Housing projections questioned

By From page A9 | June 26, 2013

The largest implementation measure of the 2004 General Plan will soon enter the hearing process alongside four major western El Dorado County residential development projects.

County supervisors hint that they want a “time-out,” but don’t want to deny anyone’s due process.

With that backdrop, the number of approved parcels in the 2004 General Plan and the plan’s housing projections have been called into question.

One point of confusion is the seemingly huge quantity of “approved parcels” that have yet to be built. Slow growth activists Bill Center, Jim Moore and others have argued that no new projects should be approved until 20,000 “approved parcels” in the current General Plan are built. Former Supervisor Center and pollster Moore argue that the owners of those approved parcels merely have to show up at the Planning Department to get their building permit. If and when they do, congestion would surely ensue.

Principal Planner Shawna Purvines explained that a theoretical 20,854 dwelling units from the draft 2013-20 Housing Element is a “greatest realistic capacity,” and includes 3,724 parcels are in Tahoe, thus not subject to the county General Plan, and 6,000 in rural areas, many the result of past land designation changes with little or no restrictions.

“Historically, we haven’t seen them built to their realistic capacity,” Purvines said.

Many would require a subdivision, which would require much more analysis and compliance than a simple building permit, she continued; a public hearing is required.

The June 27 El Dorado County Board of Supervisors workshop will include a presentation from the Community Economic Development Advisory Committee addressing the matter with specific numbers, according to Purvines.

She confirmed that the new traffic model will factor in a portion of the approved parcels and establish a baseline upon which to measure the impacts of proposed projects.

The 2004 General Plan’s 32,000-dwelling growth projection is also a point of contention.

A 2011 progress report found that 12,000 of the 32,000 dwellings had been built since the plan’s approval, leaving roughly 20,000 dwellings remaining for the life of the plan, which is now expected to be roughly 2035, depending on how fast homes are built.

Moore has said in the past that growth projections in the current General Plan are overstated by a factor of three. An examination of the actual numbers doesn’t bear out his statements.

“Both the state (Department of Finance) and SACOG have lowered growth projections for El Dorado County by two-thirds,” Moore said at a community meeting. “If we can get the 20-year growth projections down from 32,000 to 12,000 … That’s how we lower the TIM fees. … They need to be lower by two thirds.”

The latest Department of Finance projections for El Dorado County are only 6 percent lower.

In a followup conversation, Center confirmed that he would like to see growth projections reflect an additional 12,000 dwellings for a total of 24,000 at the General Plan horizon.

The proposed reduction is 8,000 dwellings, or one-quarter of the General Plan’s projected 32,000 dwellings.

The reduction is consistent those in the Sacramento Area Congress of Governments Sustainable Communities Strategy, published in January.

For El Dorado County, SACOG now predicts a total of 11,719 additional dwellings will be built between 2008 and 2035.

SACOG officials did not respond to a request for a detailed explanation of their methodology, but Purvines explained the underlying assumption of the Sustainable Communities Strategy: new residents will choose to live in urban, rather than rural communities.

Accordingly, SACOG reduced rural housing and population projections throughout the region, and increased urban projections, she said.

Planning Services Director Roger Trout defended the projections in the General Plan, pointing out that SACOG has “no bearing on our land-use, CEQA analysis or how we do traffic modeling,” he said.

In a possible nod to political correctness, he added “They are doing some great things and we try to be consistent with them, but our Board of Supervisors decides what the county should look like.”

Mike Roberts

Discussion | 1 comment

  • Fly on the WallJune 24, 2013 - 5:27 pm

    If the"Supervisors decide what the county should look like" why do we listen to SACOG and/or care what they say? I find it interesting that "SACOG officials did not respond to a request for a detailed explanation of their methodology" as I would be very interested to hear it. SACOG is Sacramento Area Council of Governments (not Congress of Governments). I could care less what SACOG thinks, says or wants. It is arbitrary. I also didn't realize El Dorado County was in the Sacramento area. It seems that the El Dorado County BOS continue to cede control to other entities; the state (via AB 32 and SB 375), SACOG and of late, the Next Economy resolution disaster. I thought residents were the ones with the control. Can the BOS give away control that doesn't belong to them in the first place? Lastly, why exactly would SACOG lower their numbers for rural development by assuming that those who move here would "chose to live in urban, rather than rural communities"? Why is this an "underlying assumption"? This does not make sense. I would be very interested in learning more about this "Sustainable Communities Strategy". It can't be good.



  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

  • Follow Us On Facebook

  • Special Publications »

    Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our Terms of Service (updated 4/30/2015) and Privacy Policy (updated 4/7/2015).
    Copyright (c) 2017 McNaughton Newspapers, Inc., a family-owned local media company that proudly publishes the Daily Republic, Mountain Democrat, Davis Enterprise, Village Life, Winters Express, Georgetown Gazette, EDC Adventures, and other community-driven publications.