What are the State Laws SB 330 and AB 2011 referenced with this application?

    For specific information about the State legislation, Senate Bill SB 330, and Assembly Bill AB 2011, please visit the State of California websites:

     SB 330 Bill Text - SB-330 Housing Crisis Act of 2019. (ca.gov)

     AB 2011 Bill Text - AB-2011 Affordable Housing and High Road Jobs Act of 2022. (ca.gov)

    What is ministerial review vs discretionary review?

    Per State CEQA Guidelines 15268. Ministerial Projects (a) Ministerial projects are exempt from the requirements of CEQA. The determination of what is “ministerial” can most appropriately be made by the particular public agency involved based upon its analysis of its implementing regulation or on a case-by-case basis. (b) In the absence of any discretionary provision contained in the local ordinance or other law establishing the requirements for the permit, license, or other entitlement for use, the following action shall be presumed to be ministerial: (1) Issuance of building permits. (2) Issuance of business licenses. (3) Approval of final subdivision maps. (4) Approval of individual utility service connections and disconnections. (c) Each public agency should, in its implementing regulations or ordinances, provide an identification or itemization of its projects and actions which are deemed ministerial under the applicable laws and ordinances. (d) Where a project involves an approval that contains elements of both a ministerial action and a discretionary action, the project will be deemed to be discretionary and subject to the requirements of CEQA. 

    Per State CEQA Guidelines 15369. Ministerial “Ministerial” describes a governmental decision involving little or no personal judgement by the public official as to the wisdom or manner of carrying out the project. The public official merely applies the law to the facts as presented but uses no special discretion or judgement in reaching a decision. A ministerial decision involves only the use of fixed standards or objective measurements, and the public official cannot use personal, subjective judgment in deciding whether or how the project should be carried out. Common examples of ministerial permits include automobile registration, dog licenses, and marriage licenses. A building permit is ministerial if the ordinance requiring the permit limits the public official to determining whether the zoning allows the structure to be built in the requested location, the structure would meet the strength requirements in the Uniform Building Code, and the applicant has paid their fee. 

     Per State CEQA Guidelines 15002. (i) Discretionary Action. CEQA applies in situations where a governmental agency can use its judgment in deciding whether and how to carry out or approve a project. A project subject to such judgmental controls is called a “discretionary project.” 

    Per State CEQA Guidelines 15357. Discretionary Project. “Discretionary Project” means a project that requires the exercise of judgement or deliberation when the public agency or body decides to approve or disapprove a particular activity, as distinguished from situations where the public agency or body merely has to determine whether there has been conformity with applicable statutes, ordinances, regulations, or other fixed standards. 

    Per Government Code § 65912.110, a project which meets the requirements of AB 2011 is designated as subject to ministerial review.

    What are the allowable uses in the CPO zone?

    El Dorado County Zoning Ordinance Section 130.22.020 – Matrix of Allowed Uses, Commercial Zones lists uses for all commercial zones, including Commercial Professional Office (CPO). The subject parcel is zoned CPO-DC. The -DC is a combining zone, Design Review Community, that generally requires a Design Review Permit.

     

    A project that proposes 100% residential uses would not be allowed in the commercial zones. The Applicant seeks to apply State laws SB 330 and AB 2011 that would allow for an 100% residential project (affordable housing) in the commercial zones regardless of the County’s zoning.

    Is residential development allowed in the CPO zone?

    Yes, residential development could be allowed in CPO zone as a Mixed-Use Development. El Dorado County Zoning Ordinance Section 130.40.180 - Mixed-Use Development, Development Standards, shows that 30% would need to be devoted to commercial uses, and the maximum density for the residential use component shall be 20 dwelling units per acre in the Community Regions. The project site is located in the Community Region boundary of Cameron Park.

    What County zoning codes and regulations were used in reviewing Pre-Application, PA24-0004?

