Maidu Group P.O. Box 1515 Placerville CA 95667 Chair Randy Barrow Vice Chair Open Treasurer/ Fundraising Frank Reetz Conservation Alice Howard Secretary Open Publicity Open Outings Silas and Tama Membership Sarah Pender Newsletter Manny DeAquino Web Page Karen Pitts Contact Numbers Membership 530-642-5631 Newsletter 530-622-1339 deaquino @mindspring.com

August 2006 - THE GENERAL PLAN .. Amendments to the General Plan are beginning. The Maidu Group has commented (click here) on proposed revisions to the Floor Area ratios in the adopted General Plan and addition of mixed-use zoning.The Group also commented on the draft Grading Ordinance


May, 2005

Update on the General Plan

As members probably know, the referendum (Measure B) on the General Plan held in March resulted in upholding the plan adopted by the Supervisors last July by a margin of only about 400 votes after absentee ballots were counted. A complementary ballot measure (Measure D), requiring widening Highway 50 before approving new development, was defeated by a wider margin.

The Maidu Group executive committee is very disappointed at these results, but hardly surprised. Those backing the General Plan spent close to $1 million to gain these results. (For details on who contributed all this money, see earlier postings below on campaign contributions. In the last four days alone before the election, Serrano gave two separate donations of $49,000 each, in addition to money given earlier. Reportedly, money also was channeled through an intermediary organization, but campaign filings to verify this are not yet available.)

For the first time, extensive advertising was bought on mainstream television channels, in addition to many large newspaper display ads and profuse campaign signs with the confusing slogan of “Limit Growth; Fix Traffic”. In reality, the General Plan called for the highest growth of the four alternatives analyzed, thus causing by far the worst traffic.

Ironically, though the general plan assumes that Highway 50 will be widened to 8 lanes to “cure” traffic woes, even during the campaign advocates for the General Plan admitted that wouldn’t happen “in our lifetimes”. Moreover, since the election, backsliding has begun from the promise that developers would pay for “fixing the traffic” rather than current residents. Now, we are being told that developers’ fees would have to be too high to provide the needed money and that would make affordable housing impossible. (In fact, the Supervisors have heretofore not shown much interest in policies that would assure affordable housing. In deliberation on policies for the General Plan, a policy with “teeth” was effectively watered down by substitution of weak language for strong. See, e.g., “inclusionary housing” under footnote 3 of the analysis of the General Plan given below.)

The General Plan won’t go into effect until the court is satisfied that terms of the writ issued as a result of the challenge to the 1996 general plan have been met. This process is now underway.

JUST WHAT WAS PASSED BY THE SUPERVISORS?

    In a last-minute act on the day of adoption, on Supervisor Baumann’s motion, the Supervisors voted to change the name from “2004 El Dorado County General Plan” to the cumbersome “2004 El Dorado County General Plan: A Plan for Managed Growth and Open Roads; A Plan for Quality Neighborhoods and Traffic Relief". For more information on Supervisor Baumann's Campaign, click here.

Is this title accurate? Or does it follow the now familiar pattern of being named one thing while doing another? We’ll look at each of these claims.

The adopted plan is not the same as the 1996 plan tossed out by the court. Measure G wasn’t the original 1996 plan either. But the draft Environmental Impact Report’s (DEIR) Alternative 4, the so-called 1996 Plan, was the basis for both Measure G and the 2004 General Plan. (Measure G, defeated by a margin of 70.4% to 29.5%, attempted to adopt a general plan by ballot.) The DEIR analyzed four draft plans in detail.^{See footnote 1}

HOW DID ALTERNATIVE 4 DIFFER FROM THE OLD 1996 GENERAL PLAN?

    By court order, all alternatives had to include provisions of Measure Y, the Control Traffic Congestion Initiative approved by the voters by 61.0% to 38.9% in 1998. And, by state law, the Housing Element had to be updated and separately approved by the state’s Department of Housing and Urban Development. These changes were made in all the alternatives analyzed in detail. Except for dropping some provisions for affordable housing, Measure G also included largely cosmetic changes.

