighborhood Park is actually closer to my new home in the Promontory than the Village 6 park (Kalithea Park)!

This situation is simply unacceptable and irresponsible.

Larry Brilliant: "20:1 says to build the park with lights"

2004-10-06T07:14:00.000-07:00

The PRFT has obtained an email from EDH CSD board member Larry Brilliant addressed to a concerned Promontory resident where he claimed that "e-mails [received by the CSD] are approximately 20:1 to build the park with lights."

My question for Mr. Brilliant is how stupid do you think we are!? Of course you're going to receive more emails in favor of putting lights in this park than against. The Promontory residents are a very small group who are fighting to raise awareness in the community about this issue. When fully built, the Promontory will contain 1,100 homes (approximately 3,500 citizens according to the CSD). Currently there are less than 200 residents living in the Promontory. Is the timing of the approval of the park design an accident? Of course not! The CSD is doing its best to get this sports complex approved before there are enough Promontory residents to stop them!

Besides the CSD, the Promontory is fighting against a county-wide promotional campaign by the youth sports organizations. And these sports groups are spreading misinformation when it comes to the park to scare their constituents into emailing the CSD to support a lighted park.

Is Mr. Brilliant telling us that he is making his decision based on the final email count? Perhaps he's equating the email count to votes that he would gain and lose in pursuit of re-election should he vote one way or the other? Do we really want an elected official to stick his finger in the air and vote with which ever way the wind is blowing? No! We expect an elected official to make decisions responsibly. Make decisions that are right for the residents of El Dorado Hills even when those decisions are not popular with part of their constituency that care only about additional sports fields at all costs.

We shouldn't be surprised by this position from Mr. Brilliant, though. When it was recently pointed out to him that one of his top campaign priorities for his current term is, "committed to ensuring the development of large community sport complex parks in areas that will not impact quality of life of the community residences," he replied that he is in the process of updating that priority. If find it very interesting that instead of defending or qualifying this priority for which he was elected, he chose to say that he is changing it. I'm curious what the updated priority will look like. Will he just drop off the part about not impacting the quality of life of the community residences and have it read "committed to building a large sports complex"? Or will he replace it with "build a sports complex at all costs"?

Promontory Residents Want A Park

2004-10-05T08:36:00.000-07:00

Another misconception that has been promoted and spread by the youth sports groups and supported by local newspapers is that the Promontory residents do not want the Promontory Park (a.k.a. Village Center Park) at all and that the Promontory residents are anti-kids. I have heard from El Dorado Hills and El Dorado County residents that live outside of the Promontory that have been told by their children's coaches that this is the case.

This sophomoric scare tactic is simply ridiculous and unfortunately has to be addressed.

At no time have I heard any Promontory resident state that they did not want the Village Center Park to be built or that they did not want youth oriented features, including youth sports fields, to be built in this park. After all, this is what we were promised in this park and this park attracted many of us to buy homes in the Promontory. Furthermore, every Promontory resident that has spoke at the public workshops (at least the workshops that we were invited to) started by saying that they support the park and youth sports. In fact, most families in the Promontory have children and many are either currently involved in youth sports in El Dorado Hills or will be when they're old enough. I have 2 children that are active in recreational sports in El Dorado Hills.

What I don't support is irresponsible development of parklands whether they are in the Promontory or not. I would hope that all residents of El Dorado Hills would support me on this as well.

Disclosures Do Not Lie!

2004-10-04T09:44:00.000-07:00

A common argument used by the CSD and supporters of the CSD's park designs, primarily the leadership of youth sports organizations, is that Promontory residents signed a disclosure when they purchased their homes that clearly spelled out the intention of the park. We were told that "we should have done our homework."

Well, I did my "homework" when I bought my home and I have recently done additional research and let me tell you that the facts, indeed, do not lie. Unfortunately for the CSD and the sports groups, the facts do not support their cause and instead expose the early stages of deception hatched by the CSD years ago to sneak a sports complex into a residential neighborhood that they knew would never have flown had they been truthful from the beginning.

