Development

January 10, 2024 in Board of Supervisors Development Employment TIM Fee Traffic Impact Fee TIF Program Transportation

EDC Board of Supervisors Adopt updated Annual Residential and Employment Growth Rate

BOS Receives Staff Presentation at January 9, 2024 Meeting.

At the January 9, 2024 Board of Supervisors Meeting, the Department of Transportation provided a El Dorado Countywide Housing and Employment Projections, 2018 – 2045 Memorandum and Presentation pertaining to the 2024 Major Update of the Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Program, recommending that the Board adopt an annual residential growth rate of 0.62% and an annual employment growth rate of 0.62% through 2045.

The annual residential and employment growth rates impacts the TIF formula, that helps to set the fee schedule for development fees for impacts to the El Dorado County Road Network.

This is the first time that a more detailed set of historical data for both residential growth, and employment growth has guided the analysis for the determination of the County-wide growth rate(s) – the data is based on Community Regions (El Dorado Hills, Cameron Park, Shingle Springs Diamond Springs/El Dorado, and Placerville Community Regions), and also incorporates Rural regions as “Balance of West Slope”. Key data points for Residential Growth indicated the following actual growth rates:

El Dorado Hills 3.30%
Cameron Park 0.44%
Shingle Springs 1.06%
Diamond Springs 0.23%
Placerville 0.10%
Balance of West Slope 0.62%

A PDF version of the Staff Presentation is located at the end of this article.

Community Region Growth Residential ACTUAL vs Projected

The Board of Supervisors voted 4 to 1 to approve the adopting of the updated residential and employment growth rates

DISCUSSION / BACKGROUND

This is the second workshop to discuss policy items, specifically data and information focused on growth rates and projections, related to the 2024 Major Update to the Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) Program.

On December 8, 2020 (Item 39, Legistar 20-1585), the Board of Supervisors adopted the 2020 Major Update to the TIF Program. That update made a number of changes to the program, including adjusting the Countywide residential growth rate from 1.03% to 0.70% annually; setting the anticipated level of grant funding to 10%; reducing the non-residential equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) shift from 65% to 62%; consolidating the TIF Zones across the unincorporated West Slope from 8 Zones to 3 Zones; prorating fees for residential single-family dwellings based upon square footage, as required by California Assembly Bill (AB) 602; adding Vehicle Miles Traveled as a traffic impact measure under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as required by California Senate Bill (SB) 743; upholding the use of reduced fees for age-restricted housing; and upholding the offset for affordable housing as outlined in Board Policy B-14.

The 2024 Major Update to the TIF Program will consider the projected growth throughout the County through the year 2045; allocate the growth to community regions, including updates to those regions based upon the 2020 US Census; and update the County’s Travel Demand Model (TDM) to reflect the projected growth patterns. The Board will also be asked to consider the grant funding and non-residential offsets, based upon anticipated funding opportunities and the effects of residential growth upon commercial development. Utilizing the updated TDM, a deficiency analysis will be performed to establish a nexus with any needed capital improvements resulting from the projected growth, which will be included in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), and the anticipated improvement costs will be distributed across the number of permits anticipated to be issued over the next twenty years to update the TIF Program Fee Schedule.

The workshop, held on December 5, 2023, launched the 2024 Major Update with the analysis of growth projections across the Western Slope of El Dorado County (West Slope) through 2045. The El Dorado County Housing and Employment Projections, 2018 – 2045 Memorandum (Memorandum) has been prepared by the County’s consultant, BAE Urban Economics, Inc. (BAE) (Attachment A).

Following the December 5^th workshop, Transportation staff and their consultants collected historical data and information requested by the Supervisors for presentation and discussion at this workshop.

Base Year Housing and Employment Estimates

At this time, the extended growth projections utilize the same 2018 base year housing and employment estimates as those used in the growth projections used in the 2020 Major Update, which cover only the West Slope of the County. Growth within the Lake Tahoe Basin is under the jurisdiction of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA). BAE considered five sources of estimates for housing trends and four sources of estimates for jobs trends in the West Slope. For purposes of the analysis, BAE has chosen to use the 2019 County estimates compiled by Kimley-Horn & Associates (KHA) that are based on the County’s Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping data, as they are the most current, localized estimates available.

KHA is currently developing updated baseline estimates of existing West Slope housing units and employment. BAE will incorporate the updated baseline estimates into a refined set of West Slope housing unit and employment growth projections, using the annual growth rates to be adopted by the Board as a result of this item. Community Region growth allocations will also be included at separate, subsequent Planning Commission and Board of Supervisor meetings in early 2024. While the starting point for the projections will move up from 2018 to 2023, the average annual rates of housing unit and employment growth are not expected to change significantly.

Residential (Housing) Growth Rates

As shown in the Population/Housing Units/Households section of Table 1 in Attachment A, four of five projections studied yielded average annual growth rates for the period ranging between 0.53 and 0.73 percent. The fifth source (California Department of Finance Projections to 2045) yielded a negative average annual growth rate and is an anomaly within the data sources; as such, this outlier was not considered in estimating the County’s average annual residential growth rate. The current average annual residential growth rate adopted by the Board in 2020 is 0.70%.

