Policies Changes of Geneal Plan Land Use that are being Proposed
The proposed changes are intended to alleviate deficiencies found during the 5-year GP review process and to bring the General Plan into compliance with State Law as necessary.
- Camino/Pollock Pines Community Region Boundary change: In support of the community's request, the BOS previously directed that the Camino/Pollock Pines Community Region Boundary be changed to create three separate, distinct Rural Centers.
- Consider amending GP to allow commercial and industrial asses in Rural Regions; currently disallowed. This is a moor incentive that allows for 'oh creation in all areas of the count not 'satin Community Regions CR).
- Commercial vs. Residential Mixed-Use Formula: Consider deleting sentence, "The residential component of the project shall only be implemented following or concurrent with the commercial component." This policy is often un-workable as projects usually require the income and population base from residential units to justify and support attracting commercial and retail ventures. Also consider amending Multi-Family land uses to allow commercial as part of a mixed-use project, and residential densities from 16 to 20 units per acre. These changes are necessary to meet housing mandates as well as retain higher densities within appropriate areas with adequate infrastructure.
- Industrial Use: Consider deleting restriction to Industrial Lands only within, or in close proximity to, Community Regions and Rural Centers: Delete the requirement that Industrial Lands in Rural Regions are only allowed for on-site support of agriculture and natural resource uses. This supports industrial uses in various areas of the county and broadens types of industrial uses actually allowed throughout the county.
- Multi-Family Use: Consider amending densities, from 24 to 30 units per acre, to comply with state law which re-quires specific jurisdictions (including EDC) to allow up to 30 units per acre to meet low /very low housing needs.
- Amend Multi-Family land use to encourage a full range of housing types without a requirement for a Planned Development (PD) process. This change will allow small lot single family detached homes in multi-family areas (instead of only apartments/duplex units) as well as streamline the process to eliminate the automatic PD process. The result would be to allow home ownership of unit /land such as cottages, instead of allowing only rental/ apartment style units.
- High Density Residential Use: Consider deleting the mandate that a Planned Development process be required on projects of 3 or more units per acre. This is a regulatory streamlining effort of an often unnecessary, costly requirement.
- Open Space: Consider amending the 30% open space requirement inside of Community Regions and Rural Cen-ters to allow for lesser areas of "improved open space" on site, and set criteria for options in meeting a portion of the requirement offsite via in-lieu fees options. This GP policy has been a poison pill to projects. Definitional issues remain such as: What is open space within higher density areas? Are they active or passive? Who pays to maintain them? Who benefits? If within a homeowners' association area — can the public access them? Must they assist in maintenance costs? This modification will establish formulas to address such questions and give options on how the goals are met.
- Density Bonus: Consider amending the Density Bonus policy which allows incentives to create open space as part of residential projects, and implement the policy specifics through Zoning Ordinance. The proposed change would maintain the option to utilize the Density Bonus where appropriate and beneficial to good project planning, by moving the option from the GP into the Zoning Ordinance.
- Historic Townships: This change would amend GP policy to recognize the historical town sites of El Dorado/ Diamond Springs and other historical town sites as appropriate.
- Infill Areas: Consider setting criteria and identifying infill sites and opportunity areas to provide incentives that encourage development of vacant /underutilized areas.
This amendment is a streamlining effort, but it does not amend land uses or extend current EIR growth projections or densities. It supports Traditional Neighborhood Designs, Mixed-Use and Form Base Code uses. These elements are project design tools used to create superior projects in unique, people-pleasing arrangements, while still providing higher density with variety. Form-Based Codes engage the public up-front with established design standards so developers know what is expected by the public.
While many view all of these GP modifications to be improvements to local jobs and local economic development, the initiatives being circulated (now SIX!), if adopted, will jeopardize some if not all of these changes and will likely tie up this process in unlimited legal challenges. Since some changes are based on State laws now in effect, it's still unclear how each might play out. Suffice to say the initiatives are not based on community well-being and State laws: and they ignore the hundreds of hours of time donated by local volunteers who participated in good faith M the LUPPU process.