291112 Part 1 291112 Part 1 291112 Part 1 March 16, 2015 Ms. Shawna Purvines, Long Range Planning El Dorado County Community Development Agency 2850 Fairlane Ct, Building C Placerville, Ca 95667 RE: Partial Recirculated DEIR for the TGPA/ZOU - Public Comment Dear Ms. Purvines: The attached document is submitted as public comment on the TGPA/ZOU Partial Recirculated Draft EIR (RDEIR) released January 29, 2015. Additionally, we are resubmitting our previous comments on the DEIR, dated 7/23/14, for inclusion in the record to be addressed with the Final EIR, as most of the issues from our review have not been addressed in the re-circulated document. It is important that they are not overlooked via any determination of what will, or will not be, responded to in those re-circulated sections. Please include the above referenced public comments in the administrative record. Sincerely, Ellen Van Dyke Rural Communities United DEIR Review Group 2011 E. Green Springs Rd, Rescue, Ca 9567 Note: Cover letter & full comments delivered via email to [email protected]. CD of full comments with references delivered to Planning at 2850 Fairlane Ct Bldg C Comments cc via email: DEIR Review Group, RCU EDC Board of Supervisors EDC Planning Commissioners 291112 Part 1 Public Comment on The El Dorado County Targeted General Plan Amendment (TGPA) & Zoning Ordinance Update (ZOU) Partial Recirculated Draft ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (RDEIR) submitted by Rural Communities United DEIR Review Group March 16, 2015 contents 291112 Part 1 Introduction I-1 Reviewed Section: Comments Page: Project Description [Chapter 2.0 - recirculated] 2-1 Transportation [Chapter 3.9 - recirculated] 3.9-1 Groundwater [Chapter 3.10 - new] 3.10- 1 Water Supply [Chapter 3.10- recirculated] 3.10-24 Energy [Chapter 3.11 - new] 3.11-1 Alternatives [Chapter 4.5 -recirculated] 4.5-1 Other CEQA Considerations [Chapter 5 - recirculated] 5-1 Additional Circulation Required ReCirc-1 References R-1 Resubmitted Comments: RCU Public Comments, 7/23/14 (Independent Table of Contents) 291112 Part 1 Introduction/Synopsis - RDEIR Comments The update to our General Plan and Zoning Ordinance is currently a very top priority for our Board of Supervisors. However, the project scope itself has been a moving target for community groups: the partially completed design standards from the LDM have been recently added to the RDEIR while the long awaited analysis of Community Regions has been pushed off to some future update, and still no clarity has been provided regarding the Biological Resources section. There remains excessive public confusion regarding what specific policy changes are being evaluated under the Draft EIR (DEIR). And in spite of numerous requests, this has still not been corrected in the partial Recirculated Draft EIR (RDEIR). Note that recirculation of the RDEIR chapters is not a result of public comment (RDEIR page 1- 4). And yet CEQA section 15088.5(f)(2) is being invoked to eliminate the County's required response to comments submitted previously on the those sections. This reveals a very blatant effort to avoid public discourse. That is not in keeping with the intent of CEQA and is an unwarranted and disrespectful response to public comment. When residents are not 'heard', it is reflected in the final product as well as in the lawsuits that must then inevitably follow. In summary: The 7/23/14 DEIR comments submitted by the RCU review group are still applicable and are resubmitted along with these RDEIR public comments. The Project Description must be revised for both clarity and accuracy. o The strike out versions of both the TGPA and the ZOU must be provided as part of the DEIR or included in the appendices for documentation o The approximately 37,000 parcels proposed to be rezoned by the project must be similarly documented. The fact that site-specific review was not done for each of these parcels under this EIR must also be documented. Both 'Biological Resources' and 'Signage' have been removed from the project and put under separate EIR's (RDEIR, section 2.8). o The associated policy revisions must also be removed from the project. o Comments submitted for these sections as part of the DEIR must be forwarded to the proper County personnel for inclusion in the correct EIR o Policy changes that precede the project, must then be incorporated. Revise the DEIR accordingly once an accurate project description is provided, and recirculate it in its entirety for public review. The intent of CEQA is to inform the public. The lead agency (El Dorado County) has an obligation to provide this very basic information, as requested by the public, and the project cannot be completed until that clarity has been provided. Do not circumvent the process. R-DEIR Comments March 2015 Page I - 1 Introduction 291112 Part 1 Request for District 4 Recusal: If Supervisor Ranalli's property remains on the list of parcels to be rezoned1 by the TGPA/ZOU, resulting in granted entitlements via the rezoning and policy amendments being proposed, then he must recuse himself from votes related to the project. This has been brought to the attention of both the Board of Supervisors (emails dated 10/16/14 and 2/24/15, BOS hearing 2/24/15) and County Counsel email 3/5/15). 