Employment Growth Rates

In the Employment section of Table 1 in Attachment A, the 2018 to 2045 employment growth rates for three of the four sources range between 0.45 and 0.84 percent per year. The fourth source (2010 to 2023 Caltrans Growth Trended to 2045) is an anomaly and yielded an average annual growth rate more than twice the next highest employment growth rate; this outlier was not considered in estimating the County’s likely employment growth rate. The current average annual employment growth rate adopted by the Board in 2020 is 0.67%.

Housing Unit Projections

The Housing section of Table 2 in Attachment A shows housing unit projections for the West Slope from 2018 to 2045 based on the growth rates identified in Table 1. For planning purposes, BAE suggests that the County consider a growth projection that reflects the average of the residential projections, excluding the Department of Finance projection mentioned previously, shown in the Housing section of Table 2 in Attachment A. This would yield 9,996 new residential units for a total of 64,917 residential units in the West Slope area by 2045, yielding a 0.62% annual average residential growth rate. This is slightly higher than the County’s 2010 to 2018 growth estimates and the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) 2040 projections, but less drastic than the growth rates suggested by the Department of Finance (DOF) and Caltrans.

Employment Projections

The Employment section of Table 2 in Attachment A shows a series of employment projections for the 2018 to 2045 period, drawing the potential employment growth rates from the Employment section of Table 1 in Attachment A and applying them to the County’s estimated 2018 West Slope base year jobs estimate. As with the residential growth projections, BAE suggests that the County use an average of the projections shown in the Jobs section of Table 2 for the purposes of projecting West Slope job growth for the 2018 to 2045 period, excluding the Caltrans Trended Growth projection. This yields an average annual employment growth rate of 0.62%, with 6,776 new jobs and a 2045 job total of 44,095.

Summary

Based on the data and methodology described above, BAE and Transportation recommend the County use the West Slope housing unit and employment growth assumptions outlined on page 4 of Attachment A for planning purposes:

The figures in the table on page 4 of Attachment A provide the County with growth assumptions that fall within the middle range of the growth projections available from various sources and data available for this study. Further, the recommended housing unit and employment growth rates suggest the County would be producing new housing at a rate that will correspond with the rate of new employment growth, meaning that the growth pattern would be balanced and the County’s jobs/housing balance would not deteriorate over time.

Assumption of too high of a growth rate could lead to unnecessary capital improvements and an overabundance of road capacity that surpasses county need, while too low of a growth rate would collect insufficient funds over time to cover the construction of projects required as a result of growth.

Next Steps

Based on input from the Board and direction from County staff, BAE will make any necessary refinements and finalize the West Slope growth projections. Then, BAE will analyze the pattern of growth within the West Slope and allocate the 2018 to 2045 housing unit and employment growth among Community Regions and the balance of the West Slope area. BAE will then review and discuss the refined projections and growth allocations with the Planning Commission and the Board to solicit input before finalizing the projections for the County’s planning purposes.

Staff is recommending that the Board adopt an annual residential growth rate of 0.62% and an annual employment growth rate of 0.62% for the period 2018 to 2045, and direct staff and BAE to commence allocation of the projected growth for presentation to the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors.

ALTERNATIVES

The Board could choose a different annual growth projection within the ranges reflected in the analysis presented, or continue with the current annual rates of 0.70% for residential growth and 0.67% for non-residential growth. Staff and their consultants would need to search for documentation to support a growth projection that is not included in Attachment A.

PRIOR BOARD ACTION

On December 8, 2020 (Item 39, Legistar 20-1585), the Board adopted the 2020 Major Update to the TIF Program.

On December 5, 2023 (Item 37, Legistar 23-2051), the Board received a presentation on the 2024 Major Update to the TIF Program, including data regarding growth projection options.

OTHER DEPARTMENT / AGENCY INVOLVEMENT

Planning and Building Department, Long Range Planning Unit

CAO RECOMMENDATION / COMMENTS

Approve as recommended.

FINANCIAL IMPACT

There is no change to Net County Cost associated with this agenda item as the Major Update and associated administrative costs are covered by TIF collected and are included in the CIP budget for FY23/24 and FY24/25. The adopted growth rates will affect the number of assumed projects developed over the next twenty years throughout the West Slope of the County and could potentially result in an increase/decrease to the traffic impact fees charged for both residential and non-residential building permits.

CLERK OF THE BOARD FOLLOW UP ACTIONS

N/A

STRATEGIC PLAN COMPONENT

The TIF Program is a major funding source for the CIP, which is a vital part of the Infrastructure component of the County Strategic Plan. Adequate infrastructure is necessary for the Economic Development component and is a requirement of the County General Plan. Safe roads are a crucial factor in the Public Safety component of the County Strategic Plan.

Taking too long?