The Planning Commission chose Alternative 3, the Environmentally Constrained (EC) Alternative, as their base plan and made modifications to it. The Supervisors rejected the work of the Planning Commission (also ignoring the voice of the voters in March) and took Alternative 4, the “1996 Plan” (and the base for Measure G), as their base plan. In their deliberations, they substituted the Planning Commission’s Transportation/Circulation and Housing Elements as base. Some modifications were made to the latter to conform with recent comments from the state’s Department of Housing and Community Development. And they dropped the Tahoe Basin Element. (The Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, not the County, has primary jurisdiction there anyway.)

Neither funding nor plans exist on the part of the state to actually widen U.S. 50.

Changes the Supervisors made to the Traffic/Circulation Element were a mixed bag. They weakened Policy TC-1v by changing “modify” to “consider modifications”. In Policy TC-1y, they capped the number of employees. This restricts new or expanded business. But residential growth usually contributes more impacts than does commercial growth, and the adopted plan allows the most such growth of all the alternatives. In Policy TX-i, they seem to support widening U.S. 50 while actually doing nothing. Neither funding nor plans exist on the part of the state actually to widen U.S. 50. Moreover, air quality considerations may well negate availability of federal money.

In selecting with little change the Land-Use Maps and the Land-Use Element of Alternative 4, the Supervisors adopted a plan that allows the most growth, the most sprawl, and the worst air pollution of the available alternatives. It also would be the most costly to implement.

The Supervisors adopted a plan that allows the most growth, the most sprawl, and the worst air pollution of the available alternatives

MITIGATION OF ADVERSE EFFECTS OF DEVELOPMENT

    The 2004 plan does have more mitigation than did the old 1996 plan.² Many of these relate to suggestions made in the Maidu Group’s comments³ But, if accepted at all, they often were watered down (e.g., “consider”rather than actually do, wording that makes it easy to do nothing).

Standards to be met in mitigation often are left for future determination. The DEIR itself says in several places that the effect of a given mitigation cannot be judged when no standards are specified. For example, a Policy will call for a program to be developed or an ordinance adopted. Implementation will call for that program or ordinance to be developed within a specified time. Thus the standards remain to be developed. Timelines range from upon adoption of the plan to as long as ten years later. And the County’s position is that the timelines are only advisory anyway. Thus even more time might elapse before standards are in place.

IS GROWTH REALLY MANAGED?

Growth is indeed “managed”---so as to be the greatest among the alternatives.

    Any general plan “manages” growth. Growth allowed, however, is greatest under the 2004 Plan. It still has the objective of the old 1996 plan “to oversupply residential and non-residential land use designations” (p. 6). This feature serves development interests, not those of residents.

Population projections in the DEIR for buildout are substantially the same for this plan as for the 1996 plan, even with the changes made during deliberations. As given in Table 3-2 of the DEIR, they are:

Chosen plan (Alt. 4)	317,692 people
EC Alternative	258,688
RC Alternative	185,600

Thus the chosen plan at buildout projects 59,000 more people than does the EC Alternative and 132,000 more than for the RC Alternative. (Supervisor Baumann cast the deciding vote to use Alternative 4, the 1996 plan, as a base rather than the Planning Commission’s plan (based on the EC Alternative). She claimed the two plans differed in population by “only 511" people. She didn’t say, then or in response to emails, that figure was for 2025, not buildout. At buildout the figure is 59,000.)

According to Table 4-1 of the DEIR, “existing conditions” in 2002 for the unincorporated part of the county (to which the general plan would apply) were a population of 129,396. The adopted plan, approximated by figures for Alternative 4 (based on the 1996 plan), will see a 245% increase in population, while the EC Alternative would have seen a 200% increase and the RC Alternative an increase of only 143%.

What will this mean where you live? The DEIR’s analysis divides the county into thirteen “market areas”. For these market areas, the bars in the following chart compare the numbers of housing units in 2002 (blue) with those projected for buildout (purple)]. The triangles connected by a yellow line show increases in numbers of new housing units as calculated from figures in Table 4.5 of the DEIR.

