presents
Voter’s Edge California
Get the facts before you vote.
Voter’s Edge California
Go to top
Brought to you by
MapLight
League of Women Voters of California Education Fund
June 7, 2016 — California Primary Election

General Plan AmendmentBinding Measure

County
June 7, 2016California Primary Election

El Dorado County
Measure E Binding Measure - Majority Approval Required

Share This Page

To learn more about measures, follow the links for each tab in this section. For most screenreaders, you can hit Return or Enter to enter a tab and read the content within.

Election Results

Passed

31,406 votes yes (52.35%)

28,583 votes no (47.65%)

  • 100% of precincts reporting (102/102).
  • 59,989 ballots counted.

Shall the ordinance be adopted amending the El Dorado County General Plan to ( 1) change when and how El Dorado County mitigates impacts to traffic levels of service, (2) impose restrictions on use of tax revenue and mitigation fees and on formation of infrastructure financing districts, and (3) require El Dorado County to make findings of compliance with those policies prior to approving any residential development project of five or more units, as more fully described in the proposed ordinance?

Impartial analysis / Proposal

 

This measure was placed on the ballot by a petition signed by the requisite number of voters.  If adopted by a majority vote, this measure would amend policies in the Traffic and Circulation Element of the El Dorado County General Plan.  The amended policies would remain in effect indefinitely and could only be amended by voter approval.

 

 

 

In 1998, the voters enacted the “Control Traffic Congestion Initiative” (Measure Y), which added five policies to the 1996 General Plan regarding traffic impact mitigation by new development.  Those policies were scheduled to expire in 2008.  The policies were placed on the ballot for amendment and renewal in 2008.  The 2008 amendments included: (1) clarification that the prohibition against residential projects of five or more units causing or worsening Level of Service (“LOS”) F applies only to single-family subdivisions; (2) a provision that a road may be allowed to operate at LOS F by a 4/5 vote of the Board of Supervisors; and (3) deletion of the prohibition against using county tax revenues to fund road projects to serve new development.  The measure passed.

 

 

 

This measure would rescind the 2008 amendments and make further amendments to the General Plan’s policies regarding traffic impact mitigation by new development.  It would amend Policy TC-Xa to require that road capacity improvements needed to prevent new development’s cumulative traffic impacts from reaching LOS F be completed “before any form of discretionary approval can be given to a project.”  It would also amend Policy TC-Xf, which currently provides two methods for the County to mitigate traffic impacts: (1) condition the project to construct necessary road improvements or (2) ensure that the necessary road improvements are scheduled for construction within the County’s Capital Improvement Program, which is primarily funded by impact fees collected with each building permit.  This measure would eliminate the second option.  The effect of these amendments is unclear, in large part because the amendment to Policy TC-Xa—requiring completion of necessary road improvements before project approval—appears to conflict with the part of Policy TC-Xf left unchanged by this measure—allowing the County to approve a project so long as it conditions the project to construct the necessary road improvements.

 

 

 

The measure would further require that mitigation fees and assessments be applied to the geographic zone from which they originated and that they may be applied to existing roads for maintenance and improvement projects.  It is unclear whether such fees could be used for maintenance as state law generally prohibits the use of impact fees for maintenance of an improvement. The measure would add a policy requiring voter approval before creating an Infrastructure Financing District, a requirement already imposed by state law.  Finally, this measure would require that the County make findings of compliance before approving certain development projects.

 

 

 

A “yes” vote is a vote in favor of amending the subject policies of the El Dorado County General Plan.

 

 

 

A “no” vote is a vote against amending the subject policies of the El Dorado County General Plan.

 

 

     Michael Ciccozzi, Interim County Counsel

— Michael Ciccozzi, Interim County Counsel

YES vote means

 

 

 

 

A “yes” vote is a vote in favor of amending the subject policies of the El Dorado County General Plan.

NO vote means

A “no” vote is a vote against amending the subject policies of the El Dorado County General Plan.

 

Arguments FOR

 Argument In Favor of Measure E (Initiative to Reinstate Measure Y’s original intent – no more paper roads)

 To prevent traffic congestion, El Dorado County voters approved the original Measure Y in 1998 with 61% of the vote. From 1998 to 2008, the measure worked to prevent traffic gridlock and required developers to fully fund the roads needed to keep traffic flowing.