Here are the relevant excerpts from the public report that I signed when I purchased my home in the Promontory.

“The Promontory Specific Plan provides for approximately 101 acres of public open space which is intended for the common use of all residents in the Specific Plan area.”
- Final Subdivision Public Report (file no. 106051SA-F00, issued 6/14/2002)

It doesn't get any clearer than this. The open space within the Promontory was intended for the residents of the Promontory. This statement, of course, makes perfect sense when you also consider that Promontory residents were assessed $5,000 per lot when they purchased their homes to fund the construction of their parks and are assessed monthly for the ongoing maintenance of their parks. That's it.

Now, the CSD doesn't see it that way:

“A final design plan... must be placed in the context of the needs of the entire 31,000 people living in EDH."
- CSD Planning Director, Dianna Hillyer, email to several Promontory residents on 9/20/2004 3:16PM

“This is not Promontory’s park. It’s the district’s park.”
- CSD Planning Director, Dianna Hillyer, El Dorado Hills Telegraph 9/22/2004

Clearly the CSD is trying to wrestle away control of the design of the Promontory park from the residents of the Promontory, the original benefactors of the Promontory's parkland. This fact was made perfectly clear when the CSD shutdown talks between Promontory residents and representatives of several youth sports groups to come up with a compromise that would benefit both sides.

"The design process is NOT a negotiation process... At this time we see no benefit of having two of the user groups - park neighbors and youth sports - meet collectively on the draft design."
- CSD Planning Director, Dianna Hillyer, email to several Promontory residents on 9/20/2004 3:16PM

What possible motive could the CSD have to proactively put down the efforts of the two groups with the most vested interest in the design of the park? Who's interests are they really serving by this type of power-grab? Who are they elected/appointed to serve?

Now, I'd like to come back to the Final Subdivision Public Report.

“Twenty-two (22) acres of active and passive parkland have been planned. These parklands are intended to provide recreation areas for resident enjoyment, practice fields for youth-oriented sports and more organized youth-oriented sports. Currrently, two (2) parks are proposed: a 3.89 acres park in Village 6 and a 18-acre park in the Village Center.”

- Final Subdivision Public Report (file no. 106051SA-F00, issued 6/14/2002)

The parkland in the Promontory is intended for who's enjoyment? Was it intended for the entire 31,000 people living in El Dorado Hills? Was it intended for the CSD to do with it as they please? Was it intended for adult sports leagues to play softball and soccer every night until 10:00pm? Was it intended to provide a building to host wedding receptions and public meetings? No, it was intended first for the residents of the Promontory and secondarily for the benefit of youth oriented sports. That's it. How can this be made any clearer?

The final point that I'd like to make about this portion of the public report is that this public report (for Village 3--where I live) says that there will be parks in Village 6 and at the Village Center. However, the public report for Village 1 that Village 1 residents signed (file no. 107230SA-A01) states that there will be parks in Village 5 and the Village Center. Furthermore, the Village 1 public report also refers to the Village 6 park. Where did this Village 5 park go? Why the contradictory public reports? Who really didn't do their homework here?

But hold on! Now comes the best part. The lights! So far, the public report has been very clear on its points. However, when it comes to the lights, things start to get a bit sketchy.

