Land Use Policy All Day workshop Mon 16th starting at 9:am

GP Policy 7.2.1.2
Supervisors will consider amending this policy to clarify the Mineral Resource Zones required to be mapped. Several years ago Supervisors asked the State to map key important areas locally where important mining sites are located. The intent of the Board’s action at that time was to include those areas in the local land use maps. The State provided the information but to date those maps have not been incorporated into local land use maps. The CEQA analysis process will analyze the effects of this effort.

We continue our review of key issues contained in the broader LUPPU process by moving into discussion of the Zoning Ordinance proposals for CEQA analysis. As recently reported it’s important to recognize that by law any areas Zoning Ordinance (ZO) must conform to its General Plan’s land use goals and policies. Since the passage of the current General Plan, ED County has not comprehensively updated the 30-year old ZO. By including it in the CEQA LUPPU process, Supervisors’ realized this was a prime time to do so. Not only are many of the issues linked between the General Plan’s long range planning directives, but the transportation program is also linked to both GP policies and more specific zoning designations. Directing this broad scale update and CEQA analysis at the same time, will result in a financial benefit to taxpayers, compared to handling each effort separately.

The EDC Zoning Ordinance (ZO) is enacted via Title 17 of El Dorado County Codes. It is one of the primary means to implement the General Plan (GP). The ZO update currently being undertaken is designed to improve how the zoning document functions and to address inconsistencies with state and federal laws. Several such inconsistencies were identified by Regulatory Reform working subcommittees, and later approved for analysis by Supervisors.

Although the General Plan may seem intimidating to some, basically the language is clear to anyone who opts to read it, especially in its entirety. The ZO is a bit more difficult as one must integrate several documents in able to form a clear understanding of how any specific parcel of land can be utilized. Not only must one understand the GP land use designation on a specific parcel, but also the zoning designation assigned. Specific uses allowed under each zone are categorized in a Specific Uses section of Title 17 and must also be considered. Several tables contained in the General Plan’s Land Use Element seek to add clarity to what is allowed, and these tables must also be revised as changes to the Zoning Ordinance are made. For example, GP Table 2-4 of the GP Land Use Element graphically demonstrates which GP land uses are consistent with specific Zone Districts.

For those seeking to use their land for a specific purpose, or to change their land use or zoning from what is currently allowed, it’s important to understand that county processes DO allow for individuals to undergo a change to the zoning or even to the existing General Plan land use. However, the current CEQA process will only analyze proposed zoning uses that are consistent with existing land use designations or broad scale exceptions as approved by Supervisors for LUPPU analysis. (For example - legal non-conforming parcels). If a project seeks to change the land use or zoning currently assigned, the landowner will be required to undertake his own project-specific analysis and process, and will need approval of the Planning Commission, Supervisors and/or possibly the Agricultural Commission or other local jurisdictions with authority.

Zoning Ordinance Underlying Issues Identified

Before delving into specifics of the Zoning Ordinance issues, significant broad-based issues require discussion. Many land uses and long range planning directives changed when the General Plan was adopted. Issues came to light and new state and federal laws and incentives required consideration of different ways of planning for the growth to come. The GP also identified land uses as “holding zones” for future development/density, and set aside specific areas where agricultural uses were preserved based on existing ag operations, soil types, water availability, etc. The Williamson Act, which is a state program, locally enforced, whereby a landowner can enter into a contract to retain agricultural, timber or grazing activities in exchange for a reduced tax burden, also led to changes that need to be addressed on a parcel-specific basis. Williamson Act Contracts (WAC) are set for a 10-year timeframe and can be renewed or abandoned depending on the desires of the landowner. If lands have “rolled out” from under a WAC, they may have retained their “agricultural” zoning, even though the GP Land Use had changed in the adopted 2004 GP. Such lands are a perfect example of why the zoning needs to be reconsidered. If a landowner is within a residential GP land use designation, it may be inappropriate to retain ag zoning, or not. Thus the “Opt In – Opt Out” process has been promoted as a means of identifying where such lands exist, and what the intentions of the landowner are, at this time. This process will be analyzed in the LUPPU Zoning Ordinance CEQA analysis process.

Next Issue: In the May 1, 2012 Issue of the BA…Update we will go into detail on a range of issues that are being analyzed for inclusion in the new Zoning Ordinance, including: Optional treatment of riparian setbacks; allowing Commercial and Industrial zones within Agricultural areas and uses allowed under the new, proposed Rural Lands (RL) zone.