In 2008, Measure Y was amended by the Board of Supervisors and extended ten years by a 71.47% vote. However, unknown by most of the public, language was changed in the 2008 measure which weakened its purpose.

  

  • A “YES” vote on Measure E will restore Measure Y to its original intent.

   

  • A “YES” vote means, the Board of Supervisors will no longer be able to use the 4/5ths vote to allow gridlock.

  

  • A “YES” vote means, land use changes which severely impact traffic levels cannot be allowed based on hypothetical road improvements being built in the future.

  

  • A “YES” vote means, road funds acquired can be used to pay for maintenance of our County roads.

  

MEASURE E is endorsed by local businesses, agriculture, slow-growth, taxpayer and environmental advocates along with numerous community organizations.

All agree that returning Measure Y to its original intent by voting “YES” on Measure E will control traffic and protect our rural quality of life, while encouraging local job creation and balanced growth.

Police and firefighters support Measure E because it will help prevent gridlock on our county roads during emergencies.

The original Measure Y worked effectively from 1998 to 2008.

Your “YES” vote on today’s Measure E will restore those successful policies of the original 1998 Measure Y which prevented traffic gridlock, protected our rural environment and required new development to pay its fair share for new roads.

Vote “YES” on Measure E to restore the intent of Measure Y and protect our open roads into the future!

  

Lori Parlin, Shingle Springs Community Alliance

Frank Verdin, No San Stino, Founder

Terry Crumpley, CPA, El Dorado Hills Small Business Owner

Ellen Van Dyke, Rural Communities United

Laurel Stroud, Residents Involved in Positive Planning (RIPP)

Arguments AGAINST

 Measure E is a flawed proposal that will result in countless lawsuits paralyzing local planning and costing El Dorado County taxpayers millions – and it won’t protect our rural quality of life.

 Measure E overturns the carefully crafted and voter approved El Dorado County General Plan that along with Measure Y controls growth, limits traffic, protects open space and preserves our rural quality of life.

 That’s why farmers, business, labor, public safety, educators and other County leaders oppose Measure E.

EL DORADO COUNTY’S OFFICIAL MEASURE E ANALYSIS REPORTS THE PROPOSAL COULD FINANCIALLY HURT “RESIDENTS, HOMEOWNERS AND BUSINESSES.” The analysis also states Measure E could weaken our local economy – costing “jobs” and making the economy more “volatile.”

We’ll lose local jobs and small businesses – severely damaging our economy.

AND MEASURE E WILL NOT REDUCE TRAFFIC – the County analysis says Measure E would likely result in “less available money” for road improvements. And instead of well-planned projects near Highway 50 where infrastructure and transportation facilities already exist, Measure E would push projects to more rural areas of the County – clogging traffic on our rural roads and neighborhood streets.

MEASURE E WILL COST EL DORADO COUNTY MILLIONS. If approved, it will take years and millions in County legal costs to sort out the differences between County and State law. The official County analysis says the initiative language “allows significant room for interpretation.” And that means lawsuits and more lawsuits. It’s bad planning and it’s bad for El Dorado County.

  

Get the facts. Read the El Dorado County Measure E analysis at edcgov.us/Government/Elections/Attempting_to_Qualify_or_Qualified.aspx. See for yourself how Measure E could hurt El Dorado County.

MEASURE E IS DEEPLY FLAWED AND COMPLETELY UNECESSARY.

Join farmers, business, labor, public safety, educators and other community leaders who are voting “no” on Measure E – protect our rural open space.

  

Jim Davies, President, El Dorado County Farm Bureau

Ann Wofford, Secretary, El Dorado Winery Association

Doug Leisz, Chairman, Citizens for Water

Debbie Manning, President/CEO El Dorado Hills Chamber of Commerce

Laurel Brent-Bumb, CEO, El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce

Replies to Arguments FOR

 Measure E does not restore the intent of Measure Y. Instead, it tries to dictate to us the narrow view of what Measure E proponents want for El Dorado County.

 

And Measure E does not protect our open roads – it will clog traffic on our rural roads and neighborhood streets by pushing development to more rural areas of El Dorado County.