Reload document

Open in new tab

Download 2024 Major Update Presentation [951.00 KB]

December 29, 2023 in Community for Health and Independence Development El Dorado County General Plan General Plan Amendment Mixed Use

AKT and UC Davis Health Proposes 8000 Unit Master Plan Healthy Living Community

Development would be equally split between Sacramento County and El Dorado Hills

AKT Development and UC Davis Health submitted a proposal to both El Dorado County and the City of Folsom on Friday December 22, 2023 for a project described as a “Community for Health and Independence” that would provide a residential development for healthy senior communities, and residential housing for disabled residents. The project proposes 4000 residential housing units in Sacramento County, and 4000 residential housing units in El Dorado Hills. Parks, Schools, and commercial development would also occur in both counties – with El Dorado Hills initially planned for one Elementary/Middle School site, which would appear to be inside the boundaries of the tiny Latrobe Union School District.

The project would also feature A 200-acre UC Davis teaching, research and health complex planned as the centerpiece of the community.

The Project seeks annexation into the city of Folsom for parcels south of the Folsom City limit in Sacramento County along the Sacramento and El Dorado County lines south of White Rock Road and the future Empire Ranch Rd US50 interchange. Parcels for the in El Dorado Hills are primarily located west and south of the EDH Business Park, and the Four Seasons and Heritage residential villages. The project would also construct a roadway system that would extend from the future Empire Ranch Rd extension to White Rock Road in Sacramento County, and provide a connector road/beltway from White Rock Rd in Sacramento County south and east to Latrobe Road in El Dorado County

In El Dorado Hills, the County zoning designations for the majority of the parcels and adjacent parcels are:

AG-40 – Agricultutral Grazing (40 acre minimum)
IL – Industrial Light
RL-80 – Rural Lands (80 acre minimum)
RL-40 – Rural Lands (40 acre minimum)
PA-40 – Planned Agricultural (40 acre minimum)
LA-40 – Limited Agricultural (40 acre minimum)
RE-10 – Residential Estate (10 acre minimum)

Project documents have not yet been posted on the El Dorado County Planning Department website, or the County ETRAKiT website.

Rough overlay image – not to scale

The City of Folsom has posted the project proposal on their website. A copy of the City of Folsom Proposal packet is also posted here on the EDH APAC website. The parcel list for the project in both Sacramento County and El Dorado County is also posted here on the EDH APAC website.

The City of Folsom website has the following description of the project, and some initial details:

Conceptual Annexation Proposal
On December 22, 2023, the City of Folsom received a conceptual annexation and development proposal from AKT and UC Davis for their “Community for Healthy Living and Independence” project. The proposed project includes land in both Sacramento and El Dorado counties. The western portion of the project, located adjacent to Folsom in unincorporated Sacramento County, includes 1,416 acres and the proposed development of 4,511 housing units along with commercial, office, and medical research uses. City staff will review the proposal and present their analysis and findings to the City Council for discussion and further direction in the next two to three months.

The proposed development area is located south of White Rock Road and adjacent to the Sacramento County border with El Dorado County. Any proposed annexation that involves a change to the City’s boundaries is subject to the review and approval of Sacramento County’s Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) in addition to approval by the Folsom City Council.

The details on the City of Folsom website further goes on to describe the tentative schedule:

It is anticipated that the review of the proposal will take approximately 2 to 3 months. At the conclusion of staff analysis, an item will be brought forward to the City Council for consideration and direction to staff. A more detailed schedule will be provided in the near future.

Residential Densities

The residential housing densities proposed in the concept document vary from Low Density residential single family homes to High Density Multifamily.

Commercial, Business, Retail

The Project narrative submitted to the City of Folsom includes descriptions of development areas for work, business, and shopping.

Village Mixed Use | Mixed-use (MU)designated sites include retail, office, services (0.5 FAR), and residential uses (9-30du/ac)
Commercial + Research | The Plan includes General Commercial (GC) and Regional Commercial (RC) areas for neighborhood retail and a Lifestyle Center, as well as Industrial/Office Park (IND/OP) areas intended for Research and Development.
UC Davis Site/Complex | The Plan includes a large complex for UC Davis (IND/OP) that is proposed to serve as a center for the study of aging and longevity.
Schools | Elementary schools and a middle school (PQP) are sited within neighborhoods and will provide an employment opportunity within the community.
Civic Safety| Law enforcement and fire protection services are planned in the MU Village area

Transportation Plan in El Dorado County

The project envisions a new connector road from White Rock Road in Sacramento County that is identified as “Village Parkway” that would roughly travel north to south through the project area. In El Dorado County a connector road from “Village Parkway” identified as “Latrobe Connector” would cross over from Sacramento County to El Dorado County in a west to east direction providing a connection to Latrobe Road south of the EDH Business Park and the Heritage and Blackstone Villages. Another connector road, further to the south, would extend from Village Parkway eastward into El Dorado County, and is identified as “Rural Parkway”.

Plan Areas

Since the project spans across municipalities in two counties, the Sacramento County side of the project is referred to as the “West Plan Area” in the Project Narrative document, and the El Dorado County side of the project is referred to as the “East Plan Area”.

