In a writ of mandate issued on July 25, 2018, Judge Warren Stracener of the El Dorado County Superior Court ordered the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors to properly highlight their disagreement with the Board of Forestry regarding the inadequate attention to fire safety in the 2015 Targeted General Plan Amendment and Zoning Ordinance Update. The judge also directed the Board of Supervisors to properly respond to a public comment raising concerns over the groundwater quality impacts of home occupations discharging dangerous chemicals into septic systems in groundwater-dependent rural areas.
In a September 17th board hearing under a consent item that did not invite public discussion, County counsel made light of the requirement to revisit fire safety and groundwater impacts that would result from those zoning changes, and it is unclear if there will be any further discussion or any mitigations offered. To be clear, the Board of Forestry’s 2014 letter expressed concern about expanding development in the high and very high fire hazard severity zones that dominate the County’s rangelands and forestlands, stating plainly “..that fire safety is not addressed adequately for the proposed increase in allowable densities” and that “This proposed TGPA-ZOU exposes people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death from wildland fires.” The County disagreed with the Board of Forestry.
The judge ruled that the County failed in its obligation to highlight this disagreement with the Board of Forestry within the main body of the Environmental Impact Report, such that concerned citizens and decision makers would be made aware of the dispute and be allowed meaningful comment.
In an attempt to respond to the writ, the County issued a draft addendum in September that included no explanation of its true purpose, nor effort to reduce the fire risk or the potential for groundwater contamination.
What can you do to help? Email the Planning Commission (firstname.lastname@example.org) and the Board of Supervisors (email@example.com ) and tell them to monitor groundwater where rural commercial development and home occupations are disposing of chemicals in septic systems, and to limit rural commercial developments and home occupations to properties served by paved roads, public water, and nearby fire stations.
Additionally, RCU has filed a Notice of Appeal for California’s appellate court to review a limited number of equally important issues not prevailed upon in Superior Court. Watch for problematic developments that are proceeding under the 2015 TGPA/ZOU approval, as they may be impacted by this appeal.
Dear RCU friends and supporters:
On April 25th, the TGPA/ZOU case was heard in court, and the final decision released late May. Things did not go as we’d hoped for RCU, and many primary issues were lost.
The ‘wins’ involve denunciation of the expanded uses into forested areas, impacts of infill and the Home Occupation Ordinance on water quality, impacts from development on slopes over 30%, and impacts on wildlife from development around Bass Lake. Each of these overturns sections of the Environmental Impact Report and requires a rewrite prior to proceeding with development that is dependent upon those particular policy changes.
While you may be disheartened by groups out there running victory laps, please know that our losses should not be considered as vindication that what this county did in rezoning over 37,000 parcels was ‘okay’. The court’s ruling was riddled with phrases that point to procedural errors, indicating that the facts of our case have not been fully heard.
As our group discusses the many factors that go into a possible appeal, pay attention to the development projects that pop up around you, and challenge those where poor discretionary decisions are being made. This case highlights the importance of the Supervisorial position, so vote accordingly, and HOLD YOUR ELECTED OFFICIALS ACCOUNTABLE.
Ellen Van Dyke for RCU
The El Dorado County Superior Court will hold a public hearing at the Cameron Park Court House on Monday 4/25 at AM.8:30. This is the hearing for the RCU case against El Dorado County and their General Plan amendment and zoning ordinance update (TGPA/ZOU).
On 1/5/2018, RCU filed it’s Response brief in our legal action against the County’s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance update (TGPA/ZOU). The court date for the Judge’s ruling on this case is 3/19 in the courtroom at Cameron Park. The brief can be found at: open-id=14FRPSyNOAnd4xQmNO5pitrMn9pl9Dl9n To view the brief with links to citations, download all seven files from this folder.
Here’s the cover page from our Response Brief:
On October 6, 2017, attorney Tom Infusino filed the Opening Brief for RCU. Read the brief here. (Download all 7 files if you want to utilize links in the brief and view exhibits that are cited.)
Dear RCU friends and supporters:
How do we say ‘thank you’ for a great event, while at the same time share news of our grief at the passing of Bill Center? Just like that I guess. Sunday’s ‘Music on the River’ event was a wonderful success, but on Monday we lost our beloved Bill.
The weather for Sunday was beautiful, the music was perfect for that river setting, and dancing on the grass and lights twinkling made it almost an afterthought that essential funds for the RCU lawsuit were being raised. Many thanks to our band ‘Late for Dinner’, Chandos tacos for the terrific food, our Georgetown Preservation Society bartenders, our helpers from Shingle Springs Community Alliance and No San Stino groups, the many wonderful silent auction contributors* and bidders, the residents from Pollock Pines to El Dorado Hills who came, contributed, and enjoyed the beautiful setting – thanks to all who made this a fun and successful event.
Bill had not wanted this event canceled when he learned of his illness. And while his battle was relatively short, the loss we feel will be long lived. He loved this county and gave to its preservation extensively. Our condolences go out to his family and friends, while we try to comfort each other on this loss. He will be missed.
From all of us at RCU
*Event & auction donations of all sizes were truly appreciated:
Adventure Connections Rafting
El Dorado Saloon & Grill
Lisa Richmond Photography
Jodar Vineyards & Winery
Erin Davidson, CMP
Tim & Sue Taylor
With special thanks to the Center family for use of Camp Lotus and assistance throughout
Come on out to the riverfront at Camp Lotus to enjoy live music by Late For Dinner.
Join in the fun of the silent and live auctions, while helping to benefit our beautiful rural county. Preview auction items here: https://ruralcommunitiesunited.org/auction-items/ If you have goods or services to donate as auction items, please contact Ellen at firstname.lastname@example.org.
View the Chando’s Tacos truck menu here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3b85OgdKmFjS1VQYjdqU2xJVjQ/view
Bring your friends and family and spread the word. See you there!
RCU’s mission is to protect the quality of life in El Dorado County against the efforts of development interests, which continue to undermine the CEQA process and threaten the rural character of the County.
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 184.108.40.206 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!!