Growth is indeed “managed”---so as to be the greatest among the alternatives.

The DEIR on the old 1996 plan had tables comparing market demand with development allowed, by land-use designations (Table V-1-6). Many figures were absurdly larger than projected market demand. Maybe that explains their omission from the present DEIR! The figures should be much the same, however.

Selected examples are shown in the table below, by market area and by land-use designation (Rural Residential and Low Density are omitted). The County’s consultant, Economic and Planning Systems, regards 150% as a reasonable allocation figure. Apparently some market areas have been chosen to be “sacrifice” areas.

Allocation as a Percentage of Market Demand

MARKET AREA	MEDIUM DENSITY 2 acres/ dwelling unit	HIGH DENSITY 2.5 units/ acre	MULTI FAMILY 12 units/ acre
El Dorado Hills	139%	201%	229%
Shingle Springs/ Cameron Park	149%	243%	248%
Diamond Springs/ El Dorado	166%	1754% (not a typo!)	275%
Pollock Pines/ Camino	107%	228%	529%
Cool/Pilot Hill	200%	593%	834%
Mosquito	649%	0%	0%

WHAT OF “OPEN ROADS” AND “TRAFFIC RELIEF”?

    Will roads be “open” and traffic congestion “relieved”? A member of the planning team said to us early in the planning process that any more growth in the county beyond that already approved (14,565 homes, mostly those already allowed under development agreements) would violate Measure Y (1998's Control Traffic Congestion ballot measure) and that even already authorized homes would create a violation. No doubt that is why the adopted plan assumes widening of U.S. 50).

Citing a Caltrans “concept report” rather than an adopted plan, the 2004 plan adopted by the Supervisors assumes that Highway 50 will be eight lanes east from the Sacramento County line to Cameron Park and six lanes to Shingle Springs (2004 Plan, Figure TC-1) to “support existing, approved, and planned development...through 2025".

The Supervisors 2004 Plan assumes that Highway 50 will be eight lanes east to Cameron Park and six lanes to Shingle Springs for development through 2025. … Caltrans concept report

But SACOG’s (Sacramento Area Council of Governments) Metropolitan Transportation Plan shows U.S. 50 at only six lanes in 2025. El Dorado County’s Transportation Commission adopted SACOG’s MTP. Thus this is a very big inconsistency!

Whether U.S. 50 ever becomes eight lanes is doubtful. Mitigation fees paid by developers don’t guarantee highway widening. Local fees can’t cover all the costs. State funds are dubious because of budgetary problems. Federal contributions are doubtful because of air quality issues: increased traffic will worsen air quality, which already violates federal Clean Air Act regulations. Elsewhere, this condition has led to a moratorium on any federal funds for road construction. ⁵

Elsewhere we have discussed the fallacy of road-widening as a cure to congestion. Widening U.S. 50 is unlikely to have any lasting benefit as long as growth continues.

Another consideration is approaching peak and decline of global oil resources. What will be the effect of increasing scarcity and rising prices upon vehicle-dependent life styles? Here, the Supervisors displayed an enormous lack of vision in clinging to sprawling patterns of development. Profound life-style changes are in the offing. Growing professional agreement puts the beginning of decline at about 2010, or even sooner. ⁶ Adapting from a bedroom community is likely to be difficult. Prospects of mass transit in the County are bleak for several reasons.

HOW ABOUT “QUALITY NEIGHBORHOODS”?

    This is more complicated because it is so subjective. Some qualities might be: pedestrian friendly (walking distance from recreational opportunities, including neighborhood parks, and services such as stores, churches, health facilities, libraries, gathering places ), easy access to public transportation, sidewalks, bike lanes, tree-lined streets, narrow streets that discourage unsafe driving. Some might want a gated community while others reject being “walled off”. Others might opt for a rural area where livestock can be kept. Nearby employment centers to reduce or even eliminate commuting time would probably rank high on a list. What does the 2004 General Plan do about such concerns? No doubt everyone would want clean air.