East Plan Area Land Use

The residential land use in El Dorado County proposes:

295 Single Family units over 105 acres
2157 Single Family High Density units over 490 acres
337 Multi-Family Low Density units over 46 acres
232 Multi-Family Medium Density units over 19 acres
311 Multi-Family High Density units over 19 acres

The Age-Target Residential land use proposes

526 Age Targeted Single Family High Density units over 119 acres
144 Age Targeted Multi-Family Low Density units over 20 acres
160 Age Targeted Multi-Family High Density units over 10 acres

Mixed Use land use proposes

144 Mixed Use Village residential units over 32 acres

Commercial, Employment and Civic land use proposes

10 acres of General Commercial use
100 acres of industrial/Office Park UC Davis Health Complex
15 acres of Industrial/Office Park Research
10 acres for public or quasi public Schools

Timeline

This project envisions 8000 housing units over 4000 acres in two counties. The applicants seek an annexation of the property in Sacramento County to the City of Folsom, requiring approval of Sacramento County LAFCO.

It would also require extensive analysis in El Dorado County for a General Plan Amendment, parcel rezones, and likely a Specific Plan, and Planned Development entitlement. The complexity is frankly very ambitious, and is expected to take several years to review and process.

As official project documents are made public in El Dorado County, EDH APAC will post and link them on a documents page for the project on the EDH APAC website.

Project Narrative Document posted to City of Folsom website

Taking too long?

Reload document

Open in new tab

Download Project Narrative [8.88 MB]

July 17, 2023 in Commercial DEIR Development General Plan Amendment Notice of Preparation Residential Town and Country Village El Dorado

Town and Country Village El Dorado NOP DEIR and Scoping Meetings

Two scoping meetings scheduled for August 8, and 9, 2023

El Dorado County has issued a Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report for the proposed Town and Country Village El Dorado development project. The project site is located north of Highway 50 east of Bass Lake Road and south of Country Club Drive.

The Project Development Area consists of the northernmost and southernmost 30.3 acres of the project site, and would be developed with two hotels, retail services, two restaurants, a museum, an event center, associated parking, 56 residential cottages for employee housing, and an additional 56 residential cottages that may be rented on a daily or extended stay basis, which may require a conditional use permit.

A second project site of the development is “the Program Study Area” – this site consists of the central and easternmost 30.2 acres of the project site, and may include further development in the future such as additional hotels, medical facilities, senior housing, townhomes and cottages, and other uses allowed by the proposed zoning districts.

The project seeks the following entitlements:

General Plan Amendment

The General Plan Land Use Designation for the project site is Adopted Plan (AP). The General Plan designates the portion of the project site north of Country Club Drive as within the El Dorado Hills Community Region, and the area south of Country Club Drive as within the Rural Region. The proposed General Plan Amendment would modify the Community Region boundary to include the entire project site within the El Dorado Hills Community Region

Bass Lake Hills Specific Plan Amendment

The existing BLHSP land use designations for the project site are L.7-PD and L.2-PD. The BLHSP designates the portion of the project site north of Country Club Drive as L.7-PD [maximum allowable density of 0.7 dwelling units per acre (du/ac)], and the portion south of Country Club Drive is designated L.2-PD (maximum allowable density of 0.2 du/ac). The requested BLHSP Amendment would establish three new land use designations for the specific plan: Commercial (C), Multi-Family Residential (MFR), and Open Space (OS). Application of these proposed new land use designations would be limited the project site. These land use designations would be allocated to the project site as follows: 26.2 acres of C, 23.0 acres of MFR, and 7.6 acres of OS. In addition to changing the land use designations of the project site, the BLHSP Amendment would include content revisions to the BLHSP itself to accommodate the proposed project. As part of the BLHSP Amendment, a Fiscal Impact Analysis and update to the Bass Lake Hills Specific Plan Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) would be completed. The PFFP sets forth a strategy to finance the backbone infrastructure and other public facilities required to serve the proposed land uses in the BLHSP.

Rezone

The current zoning designation for the entire project site is RE-10. The proposed project would require the approval of a Rezone from RE-10 to the following El Dorado County zoning districts: Community Commercial (CC), Multi-Unit Residential (RM), and Open Space (OS). Additionally, as required by the BLHSP, the Planned Development Combining District (-PD) suffix would be added to all the zoning district designations listed above.

Buildout of the Project Development Area of the project site would include two 150-room hotels, 112 residential cottages, retail uses, restaurants, an event center/museum, recreational amenities, and parking lots (see Figure 3).

Additionally, the Project Development Area would be developed with internal roadways and a new Class I Bicycle Path. Development within the Program Study Area of the project site is not currently proposed to occur concurrently with development of the Project Development Area; however, a maximum buildout scenario is included for program level analysis in the EIR.

