NEW GROUP FORMED TO OPPOSE LOCAL GROWTH
What appears to be an outcome of the Measure Y coalition and their supporters’ opposition to General Plan (GP) growth projections, various local projects and implementation of the General Plan via the Land Use Policy Programmatic Update (LUPPU) process, are now part of a new group called Rural Communities United (RCU). RCU supporters have put forth the rhetorical question, “Why are there plans to build 20,000 more single-family homes, with 48% of the projected county growth in El Dorado Hills alone, even though this is in conflict with Measure Y?”
In response, there are no specific “plans” to build 20,000 more single family homes in El Dorado County. This is a number taken out from the GP implementation effort to plan for the accommodation of growth – whenever it comes.
20,000 (modified but not the subject of this issue) is the number of homes yet to be built within the timeframe of the 2004 General Plan (GP). The GP timeframe ends when 20,000 more single-family (SF) homes are constructed. As required by state planning law the GP sets forth goals and policies that demonstrate how the county can accommodate the impacts of another 20,000 homes, whether they are built in the next 10 years or in the next 50 years.
Whether considered “planning for the worst” or “planning for the best” is dependent on your point of view. It is still just planning – the imperfect art. Failing to do this planning is not an option: State law requires that each county “plan” for “its share” of growth by adopting ways to manage the growth which will come. That “plan” is a General Plan.
The real question is: Does EDC intend to implement the 2004 General Plan, or develop a new one? New development projects proposed should be viewed from the context of: Is the project within the Community Regions (CRs) as set forth in the existing GP, or, does the project require a GP Amendment process? If it does, it is technically not included in this GP (and LUPPU process) and the BOS has the discretion to approve or deny the General Plan Amendment. It is a separate process!
As to the discussion of CR boundary lines changes, this too must be viewed in the context of the GP: Do we need the designated Low Density Residential (LDR) lands in question to accommodate growth in the next planning cycle? If yes we may not want to tie up LDR parcels now by cutting them into large-acreage subdivisions. The 2004 GP is based on a vision of preserving rural agricultural lands by maximizing CR-designated lands.
Next Issue: We explore the Low Density Residential (LDR) land use designation and how it fits into planning the future and preserving rural and agricultural lands.