1 Mr. Ranalli's parcel is APN 105-100-08, and appears on page 732 of 1616 in the LUPPU Parcel Changes list obtained from El Dorado County's GIS dept in June 2014. R-DEIR Comments March 2015 Page I - 2 Introduction 291112 Part 1 Project Description - Chapter 2 R-DEIR Review Comments This recirculation of the Project Description was an 'opportunity-missed' for the County and residents to come together on this project. Residents who have requested repeatedly that they be given full documentation of the changes being proposed, are denied answers yet again with the RDEIR. Specific comments in addition to those in the 7/23/14 RCU submittal (attached) are as follows: 1. An accurate and complete project description is necessary to fully evaluate the project's potential environmental impacts. Page 2-3 of the RDEIR erroneously states that "the full texts of the proposed TGPA and ZOU with the changes from the existing General Plan marked, are available for review". A final accurate ZOU strikeout version has never been available in spite of repeated requests to County staff, the CEDAC Regulatory Reform subcommittee, Planning Commission, and individual Supervisors. Additionally, policies altered in the TGPA strikeout version do not all appear in the Project Description. What is presented is NOT an accurate and complete project description. 1st paragraph of existing Zoning Ordinance, section 17.30.060: 1st paragraph of Proposed Zoning Ordinance Update, section 17.30.060: -Provide full strikeout versions of both the TGPA and ZOU, as RDEIR page 2-3 indicates has already been provided, and recirculate the DEIR in full. 2. This RDEIR in no way meets the intent of the CEQA process for informing the public in order for them to engage in quality dialogue. Specific examples are needed to show that clear and accurate communication of the proposed revisions has not been shared: R-DEIR Comments March 2015 Page 2-1 Project Description, Ch2 a.) The proposed change to policies 5.2.1.3 and 5.3.1.1 are not listed291112 in the projectPart 1 description under 'General Plan Policy Amendments', but are found online in a search of the County website, and buried in the Water impacts section of the RDEIR. If approved, the connection to public sewer and water in the Community Regions (CR's) would be made optional rather than required. The impact of this change in policy would be significant, and it is poised to take place if the EIR is adopted. Yet it was NOT fully disclosed to the public. b.) Proposed Zoning Ordinance 17.30.030 reduces, and essentially eliminates, the riparian setbacks. This policy remains in the Project Description in the RDEIR, impacting biological resources, but the analysis of Biological Resources is very specifically not included in this EIR1. This ordinance and others regarding biologicals appear poised to be enacted if the EIR for the project is adopted. This was not made clear to commenters during the DEIR review period, and has not been clarified in the RDEIR. It is also not clear what has happened to the public comments that were submitted on this issue. Included in the RDEIR Project Description, page 2-15, but not analyzed per section 2.8: 1 RDEIR Section 2.8 Related Projects, page 2-22 R-DEIR Comments March 2015 Page 2-2 Project Description, Ch2 Proposed Ordinance 17.30.030G(3)d represents a 50% reduction from current policy:291112 Part 1 and Proposed Ordinance 17.30.030G(5)a essentially eliminates the setback requirement: - The inconsistencies between the Project Description, the TGPA, and the ZOU must be corrected and recirculated for public review. (A strikeout version of the ZOU must be made part of the Project Description, as indicated in item 1 above). -The Project Description relative to Biological Resources was completely unclear - will the RCU comments on Biological Resources be answered in spite of the reference in RDEIR section 2-8 regarding 'separate projects'? -How can the biological policy changes still be proposed in the TGPA/ZOU without analysis? Are they included or are they not? - The impact of the TGPA/ZOU on biological resources would be significant2. CEQA requires the impact of these changes to be analyzed with the project and not at a later date as is planned according to RDEIR Section 2.8.