Two Scoping Meeting dates:

Two scoping meetings – both open to agencies, organizations, and individuals – will be held to receive public comments and suggestions on the scope of environmental issues to be studied in the EIR. The scoping meetings will be held as follows:

In-Person Tue Aug 8, 2023 6PM
An in-person scoping meeting will be held: Date: Tuesday, August 8, 2023 Time: 6:00 PM Location: El Dorado Hills Fire Department Community Room 1050 Wilson Boulevard El Dorado Hills, CA 95762

Virtual Wed Aug 9, 2023 11AM
A virtual scoping meeting will be held: Date: Wednesday, August 9, 2023 Time: 11:00 AM Link: https://us06web.zoom.us/j/86521211649 Call In Phone #’s: 530-621-7603 or 530-621-7610 Webinar ID: 865 2121 1649

EDH APAC encourages residents to attend one or both of the planned Scoping Meetings to provide comments, questions, and concerns. Comments will be addressed as required by law in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and included in the Final Environmental Impact Report.

Project Documents

Project Documents and links are available on the EDH APAC project Document page:
https://edhapac.org/documents/town-and-country-village-el-dorado-pa21-0013/

March 14, 2023 in Commercial Development Project Frontier

Project Frontier Applicant and County Auditor Controller Responses to EDH APAC

Project Applicants provide responses to EDH APAC comment letter submitted for February 16, 2023 TAC Meeting

The applicants for Project Frontier, a proposed distribution and sortation facility consisting of two buildings totaling four million square feet, to be located at the southern end of the El Dorado Hills Business Park on the west side of Latrobe Road between Royal Oaks Drive on the north, and Wetsel-Oviatt Road to the south, have supplied a response letter to the comments submitted by EDH APAC to the El Dorado County Technical Advisory Committee Meeting held on February 13, 2023. The response letter indicates that the project’s application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to allow one of the project’s buildings to exceed current El Dorado County height limits, has been provided a determination by the County Planning Department that the appropriate decision making authority rests with the Zoning Administrator (Director of Building and Planning).

From the response letter:

The project applicant has applied for a conditional use permit to allow one of the buildings to exceed current height limits. A conditional use permit is a discretionary approval and the El Dorado County Zoning Code (“Zoning Code”) requires a noticed public meeting for a conditional use permit. Section 130.52.021 provides for the Zoning Administrator or Planning Commission to be the review authority for a conditional use permit, and “[t]he determination of the review authority shall be made by the Director based on the nature of the application, and the policy issues raised by the project.”
A conditional use permit is not required to allow the project uses. The Matrix of Allowed Uses in Table 130.23.020 of the County Zoning Code provides that “Wholesale Storage and Distribution,” the same use as the proposed project, is an allowed use in the Research and Development Zone. A local agency cannot selectively or arbitrarily require a discretionary approval for uses that the Zoning Code allows by right with a ministerial building permit approval.
The applicant understands that, because the proposed project uses are consistent with zoning, are allowed by right, and have been previously analyzed in numerous environmental analyses, the Planning Department has determined that the Zoning Administrator is the appropriate decision-making body for the conditional use permit that is limited to the proposed building height.

The full response letter addressing the items raised by EDH APAC is embedded here:

March 14, 2023 Applicant Responses to EDH APAC Feb 16, 2023 TAC Meeting Comments Letter

Taking too long?

Reload document

Open in new tab

Download Applicant March 14 2023 Response Letter [403.70 KB]

EDC Auditor Controller March 14, 2023 letter to EDH APAC

El Dorado County Auditor Controller Joe Harn provided the following letter to EDH APAC addressing Sales Tax and Apportionment questions raised by EDH APAC.

Auditor Controller Harn’s letter is embedded here:

Taking too long?

Reload document

Open in new tab

Download EDC Auditor Controller March 14 2023 Letter [329.06 KB]

Project Frontier Applicant Presentation at the EDH APAC March 15, 2023 6:30PM meeting

The project applicants will provide a project presentation and discussion at the Wednesday March 15, 2023 6:30PM EDH APAC Meeting. The meeting will be hybrid: in-person at EDH Fire Station 85 1050 Wilson Blvd, with virtual discussion via ZOOM, and streamed live on the EDH APAC YouTube Channel. The Room capacity does not exceed 100 guests. Meeting details and streaming links can be found on our March 13th meeting event page

EDH APAC Project Documents page updated with Draft Traffic Impact Analysis Report and all available project documents.

To read all public project documents, including the DRAFT Traffic Impact Analysis Report, visit the EDH APAC Project Documents Page for Project Frontier

April 7, 2022 in Development Planning Commission Summer Brook Transportation

EDH APAC Submits Recommendation on Summer Brook TM-R21-0001

Finds that request to modify 2008 conditions of approval for the signalization of the Green Valley Rd – Deer Valley Rd intersection should be denied.

EDH APAC April 5, 2022 letter to El Dorado County Planning Commission

Taking too long?