    El Dorado County Zoning Ordinance 130.22. – Commercial Zones was referenced for allowed uses and the development standards. The proposed development would need to demonstrate compliance with the Commercial Zones Development Standards, including minimum lot size and setbacks. El Dorado County Zoning Ordinance 130.33. – Landscaping Standards was referenced when determining compliance with the landscaping requirements. The section also refers to the adopted Community Design Standards for Landscaping and Irrigation Standards as well as the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO). El Dorado County Zoning Ordinance 130.34. – Outdoor Lighting was referenced for allowed lighting and refers to the adopted Community Design Standards for Outdoor Lighting Standards with the purpose to minimize high intensity lighting and glare. El Dorado County Zoning Ordinance 130.35. – Parking and Loading was referenced as well as the adopted Community Design Standards for Parking and Loading Standards. El Dorado County Zoning Ordinance 130.39. – Oak Resources Conservation was referenced, and appropriate documentation will need to be provided by the Applicant’s Arborist if they proceed to applying for building permits. These items are further reviewed during building permit review.

    Why was the community not notified about proposed development?

    A Pre-Application was submitted to the County on March 18, 2024. Pre-Application reviews do not require public notices.

    Next steps and will the community be notified if County determines the proposed development meets the criteria of SB 330 and AB 2011?

    The next step is for the Applicants to submit a building permit application, an AB 2011 Checklist, and additional information including an Arborist Report, Biological Resources Evaluation, and Wetlands Delineation. Upon review of this information, if the County determines proposed development meets the criteria of SB 330 and AB 2011, the proposed development would be ministerial, streamlined process and would proceed to building permits, which does not require public noticing. (This is a different process than for discretionary projects which does require public noticing). For more information about the type of permits and projects that require public noticing, please reference El Dorado County Zoning Ordinance Section 130.51.050 – Public Notice Requirements and Procedures.  

    Concern about proposed development impact to oak trees/oak woodlands.

    All ministerial and discretionary applications are subject to the El Dorado County Oak Resources policies including requirement for an Arborist Report, an Oak Resources Technical Report Checklist, and an Oak Resources Code Compliance Certificate, which would be required with submittal of the building permit application.

    Concern about proposed development impact to Biological Resources (wildlife), and wetlands.

    A Biological Resources Evaluation and Wetlands Delineation is required at time of submittal of the building permit application.

    Concern about proposed development impact to traffic.

    The El Dorado County Department of Transportation (DOT) and Rescue Fire Protection District will review building permit applications for compliance with State and local policies, as applicable for SB 330 and AB 2011 developments.

    Concern about density of project.

    The Applicant seeks to apply State Laws SB 330 and AB 2011. The proposed development would be 100% affordable and thus eligible for density bonus concessions. The Applicant is requesting a concession to allow 0% commercial floor area (GFA), whereas a minimum of 30% GFA is typically required as a commercial use in the commercial zones (as described in Mixed-Use Development discussion above). The proposed project would be eligible for up to an 80% density bonus. The Applicant requests a +/- 25% density bonus. For more information on density bonus, please review the State legislation links SB 330 and AB 2011 provided above (Control + F search “density bonus”).

    Concern about proposed development and school safety.

    The Applicant is advised to continue dialogue with the El Dorado County Office of Education, Rescue School District, and El Dorado County Sheriff’s Office for compliance with their requirements for school safety.  

    Tribal Consultation (AB 52)

    At the request of the Applicant, Tribal Consultation was initiated. Consultation notices were provided by Certified Mail on March 29, 2024, to seven (7) Tribes who have requested to be notified of proposed projects in El Dorado County: Ione Band of Miwok Indians, Nashville-El Dorado Miwok, Shingle Springs Band of Miwok Indians, Tsi Akim Maidu, United Auburn Indian Community (UAIC), Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California, and Wilton Rancheria.

    Which Fire Severity Zone is the project site located in?

    As shown on the current State Responsibility Area Map for CAL FIRE, the project site is located in the Moderate Fire Severity Zone. For more information, please reference the SRA map online, Fire Hazard Severity Zones in State Responsibility Area (arcgis.com)