PLACERVILLE . INFO

El Dorado Business Alliance  “Developing Mutual Support on Community-Wide Issues”

600% TIM Fee Increase rejected, City Counsel of Placerville Approves $7,603 Increase

It may seem disingenuous to say “thanks” to any agency increasing fees on projects in El Dorado County; however, we are truly thankful to the City Council of Placerville. The Council increased traffic mitigation fees in Placerville last week but did not approve the staff’s request to increase fees by 600%, to $14,256 per home. Instead the City’s traffic fee will rise to $7,603 per home. The increase will still add thousands to the cost of building in the city as the existing fee has been $2,167 per home (with various fees applicable for multi-family homes, commercial construction, etc). Contractors were the main voices of concern at the hearing as they pointed out that the higher fees would be detrimental to small, local builders and subsequently detrimental to providing housing for low to moderate-income residents. According to one quote in the Mt. Democrat, “It is cheaper to build in San Jose”, an area known for limited supplies and high priced housing. All five council members were present and voted for the new fee schedule. We appreciate their willingness to reduce the proposed to fees to a more manageable amount.

Good Governance a BA Concern

The Business Alliance (BA) was created with a specific goal to remain involved in local governance issues. This had led our representatives to engage in the process of implementing the 2004 General Plan (GP). The GP implementation measures are being developed by county staff, who take GP policies and create draft ordinances. These ordinances are then scheduled for Planning Commission review, which is the public’s first input on the topic. The problem with this method is two fold: The public, who has real-world experience, is often instantly at odds with the draft proposal; and the Board of Supervisors is the last body to review it. This often leads to a contentious Board hearing where Supervisors are forced to either support the Planning Commission’s amended draft or direct staff to begin anew and include the public’s relevant comments.

The BA suggests the following method of developing new ordinances: First, hold scoping meetings with the public to determine areas of controversy and confusion over policy interpretations. At this point we believe early Supervisors’ input is critical to define what GP policy should be. Staff could then take all input and develop a draft ordinance, subsequently schedule Commission hearings for additional input, with the final decision for adoption resting with Supervisors. The BA believes it’s critical to have early Board input on interpreting policy and setting direction. This system would also save a great amount of time in the long run. The public also needs a minimum of 30 days to contact affected persons on draft ordinances such as contractors, engineers, developers, etc. We urge the Board and staff to consider this system to improve the efficiency of implementing General Plan policies.

Anti Growth Vote Close

A ballot measure aimed at stopping growth in Santa Clara County was narrowly defeated this November. Mea-sure A would have placed strict new building limits on vast areas of ranch lands, hillsides and farms in that county, but was defeated by a 51.1% to 48.9% margin. Opponents to Measure A stated that the rules it would impose would be too strict and would hamper the ability of farmers to construct buildings for their operations or to build homes for their children. The measure would have affected about 400,000 acres of land in Santa Clara County, or about 50% of all the land in the county. Environmental groups supported the initiative, including the Sierra Club and Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, with over 61,000 signatures obtained to qualify the ballot measure. The goal was reportedly to apply tougher rules to protect rural lands from urban sprawl, which is a relatively easy sell to uninformed voters.