Reload document

Open in new tab

Download EDH APAC Public Comments [153.71 KB]

Full project documents and details can be found on the project document page:

Summer Brook documents page

Green Valley Rd – Deer Valley Rd intersection 2012 prior to 2014 intersection improvements- looking west

Green Valley Rd – Deer Valley Rd intersection 2021 following 2014 intersection improvements – looking west

March 14, 2019 in Costco Development EDH 52 Development EDH APAC

El Dorado County Issues Fact Sheet For Proposed El Dorado Hills Costco Project

Following several ‘Stakeholder’ meeting sessions with representatives of the property owner, and Costco, El Dorado County has released the following Fact Sheet regarding a proposed Costco location in El Dorado Hills.

The location selected by Costco is on the east side of Silva Valley Parkway, north of the Highway 50/Silva Valley Pkwy interchange- just north of Tong Road, and south of Oak Meadow Elementary School, and the proposed alignment of the future extension of Country Club Drive. The project is expected to be developed in conjunction with, and as a component of the proposed EDH 52 project. This property is already zoned for Commercial Regional (CR) and by rights, is zoned for big-box commercial development, which makes a proposed Costco facility a compatible land use for the zoning. In terms of mitigating traffic impacts, Commercial Regional is best suited along major highway interchanges, removing traffic impacts from interior roadways.

Costco representatives revealed that an El Dorado County location is desired to help relieve the current over impacted Folsom location. They shared that there are other California Costco locations within 3 miles of each other, as the current Folsom and proposed El Dorado Hills locations will be. As a membership store, Costco has direct knowledge of where their members are located – from the identified target area in El Dorado County around El Dorado Hills, excluding the existing Folsom Costco members, there are currently 40,000 Costco Members, so the customer base already exists.

Costco seeks to be near highway interchanges for their stores, and many locations in El Dorado County have been evaluated for a site. Out of all highway interchanges in El Dorado County, only Silva Valley Parkway has the necessary capacity for the addition of a Costco Facility, as it currently measures a Level of Service (LOS) A. It already has the necessary road and highway capacity to meet this use. Questions were asked about other El Dorado County locations, but representatives indicated that El Dorado Hills Blvd/Latrobe Road at HWY50, to Town Center West, or to the Business Park, is currently at too poor a LOS level (C, D, and E, depending upon the time of day), and with the existing and planned developments in the area are physically too constrained to add more capacity. Other County locations, including interchanges such as Missouri Flat Rd, are also too limited by poor LOS levels, and the inability to add additional capacity, as existing development prevents adding more road space. Interchanges such as Cambridge Road, Cameron Park Dr, and Ponderosa Rd also lack the capacity for additional traffic volume, and are facing challenges in terms of costs just to increase capacity to meet existing needs. The Cameron Park Dr at HWY 50 interchange, as an example, is facing a $70 million dollar improvement to meet current needs, and isn’t projected to be completed for 10 years, if funding can be found. Even with these proposed improvements, the interchange would still fall short of required capacity to adequately mitigate the impacts of a project of the scope of the proposed Costco Project. Since Silva Valley Pkwy is currently an A-Rated interchange, Coscto would be mitigating impacts from their project, and would not need to fund a complete overhaul of a highway interchange, which would be prohibitively costly.

Costco representatives indicated in the Stakeholder meetings that in the El Dorado Hills customer target area of their study, there are approximately 40,000 current Costco members. The El Dorado Hills location is supported by their internally defined demographic metrics – over 40,000 residents in El Dorado Hills, nearly 15,000 in Cameron Park, upwards of 5,000 in Shingle Springs, 2,500 in Rescue, and 11,000 new homes planned in the Folsom Ranch development south of HWY50 (over 20,000 new residents in the next 20-25 years) on the future White Rock Rd Capitol Southeast Connector, which will terminate at the Silva Valley Pkwy/HWY 50 interchange. Locations further east in El Dorado County, such as Placerville, with only 10,000 residents, lack the population to provide an adequate customer base to support developing a new Costco store location.

The next steps in the proposed project will be the President of Costco visiting the El Dorado Hills site later in March/early April. If the President of Costco makes the determination that the site fits their defined needs, along with the market demographics, they could decide as early as April 2019 to proceed with the project. If they do, it is expected to take 18 – 24 months to gain environmental approvals and permitting, along with a full Environmental Impact Report and the resultant traffic study. If the project gains these approvals, it is estimated that it would take another 12 months to begin and complete construction. As the approvals process and construction timeline would take at best a minimum of three years, the earliest possible opening date would be in 2022.

If the project proceeds, El Dorado Hills Area Planning Advisory Committee members will be studying the project over the next several years, evaluating the Draft Environmental Impact Report when it is released, and making recommendations on the project, and any proposed mitigation. Representatives from Costco have already proposed keeping close communication with EDH APAC, and have agreed to conduct public outreach via EDH APAC and other community agencies and organizations, to educate residents on their progress, and to get community feedback, to help improve the project. Costco representatives have indicated their willingness to present their project at EDH APAC meetings during the approvals process, and to foster and maintain an open dialog as the project proceeds.