Traffic congestion has been discussed already. As for traffic safety , El Dorado County has a somewhat higher rate of motor vehicle crashes than the California average (20^th best out of the 58 counties). The rate is increasing, according to the just issued report, Measuring Our Health. Alcohol was involved in 38% of fatalities. Aggressive driving was involved in one-third of crashes and two-thirds of fatalities. (Might frustrating conditions associated with traffic congestion be a factor?) More than half of those involved in fatal crashes were not wearing seat belts. Young males and seniors are involved in crashes at rates greater than the general population.

Seniors’ needs Numbers of seniors (aged 65 and over) are increasing in El Dorado County over twice as fast as in California as a whole (Measuring Our Health). Already they are a greater part of the population than in the State or neighboring counties. Will they be able to get groceries, visit the doctor, or meet other needs when they can no longer drive? Is available transit service a practical alternative? Might they be forced to drive after they should because of unsatisfactory alternatives? Recall that seniors now are involved in crashes at a rate exceeding their numbers.

Air quality More traffic and worsened congestion associated with growth mean worsened air quality. In 2003, the County was eighth worst on a national list of counties with poor air quality. (Some locals argue this is due to pollution blowing here from elsewhere. But our commuters contribute to that pollution from “elsewhere”). A study by the California Air Resources Board found that levels of some pollutants are as much as ten times higher inside commuters’ vehicles as in the outside air. Asthma and ozone pollution are linked. Incidence of asthma is rising, especially in children, and is a major cause of missing school. A UC-Davis study with monkeys suggests that damage to young lungs from ozone may be permanent.

Public health. General issues of public health are adversely correlated with sprawling development patterns. Two professional journals in the past year have devoted special issues to these concerns (American Journal of Public Health for Sep 2003 and the American Journal of Health Promotion for Sep-Oct 2003).

Parks and recreation. According to the 2004 General Plan, the County assumes primary responsibility only for regional parks, but will “assist” in acquiring and developing neighborhood and community parks. There’s nothing in the new plan that offers hope for any change over existing conditions. The County appears to depend upon others---school districts, community services districts, independent recreation districts, etc.---for neighborhood and community parks. Only one regional park exists and it is under development (Bass Lake). The Supervisors could use Development Agreements more aggressively to address these needs but historically haven’t done so. Nothing in the 2004 General Plan indicates a change in this approach.

LAFCO (Local Agency Formation Commission) recently issued a report on recreation needs for the west slope. It found that the Cameron Park CSD was nearly 88 acres short of meeting the standard for community and neighborhood parks, and the El Dorado Hills CSD was 140 acres short. LAFCO’s report found that parts of both Cameron Park and El Dorado Hills were deficient in parks and recreational facilities. That was true also for “much of the area south of Highway 50...[and] the communities of Latrobe, Shingle Springs, and Rescue”. One member of the County’s Park and Recreation Commission fears that the County is becoming “a county of haves and have-nots” and expressed particular concern about the communities of El Dorado and Diamond Springs ( see table under Managed Growth for anticipated growth there.

Affordable housing for low-income families. The DEIR admits there is a long waiting list for affordable housing. But the County’s consultant predicts that demand for high-end housing will continue. Rather than mandate a certain percentage of affordable housing in each development proposal, the supervisors changed wording to only “considering” doing so. Even so, they claim that “the Plan will expand housing and employment choices for its citizens while serving the regional demand for a diverse range of housing types, including low and very-low income housing.” We think that with the present concentration on “McMansions”, the waiting list for affordable housing is likely to become even longer.

Safety. In rural areas, fire stations are thinly scattered, hydrants are few to absent, and personnel are often volunteers. Response times can be long. Once a fire starts, total loss of a home is relatively common in such areas. In the event of wildland fire, it is much harder to protect scattered houses than clustered houses. And forest-killing drought related to climate change is predicted and would heighten flammability. Requirements for on-site water sources are poorly enforced. Yet the 2004 plan allows the most building of any alternative in areas of high fire hazard and adheres to past sprawling development patterns.

As with fire fighting, response times to spread-out rural areas can be long, for both law enforcement and emergency medical personnel. The 2004 plan calls for the most spread-out development.