  

FARMERS OPPOSE MEASURE E. El Dorado County Farm Bureau President Jim Davies says, “Measure E is deeply flawed and completely unnecessary.” El Dorado Winery Association Secretary Ann Wofford says, “Measure E won’t protect our rural quality of life.”

  

BUSINESS LEADERS OPPOSE MEASURE E. El Dorado County Chamber of Commerce CEO Laurel Brent-Bumb says with Measure E, “We’ll lose jobs and small businesses – severely damaging our economy.” And El Dorado Hills Chamber of Commerce President Debbie Manning says, “Measure E will result in countless lawsuits paralyzing local planning and costing El Dorado County taxpayers millions.”

  

Measure E overturns the carefully crafted and voter approved El Dorado County General Plan that along with Measure Y controls growth, limits traffic, protects open space and preserves our rural quality of life.

  

MEASURE E IS BAD PLANNING AND IS BAD FOR EL DORADO COUNTY.

  

Get the facts.  Read the impartial El Dorado County Measure E analysis at edcgov.us/Government/Elections/Attempting_to_Qualify_or_Qualified.aspx.  See for yourself how Measure E could hurt El Dorado County.

  

Join farmers, business, labor, public safety, educators and other community leaders who are voting “NO” on Measure E – protect our rural open space.

  

Tom Heflin, Owner, Rainbow Orchards

 Mike Kobus , El Dorado County Small Business Owner

 Bryan Payne, Vice President, Deputy Sheriffs Association of El Dorado County

 Lloyd Walker, Owner, Walker Vineyard

Christa Campbell, Retired El Dorado County School Teacher

Replies to Arguments AGAINST

 The claim that Measure E will cause countless lawsuits is FALSE. In fact, it is the ill-advised actions of the County to favor developers that have interfered with proper planning and led to expensive lawsuits.

 Measure E does nothing to overturn the General Plan.

 Contrary to what the opposition states, MEASURE E WILL NOT PUSH PROJECTS TO MORE RURAL AREAS OF THE COUNTY. Only our Board of Supervisors can do that by amending our voter-approved General Plan.

 Measure Y was overwhelmingly approved by voters in 1998 and functioned with NONE of the doomsday repercussions predicted by the opposition.

 Measure Y, which prevents traffic gridlock, WILL EXPIRE IN 2018.

Without Measure E, large high-density developments can flourish and the burden for road improvements will be on taxpayers, rather than wealthy developers.

Measure E will NOT stop growth! The County currently has over 17,000 parcels available for development.

 Remember, Parker Development joined forces with the Chamber of Commerce and the Farm Bureau to spend over $1,000,000 to confuse voters during the 2014 election. Don’t let them do it again!

 Stop developers from destroying El Dorado County!

 The opposition to Measure E stands to gain BILLIONS OF DOLLARS if hypothetical paper roads are allowed to continue without Measure E protections.

 Measure E is endorsed by public safety officers, small farmers, local contractors, firemen, educators, tradespeople and the grassroots volunteers who gathered thousands of signatures to put the “yellow petition” on the ballot.

 Vote “Yes” on Measure E to protect our rural quality of life.

C.J. Louis, Candidate for District 3 Supervisor

Sue Taylor, Save Our County

Stephanie A. Sorensen, Placerville Downtown Merchant

Valerie L. Chelseth, My Sisters’ Farm

Proposed legislation

 

The 2004 El Dorado County General Plan is hereby amended as follows and shall remain in effect indefinitely unless amended by voter approval:

 

 

 

(deletions are shown as strikeouts, additions are shown as underlined)

 

 

 

Policy TC-Xa:

 

 

 

  1. Traffic from single family residential subdivision development projects of five or more units or parcels of land or shall not result in, or worsen, Level of Service F (gridlock, stop-and-go) traffic congestion during weekday, peak-hour periods on any highway, road, interchange or intersection in the unincorporated areas of the county.

 

 

 

  1. The County shall not add any additional segments of U.S. Highway 50, or any other highways and roads, to the County's list of roads from the original Table TC-2 of the 2004 General Plan that are allowed to operate at Level of Service F without first getting the voters' approval. or by a 4/5ths vote of the Board of Supervisors.