A second Costco store was recently completed in Elk Grove CA. While the City of Elk Grove is a much more urban, and higher density area than anyplace in El Dorado County, some elements of that project involved its placement in proximity to both a highway and residential neighborhoods, and the steps required to mitigate those impacts. The project was proposed in 2015, and completed in September 2018.

View this post on Instagram
Drone Footage 🎥 of The Ridge project in Elk Grove 🍔🛍 . . . . . #AscentBuilders #contractor #generalcontractor #construction #contractor #GC #instaconstruction #designbuild #build #builder #instagood #sacramento #drone #droneshot #dronestagram #dronevideo #theridge #elkgrove #california #retail #restaurants
A post shared by Ascent Builders, Inc. (@ascentbuilders) on Feb 1, 2019 at 3:04pm PST

Taking too long?

Reload document

Open in new tab

Download [29.87 KB]

Taking too long?

Reload document

Open in new tab

Download [1.03 MB]

October 18, 2018 in Commercial CUP18-0006 El Dorado Disposal Recycling Development El Dorado County

New Supporting Documents Added to CUP18-0006 El Dorado Disposal Recycling Facility In El Dorado Hills

Nine new supporting documents have been added to the eTRAKiT file for the proposed Conditional Use Permit for El Dorado Disposal to operate a temporary debris and green waste processing facility.

The property, identified by Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 117-020-08 and 117-020-09, consists of 97 acres, and is located on the end of Wetsel/Oviatt Road approximately 1.4 miles west of the intersection with Latrobe Road, in the El Dorado Hills area. This will function as a temporary sorting location for the existing Material Recovery Facility (MRF) on Throwita Way in Placeville/Diamond Springs while the existing MRF is reconfigured and soil contamination is corrected over a proposed three year period.

The Throwita Way MRF will continue to be used for serving the public. Materials from the MRF will be transported by El Dorado Disposal vehicles to the Wetsel/Oviatt Road temporary facility for sorting. From there the sorted materials will enter the existing El Dorado Disposal waste streams. There will be no public access at the Wetsel/Oviatt Road temporary facility, and no access from other commercial or municipal waste handlers.

The EDHAPAC CUP18-0006 Project Document(s) Page is HERE
From the October 4, 2018 Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and Initial Study_Staff Report Exhibit H (CUP18-0006)
*(Page 33/44) –

Ditches and berms exist on‐site that direct some run‐on stormwater around the site and into an existing stormwater basin. Minor grading and culvert installation would occur to create drainage
swales to route all stormwater run‐on around the facility and stormwater runoff into a proposed stormwater basin. Minor grading would also occur to construct a level pad for the C&D sorting line.
Overall, temporary site construction activity would consist of minor grading to construct a level pad and drainage swales, excavating a stormwater detention basin, construction of a temporary concrete pad, installation of temporary trailer/office, portable toilets, and temporary power, and paving portions of the site. Construction activity is expected to last 20 working days. The temporary site would require approximately 700 cy of soil fill and 3,000 cy of soil cut. The excess soil quantities would be stockpiled on‐site. Construction of the temporary site is expected to take approximately 20 workdays.

Temporary Off‐site Facility—Trip Generation
C&D debris and green/wood waste delivered to the MRF by the public would be transferred to this site. The temporary site would utilize existing access provided by Wetsel‐Oviatt Road. No paving or other improvements to this road are planned. Franchise greenwaste truckloads (route trucks) and separated C&D debris commercial truckloads would be diverted from the MRF and delivered directly to the site. Based on information provided by the Draft Joint Technical Document Containing Facility Plan for C&D Recycling Operations Plan for Green/Wood Waste Processing by Lawrence & Associates (Appendix I), it is anticipated that the temporary site would incur an average of 55 daily two‐way traffic trips. Of these, approximately 49 trips are trips diverted from the existing site to the temporary site. Of these diverted trips, approximately 29 trips would consist of greenwaste and C&D waste truck trips and the remaining 20 trips would consist of employee and visitor trips. The remaining 6 two‐way trips would be new and consist of maintenance and fueling truck trips and water truck trips. The greenwaste and C&D waste truck trips consist of set routes to the MRF facility. As a result of the diversion of the truck trips to the temporary site, some greenwaste and C&D waste truck trip routes would result in a reduction in total vehicle miles traveled (VMT), while other trip routes would result in an increase in total VMT. Based on information provided by the applicant, the net increase of total VMT for the diverted truck trips would result in an additional 1,504 miles per year. The new maintenance and fueling truck trip lengths are based on the Draft Joint Technical Document Containing Facility Plan for C&D Recycling Operations Plan for Green/Wood Waste Processing by Lawrence & Associates (Appendix I). The total trip lengths for employees and visitors are based on the CalEEMod default trip lengths for general industrial projects.

