Importance of site specific review

On Tuesday, 6/27/2017, Supervisors denied a proposal for rezone south of Hwy50 that would have created 4 residential lots out of one. It was the Hansen Project, Z16-0001. County planners had ‘blessed’ it with a recommendation for approval, making a BOS denial fairly unusual. By contrast, these same Supervisors just approved a MUCH bigger project, right down the road from Hansen’s: a 5-building complex for commercial activity with a 50-student school, staff of 20, & a caretaker residence.

So why do you suppose the Supervisors said ‘no’ to Mr. Hansen? ..while they had their reasons, the point here is that only a site specific review of the project could reveal those reasons. SITE SPECIFIC REVIEW is key; it’s a must. Yet in December 2015, three of those same Supervisors denied the public site specific review of over 37,000 parcels rezoned en masse, county wide, under the TGPA/ZOU. It was a HUGE over-reach. How many of those 37,000 rezones might have been denied- just like Hansen’s- had they been given the site specific review required by Policy 2.2.5.3 of the General Plan?

Two supervisors (Frentzen and Hidahl) understand the importance of doing a site specific review. Thank them for their efforts, and remind them that the other 37,000 parcels should have had the same treatment. Perhaps they can convince the other Supervisors that the RCU lawsuit should be settled and the mass-rezones overturned!!

Advertisements

Update – RCU vs. El Dorado County Supervisors

Dear RCU friends and supporters:

It’s been 18 months since RCU initiated legal action against the County in response to Supervisor’s approval of the General Plan and zoning changes known as the Targeted General Plan Amendment (TGPA) and Zoning Ordinance Update (ZOU).

In that time, many of you have donated to our legal fund, and we don’t want you to lose track of why you might have been inspired to do that!

The changes approved under the TGPA/ZOU promised to drastically increase development in our rural county, contrary to the expressed wishes of El Dorado County voters. Policy revisions catered to development interests, and removed protections put in place under the voter approved 2004 General Plan. The TGPA/ZOU…

  • Rezoned over 1/3 of the county’s parcels (over 37,000 of them) without notifying property owners or their neighbors of those changes
  • Expanded commercial uses into the rural regions of the county, many of them to be ‘by right’ with no public notice necessary.
  • Threatens our groundwater supply due to the expansion of commercial uses into those regions
  • Expanded in-home business regulations via the Home Occupancy Ordinance, with disregard for impacts on neighboring residents
    …and more.

The last General Plan lawsuit against El Dorado County resulted in a writ of mandate that halted new development approvals for almost 7 years. In spite of this, the County continues down the same path of disregard, forcing residents to fight for their quality of life via the courts, sapping the resources of all.

In May the County began the 60-day period they were given to certify the administrative record for this case as ‘complete’. We hope to then be granted a court schedule that will get this case before the judge – we will keep you informed.

Visit our new Facebook page to comment and connect with others on development projects in your area, and donate to our legal fund if you haven’t already. And let us know if you can help with an upcoming fundraising event!

Ellen Van Dyke on behalf of RCU
www.RuralCommunitiesUnited.org