 

 

 

  1. Developer-paid traffic impact fees combined with any other available funds shall fully pay for building All necessary road capacity improvements shall be fully completed to prevent  to fully offset and mitigate all direct and cumulative traffic impacts from new development from reaching level of Service F during peak hours upon any highways, arterial roads and their intersections during weekday, peak-hour periods in unincorporated areas of the county before any form of discretionary approval can be given to a project.

     

 

  1. County tax revenues shall not be used in any way to pay for building road capacity improvements to offset traffic impacts from new development projects. Non-county tax sources of revenue, such as federal and state grants, may be used to fund road projects.  Exceptions are allowed if county voters first give their approval.

 

 

 

  1. The County shall not create an Infrastructure Financing District unless allowed by a 2/3rds majority vote of the people within that district.

 

 

 

  1. Mitigation fees and assessments collected for infrastructure shall be applied to the geographic zone from which they were originated and may be applied to existing roads for maintenance and improvement projects.

 

 

 

  1. Before giving approval of any kind to a residential development project of five or more units or parcels of land, the County shall make a finding that the project complies with the policies above. If this finding cannot be made, then the County shall not approve the project in order to protect the public's health and safety as provided by state law to assure that safe and adequate roads and highways are in place as such development occurs.

 

 

 

Policy TC-Xf:  At the time of approval of a tentative map for a single family residential subdivision of five or more parcels that worsens (defined as a project that triggers Policy TC-Xe [A] or [B] or [C]) traffic on the County road system, the County shall do one of the following: (1) condition the project to construct all road improvements necessary to maintain or attain Level of Service standards detailed in this Transportation and Circulation Element based on existing traffic plus traffic generated from the development plus forecasted traffic growth at 10-years from project submittal; or (2) ensure the commencement of construction of the necessary road improvements are included in the County’s 10-year CIP.

 

 

 

For all other discretionary projects that worsen (defined as a project that triggers Policy TC-Xe [A] or [B] or [C]) traffic on the County road system, the County shall do one of the following: (1) condition the project to construct all road improvements necessary to maintain or attain Level of Service standards detailed in this Transportation and Circulation Element; or (2) ensure the construction of the necessary road improvements are included in the County’s 20-year CIP.

 

 

 

Policy TC-Xg:  Each development project shall dedicate right-of-way and construct or fund improvements necessary to mitigate the effects of traffic from the project. The County shall require an analysis of impacts of traffic from the development project, including impacts from truck traffic, and require dedication of needed right-of-way and construction of road facilities as a condition of the development. For road improvements that provide significant benefit to other development, the County may allow a project to fund its fair share of improvement costs through traffic impact fees or receive reimbursement from impact fees for construction of improvements beyond the project’s fair share. The amount and timing of reimbursements shall be determined by the County.

 

 

 

IMPLEMENTATION:

 

 

 

This measure is not applicable within the jurisdictions of the Tahoe Regional Planning Agency and the City of Placerville.

 

 

 

This measure shall take effect upon certification of election results.

 

 

All 2004 General Plan Traffic Impact Mitigation Fees for all projects shall be paid at the building permit stage.

 

 

 

No Traffic mitigation fee shall be required for remodeling of existing residential units including adding a second kitchen, shower or bath in the house or garage that were built pursuant to a valid building permit from the County of El Dorado.

 

 

 

Tenant Improvements of existing buildings shall receive T.I.M. fee credit for prior use, unless the new use is less impacting, then there shall be no fee required.

 

 

 

Mobile homes on permanent foundation shall be subject to the single-family residential fee.

 

 

 

Second dwelling as defined under County Code Chapter 17.15.030 shall be subject to the multi-family fee.

 

 

 

LOS traffic levels on Highway 50 on-off ramps and road segments shall be determined by CalTrans and fully accepted by the County for traffic planning purposes.

 

If any provision of this measure is for any reason held to be invalid, the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and effect.

Use tabs to select your choice. Use return to create a choice. You can access your list by navigating to 'My List'.

On your actual ballot, you can vote 'yes' or 'no' on this measure.

Please share this site to help others research their voting choices.

PUBLISHING:PRODUCTION SERVER:PRODUCTION