1.5 ‐ Required Discretionary Approvals
The proposed project would require the following discretionary approvals:
 Conditional Use Permit Update (Existing Site)—El Dorado County
 Conditional Use Permit (Temporary Site)—El Dorado County
 Extension of sewer facilities—El Dorado Irrigation District
 Right‐of‐Way Abandonment—El Dorado County Department of Transportation

As previously indicated, the MRF operates under an existing special use permit. Because this project is primarily a renovation of existing operations, the existing special use permit would be revised via an updated Conditional Use Permit. As part of the revision, the total allowable daily tonnage would no longer be split up into waste types, but instead simplified to 700 tpd maximum. This maximum tpd is consistent with the existing permit, but allows for more flexibility in the amount of each waste type received. Actual waste processed at the site is not expected to change as a result of the renovation or update to the Special Use Permit.

September 24, 2018 in Development El Dorado County El Dorado County Planning Dept

County Announced Zoning Ordinance Minor Update

El Dorado County has announced the recently updated the Zoning Ordinance (Title 130 of the County Ordinance Code) with minor amendments. Most of the changes were correcting minor
formatting errors and typos to ensure internal consistency between the Articles contained within the Zoning Ordinance. The amendment also included 11 parcel specific rezones to several properties which were identified as having a documented mapping error.

In addition to formatting corrections, outdoor entertainment uses are now allowed with the approval of a Conditional Use Permit in the Commercial Main Street (CM) zone; personal service uses are allowed either by right or with the granting of a Conditional Use Permit in the Professional Office (CPO) zone; and winery production is allowed with the granting of a Conditional Use Permit in the Commercial Main Street (CM) zone.

The adopted ordinance is posted on the County website at: https://www.edcgov.us/Government/longrangeplanning/Pages/2017-Zoning-Ordinance-Updates.aspx

Read the full press release:

Taking too long?

Reload document

Open in new tab

Download [35.43 KB]

August 29, 2018 in Development EDH APAC El Dorado County El Dorado County Planning Dept Residential

August 2018: Eleven Updated El Dorado Hills Development Projects

A review of project documents available on El Dorado County’s TRAKiT online project/permit tracking system indicates eleven projects with updated documents and or event dates for review or public hearings.

PD-R18-0003 Sienna Ridge Revision PD07-0008R

Sienna Ridge Retail Center – sign package modification

TM-F18-0010 Carson Creek Unit 2B Phase 1 TM06-1428

Carson Creek Unit 2B Phase 1 – 178 single-family residential lots, 8 lettered lots, and 1 large lot

TM-F18-0011 Carson Creek Unit 2B Phase 2 TM06-1428

Carson Creek Unit 2B Phase 2 – 143 single-family residential lots and 4 lettered lots

P18-0005 White Rock Village

One single-family detached parcel and three open space parcels

P18-0007 CSS Properties Parcel Map

4921 & 4925 Robert J. Mathews Parkway. Proposed division of an existing parcel into two (2) new parcels

P18-0008 CSS Properties Parcel Map

4980 & 4990 Hillsdale Circle. Proposed division of an existing parcel into two (2) new parcels

P18-0010 1165 Investment Boulevard

5130, 5140 & 5160 Robert J. Mathews Parkway. Proposed division of an existing parcel into four (4) new parcels

Sandstone Business Park PROJ18-0002 Z18-0005 PD18-0004 P18-0009

Create 3 lots, ranging in size from 5000sf to 6000sf

TUP18-0014 Oakmont Temporary Marketing Trailer

Temporary Information Trailer to answer questions regarding the units and amenities within a new senior living facility while it is being built at 2020 Town Center West Way, El Dorado Hills

Quantum Care Place CUP18-0005

64,444 square foot senior assisted living facility on 4.11 acres of CC-OS zoned parcel. Public Hearing September 27, 2018

TM-E-18-0001 Serrano Village C2

Planned Development Permit for proposed 50 lot subdivision. Public Hearing September 27, 2018

August 2, 2018 in Development El Dorado County El Dorado County Planning Dept

Nine EDH Project Documents Updated

El Dorado County has switched away from the legacy Project Status pages ( here and here ) for tracking project documents (not on the Legistar Calendar, for agency actions), to a new online permit tracking website. The old Project Status search pages would allow a user to select a specific area: El Dorado Hills, Cameron Park, Rescue, etc -or a Supervisor District. It would also allow users to search for specific types of documents: Design Review, General Plan Amendment, Parcel Map, Rezone – or even ALL documents types

Then it would generate a search result listing of all projects that matched:

The new site eTrackiT has been difficult to navigate, as users cannot just select an area, and type of project files they want to search for, as they previously did on the legacy Project Status pages. A user looking for project information almost has to know one of the following:

Project Name: This has to exactly match the project name that the County enters into the system – the more commonly known public marketing name may not generate a result
Description: Must match what County staff have entered into the tracking system
Developer Name: Must match what Staff have entered into the tracking system. Developers frequently use different legal names, for different projects
Project Number: Users must know the project number to find the project – these are not commonly found by the public. The County has also modified project numbering to accommodate the new system
APN Number: Users must know the Assessor’s parcel number for the project

It is possible to generate a search result list, if the user enters the beginning of a document number – such as PD (planned development), TM (tentative subdivision map) , Z (zoning), etc. But this will generate results from all areas of the County.