August 2003
What's going on with the
El Dorado County General Plan?A new general plan for the county is afoot. If you are concerned about traffic congestion, about noise from Mather Field, about adequate parks, about speeding on your local streets, about fire protection, about loss of oak trees - whatever---you should be telling the county. These are all planning issues. This issue of Maidu Messages is intended to help you figure out what to say. THE COMMENT PERIOD HAS BEEN EXTENDED FROM JUNE 16 TO JULY 15-BUT DON'T WAIT. CALL, WRITE, FAX OR EMAIL YOUR COMMENTS NOW. There may also be hearings in August where you can speak.
Why Comment?The Planning Department has asked for comments on both the draft general plans and the draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). We are submitting detailed comments on behalf of the Maidu Group. But your support in brief comments can be valuable.
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), which defeated the 1996 General Plan, is a -full disclosure' act. It does not dictate the outcome
The DEIR identifies and analyzes the effects of the 'project', and suggests ways of mitigating those effects as much as possible. In commenting on the DEIR, citizens have a chance to critique the analysis. The DEIR may have overlooked something, or set a higher 'threshold of significance' than you believe is suitable, conducted a faulty analysis, or reached a conclusion not based on substantial evidence. You may propose a mitigation that hasn1t been considered. It is your chance to let the approving body know your concerns about the 'project'. Citizen comments must be answered in the Final EIR. The approving body (the Supervisors for the general plan) does not have to accept mitigation proposed in the DEIR or by citizens. That is another reason for letting them know what you want. In 1996 the Planning Commission and Supervisors did reject much of the mitigation proposed in both the DEIR and by citizens, relying on a 'Statement of Overriding Considerations' that often consisted of conclusions unsupported by evidence. But the decision must be based on 'Findings of Fact'.
What is a General Plan? A general plan for the county may be thought of as the 'constitution' of development. It provides a comprehensive, long-term guide for decision-makers and the public for the physical development of the community. The elements of the plan must be consistent with each other. A good Genera Plan determines the location of infrastructure such as roads, sewer and water lines, public assets that are designed for a 30-50 year life span. It should integrate the plans for all these expensive items to minimize costs and maximize service.
Mandated general plan elements:
Land-use Circulaiton(transportation) Housing Conservation (of native plants, and natural resources) Open-space Noise Safety Optional elements in the EDC 1996 plan Public services and utilities Parks and Recreation Agriculture and Forestry Tahoe Basin Economic Development
What it Means The California Environmenal Quality Act (CEQA) requires government to fully analyze the consequences of their actions and fully disclose those consequences to the public and allow for public comment. Government is required to mitigate significant impacts, if feasible.
The Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) is the primary document containing most of the analysis of the plan. The DEIR outlines the significance of the impacts and proposed mitigations.
The Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) incorporates all public comment, answers all questins, includes all feasible mitigation measures to mitigate impacts.
A Brief HistoryIn 1996 the Supervisors adopted a general plan that was rejected by the court in 1999 because the draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) did not accurately disclose what the impacts would be. The court issued a 'writ' that constrained residential development until a new, satisfactory general plan was adopted. Between 1996 and 1999, the County approved five large subdivisions (Carson Creek, Promontory, Marble Valley, Valley View, and Bass Lake Hills) totaling about 11,000 units, and about 3,000 other units, total of 14,565 new homes (equal to more than 38,000 new residents). 'Development Agreements' (contracts) between developers and the County assured the former that they could proceed with their proposals. They also drastically reduced options for correcting sprawling patterns of growth that have caused congestion and other problems.
The County recently issued 12 proposals for a new general plan. A new DEIR analyzes four of these in depth and the remaining eight in a sketchy way. (All are available on the internet at www.co.el-dorado.ca.us)
The rejected 1996 plan is the basis for two of the four, though one would be constrained by the writ.
The two other 'equal weight' plans are called the Roadway Constrained 6 Plus (a reference to widening Highway 50 to at least 6 lanes) and the Environmentally Constrained. But these titles are misleading.
Plans analyzed in depth by the DEIR*
(the four equal weight alternatives)
#1: No Project-1996 plan, constrained by writ limiting more subdivision. Growth of 53,000 by 2025, 74,000 at buildout.#2: Roadway Constrained Six Lane PlusUS 50 only 6 lanes from Ponderosa Rd. to Sacramento Co. Growth constrained by Measure Y: 65,000 in 2025, 104,000 at buildout.