“While the Village 6 park will not be a field-lighted park, the Village Center Park will be a lighted facility.”
- Final Subdivision Public Report (file no. 106051SA-F00, issued 6/14/2002)

The Village 6 park (Kalithea Park) is the Promontory's only neighborhood park. This park has play structures, picnic areas, and a mixed use softball and youth soccer field. This park has already been constructed and there are no lights at this park as the public report states. However, the Village Center Park (reclassified by the CSD as a Community Park--a topic for another posting), will be a lighted facility? What does that mean? Does that mean that the footpaths will be lighted throughout the park? Does that mean that a security light will be installed around the play structures? Or does that mean a lighted sports complex will be built to accommondate youth and adult sports of all of El Dorado Hills until 10:00pm every night? Why so vague? Was there something to hide? If the CSD has been planning this park since the "mid 90's" as they claim, is it conceivable that they didn't know what features were going to be in the park? Or perhaps they approved the vague wording knowing that they could always blame the developer later for not making the wording more specific. Just wait, my prediction is that the CSD will begin the finger pointing soon and the developers will be their scapegoats.

However, the CSD reveals its agenda on this one too. Existing CSD board member, Larry Brilliant, stated at a recent CSD board election candidate panel that he was "proud of the process" that the CSD followed working with the developers on the Promontory and its parklands. What exactly is Mr. Brilliant proud of? Is he proud that he duped the Promontory homebuyers into financing his sports complex juggernaut?

One detail in the previous excerpt from the public policy that also deserves attention is the original and disclosed name of the Promontory park: Village Center Park. As the name implies, this park is a Village Park. The definition of a Village Park, according to the CSD, is one that "may include lighted ball fields." So, it is reasonable to think that a lighted facility may not necessarily mean lighted ball fields. And even if it did mean lighted ball fields, certainly they won't be lighted until 10:00pm since the parks are intended for youth sports!

Finally, I'd like to consider what is actually in the CSD's Recreation Facilities Master Plan (RFMP) document regarding the parks in the Promontory. This document is the bible or playbook for the CSD when it comes developing parks within the El Dorado Hills district. Certainly the CSD board cannot blame anyone else for the wording in this document!

The RFMP calls for 2 Neighborhood Parks and 1 Community Park in the Promontory. The 2 Neighborhood parks were supposed to be the park in Village 6 (Kalithea), "South Promontory Neighborhood Park", and the "North Promontory Neighborhood Park". The North park was supposed to be adjacent to the Promontory Elementary School. However, the North park has disappeared and is instead being developed as 10 custom home sites by a sitting CSD board member! Where has this Neighborhood park gone? Where is the outcry from the community about the loss of this vital parkland? Where is the outrage that a CSD board member is profitting from our parkland?

The CSD's party-line on this one is that the 4 acre North Neighborhood parkland was "swapped" for 4 acres of multi-family-use land adjacent to the Village Center Park (aka Promontory Community Park). This land-grab combined with 4 acres under the power lines separating these two parcels allowed the CSD to balloon the Village Center Park from 10 acres to nearly 19 acres. These maneuvers faciliated the re-classification of the Village Center Park (a Village Park) as a Community Park. If the CSD wanted to expand the Village Center Park into the adjacent 4 acre multi-family parcel, why didn't they just buy this land themselves? Why swap out the only neighborhood park available to the northern half of the Promontory?

The deception was complete and the agenda fulfilled. Build a sports complex in a residential neighborhood and make the residents of that neighborhood pay for it. Mission accomplished. Responsible leadership at its finest.

Introduction

2004-10-02T19:01:00.000-07:00

I just can't take it anymore!

I have been a resident of the Promontory development in El Dorado Hills, California for 1 1/2 years. I lived in the neighboring city of Folsom for 12 years prior to moving to El Dorado Hills.

I'm not one to get involved in public or civic activities but the outright negligence, deceit, and corruption of the El Dorado Hills Community Services District (EDHCSD) that I have experienced first hand through the planning process of our neighborhood park has pushed me to the point where I feel that I have to voice my opinions and expose these acts in a more visible forum.

This blog is that forum. In the coming days/weeks/months, I will blog the truth about what the Promontory park was intended to be, what the EDHCSD has mutated it into, and the EDHCSD's campaign to dupe an entire county. The EDHCSD wants to turn the lights on in our backyards... I will use this blog to turn the lights on them and expose their agenda!