Supes to ponder final slow-growth initiative today - By Chris Daley From page A1 | November 21, 2014 | The so-called “Purple Petition” is item No. 1 on the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors’ special meeting agenda today at 1 p.m. Due to delays in certifying the petition, it was not cleared for the Nov. 4 ballot but has since been authorized as eligible for either of two possible actions. The board can simply approve and adopt it into local law or assign it to the next regular election, Nov. 1, 2016. Officially labeled “Retain Current Zoning and Rural Assets,” it was dubbed the “Purple Petition” to distinguish it from three other ballot initiatives that were generally aimed at limiting or altering some proposals for large residential development projects, especially in the western portions of the county. Initiative proponents sent out an e-mail blast Wednesday morning under the heading “Action Alert!” urging residents to attend the board meeting in support of the option to adopt the measure as written within 10 days. “The current 2004 General Plan is often touted as a carefully crafted document, yet the Board of Supervisors and Planning Commission have continued to ignore, change, reinterpret or “amend” the parts of the General Plan that were promised to the public as protections,” the call to action begins. “The Initiative to ‘Retain Current Zoning and Rural Assets’ (also known as the Purple Petition) prevents incompatible zone changes and would require that the Board of Supervisors reinstate or implement the following protective policies (currently in the General Plan) before allowing any future discretionary projects.” Sue Taylor, a leader in the Save Our County movement and activist for slower growth, described the term “Discretionary Project” as follows: “(It) means that the project is not allowed by right and would either need the Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors to pass legislation in order to allow the project. This petition does nothing to remove a property owner’s right to build or develop their land as currently allowed by law.” Five areas of concern are highlighted in the letter which proponents say are more consistently representative of the county’s General Plan. First in the series is “Restore the Agricultural buffers between Agricultural land and incompatible uses in order to protect the Right to Farm.” The size and extent of such buffers has been an ongoing challenge as residential development has crept closer to traditional agricultural land and has been part of a larger “Keep Us Rural” effort by supporters of earlier initiatives. Relating to Community Region boundaries and density allowances generally, the proposed initiative would “Restore Mixed Use policies (projects with both residential and commercial elements) to their original densities.” Housing density is another issue that has risen to the top of community awareness based both on residential development projects and state mandates for affordable housing and “sustainable communities.” These mandates are part of state law under Assembly Bill 32, and Senate Bill 375 passed under Gov. Schwartzenegger, within the larger context of Clean Air/Clean Water Acts and reducing Greenhouse Gas emissions. Higher Density Residential is a planning designation which currently describes a maximum of 24 units per acre within those communities that already have infrastructure such as public water and sewer. Higher density development in rural areas without such infrastructure is seen as a direct assault on the county’s rural traditions. Those “rural traditions” are tied in with the third element of the initiative which calls for the implementation of “Cultural and Historical policies.” Such policies could apply to almost anything from Native American cultural sites to Gold Rush era structures to 20th century areas of commercial and industrial development. In a similar vein, the initiative would put “scenic corridor and vista point policies” into effect. Implementing a “Water Supply and Demand Management Plan” is another significant element of the initiative which states that the 2004 General Plan requires such action. Supervisors were not inclined to adopt the earlier initiatives, but instead assigned them to a future ballot. Should that practice hold, the “Purple Petition” will come up for a vote in the election of November 2016. ============================== mtdemocrat/news/supes-to-ponder-final-slow-growth-initiative-today/ ==============================
Posted on: Thu, 20 Nov 2014 19:53:40 +0000