#3: Environmentally Constrained- Growth reduced in 3Important Biological Corridors2 but greater density elsewhere; US 50 goes to 8 lanes. Growth of 81,000 at 2025; 138,000 at buildout.
#4: 1996 General Plan-Cameron Park, El Dorado Hills, and Folsom to grow together; US 50 goes to 8 lanes. Growth of 81,000 at 2025 and 197,000 at buildout.
Plans briefly analyzed in the DEIR* #5: 2001 Project DescriptionRejected in 1996 because growth and impacts were too similar to 1996 plan.
#6: Roadway Constrained Six Lane-US 50 limited to 6 lanes; no more development because of Measure Y limits. Felt to be legally infeasible.
#7: Roadway Constrained Eight Lane- Similar to #1. No more lot splits or subdivisions; growth thus limited to that already approved.
#8: Modified Development Agreements-Developers would have to agree to alter their contracts. Deemed legally infeasible.
#9: Modified El Dorado Hills Development South of U.S. 50 Re-plan Business Park, Carson Creek & Valley View subdivisions. Goal: coordinating housing & jobs, better connectivity by walking & bicycling to reduce traffic congestion. Developers would have to cooperate. Less impact than #1.
#10: New White Rock Road Connection New connection to US 50: reduce congestion in El Dorado County but increase it in Folsom, Sacramento Co. Doubtful they would agree.
#11: Transit EmphasisUses #3's land-use map plus light rail from Folsom to El Dorado Hills & more bus transit, walking and bicycling. Would require increased land-use density (7-15 units/acre) on 25 sq mi to make economically feasible.
Plan best for the environment - only briefly analyzed in the DEIR* #12: Compact DevelopmentPolicies/land-use designations to encourage densities/ designs that support walking, bicycling, transit; allow mixed use, affordable housing. Limits on numbers of new homes. Least adverse environmental impact of all twelve.
Editor's note:
This news letter is jointly produced by the Maidu Group and information prepared by Ray Griffths for an EPIC newsletter (Environmental Planning and Information Council). Residents of El Dorado County, and nearby areas, have until July 15 to comment on the El Dorado County Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) for the future General Plan. So, in a mad rush, we are sending you this information and urging you to contact your County General Plan Team and the Board of Supervisors (please see this list on page 4) with comments and suggestions by telephone, fax, or email.
Prepared by Karen Pitts Write a Letter!
Consider these points:
The 'chosen' plan will probably combine parts of various plans. Only #3 has the 'Important Biological Corridor' concept. Plans #2 and #3 have implementation Implementation timelines are often 3 - 5 years. Interim standards would be needed and should be very conservative to avoid irreversible effects during the long implementation timelines. All four 3equal-weight2 alternatives would violate federal and state air quality law, which cannot be ignored by a 3finding of overriding considerations2. Widening roads 3only encourages them2. The County can1t by itself afford the cost of widening US 50. Caltrans has indicated it has no intention of expanding US 50 to eight lanes, and air quality violations may negate federal money, as it did in Atlanta. Sample letter to the General Plan Team
Dear General Plan Team, Thanks for the opportunity to comment on the draft General Plans and the draft EIR. It is apparent that some of the twelve alternatives proposed are much more environmentally friendly than others. I ask that you protect the environment.
I favor policies and land-use designations in Alternative 12, the 'environmentally superior' plan. This Compact Development Alternative would begin to arrest sprawl, would support walking, bicycling, and transit; it allows for mixed use and affordable housing. Limits on housing numbers would reduce impacts caused by increased density and would preserve community identity by retaining open space.
Please select available features from all and combine them to make a new alternative that reduces traffic impacts, protects rural lands and wildlife habitat, and allows for moderate growth within the constraints presented by air and water quality, topography, and habitat protection. Persuade developers to go along with the concepts in Alternative #9. The natural amenities that attracted current residents and support our tourism industry should be protected.
The timelines for implementation of policies that characterize Alternatives #2 and #3 are too long. Very conservative interim standards must be in place so that the game isn1t lost while implementation is in process.
Thank you for considering my thoughts.
cc: Supervisors
Address any letters to the Planning Department EDC Planning Department
2850 Fair Lane Court
Placerville, 95667
How about the Board of Supervisors? Supervisors are at
330 Fair Lane, Placerville 95667
fax to 622-3645
email to bosone@co-el-dorado.ca.us
(The 'one' changes according to your district 'two', 'three', you get the point.)
Understanding Transportation Issues