[{"_1":2,"_110":-5,"_111":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,74,86,98],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},"mediaId",6586426,"mediaKeyId","5504522-dedc0dd71e4857e1b26145e6617bc753","parentId",5504522,"title","Board declines action on Serrano Village M5 subdivision after planning commission denial; residents cite traffic and density concerns","audioSeconds",388,"startMs",8746000,"endMs",9134000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=5504522-dedc0dd71e4857e1b26145e6617bc753&start=8746&end=9134","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5504522-dedc0dd71e4857e1b26145e6617bc753/thumbnail_8746000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6586426/El-Dorado-County/California/Board-declines-action-on-Serrano-Village-M5-subdivision-after-planning-commission-denial-residents-cite-traffic-and-density-concerns","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6586426-a5d874fd4232e0ed400e781899c66a81/orig.mp4?Expires=1771185342&Signature=WqosCda~AAHyis7kbfn1cg2rJMV6ASXWYFX89jIPB4Res4OVNvbW~4AysOMDQvjMEp21FMCOdlGYpqGBBjY1EnfAgApzvV5RjL9aeCz0WWnzAMGyivqGEFaRmRqSls6HxDe9SYXdIgkeiQbC17BiUVjzIzjBLWE-JXv4JHdsaueR5b53h0PNfsYQA~mTLeVZ4pg89x7uIMiqJtG~u~vs-DQKq~HhAkcy9lN9BoKr37Wj95g-9kGyb8a3O~riMjJeR32OzRcxwhdseCeijpbxmD3WL8kcRRPhipbOvg8OUhU69EdUZSWUpy5Zcd0ykPF0b1JlHRhjVs3dneabv4FStA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-07-29T22:40:44Z","article","The Board of Supervisors took no affirmative approval on a proposed rezone, planned‑development permit and tentative map for Serrano Village M5 — a proposal that would have reconfigured an 8.42‑acre parcel on Apion Way into 20 residential lots (with duplexes proposed along two cul‑de‑sacs). The planning commission had previously recommended denial, citing (1) inconsistency with the El Dorado Hills specific plan, (2) that the requested increased density was not appropriate for the area, and (3) neighborhood compatibility concerns.

Public commenters who live adjacent to the project area urged the board to deny the 20‑unit plan, pointing to traffic and safety concerns near Serrano’s gate and the guard shack (stacking onto Appian Way), and to the character mismatch between homes on half‑acre parcels and the denser proposal. One neighbor said the 20‑unit scheme would represent the equivalent of “80 people behind us” and described daily stacking at the entry gate that creates unsafe turning and passing.

Applicant response and options: The applicant told the board they were prepared to revise the submission — reverting to the previously approved 10‑lot layout (a tentative map the county approved years earlier but that has since expired) — and asked that the board remand the matter to the planning commission for speedy reconsideration of a reduced‑density proposal. Staff explained the procedural constraints: because the subject rezone triggers board authority, a revised proposal that removes the rezone would properly be processed by the planning commission; a substantial modification made by the board would need a return to the planning commission per zoning‑ordinance rules.

Board outcome: after deliberations and several motions, no affirmative majority carried a motion to approve the current (20‑lot) application; materially, the board left the application without an approval action, which staff said has the practical effect of denying the present configuration. The board did not adopt an explicit denial resolution at the meeting; staff and the applicant discussed options for resubmission and for the planning commission to consider a revised project. County transportation staff committed to review local circulation and gate/guard operation if the application is resubmitted (or revised) to address community concerns.

Ending: For now the planning‑level denial stands; applicants seeking relief should expect to refile or revise the application and follow the county’s concurrent‑application process (including any rezone), and the board’s procedural options were discussed during the meeting.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","EDC Board Meeting 7-29-2025","oneSentenceSummary","After a planning commission recommendation to deny it, the Board of Supervisors took no action to approve the Serrano Village M5 rezone/PD/tentative‑map (20 lots). Planning commissioners and residents cited specific‑plan inconsistency, excess density and traffic/neighborhood‑compatibility concerns.","taxTitle","El Dorado County, California","taxId",12694,"location","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":75,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":76,"_41":77,"_43":78,"_45":79,"_47":80,"_49":81,"_51":82,"_53":83,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":84,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":85,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6586430,"Board appoints Susan Henneke acting and interim chief administrative officer",700,5076000,5776000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5504522-dedc0dd71e4857e1b26145e6617bc753&start=5076&end=5776","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5504522-dedc0dd71e4857e1b26145e6617bc753/thumbnail_5076000.jpg","/articles/6586430/El-Dorado-County/California/Board-appoints-Susan-Henneke-acting-and-interim-chief-administrative-officer","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6586430-fdb355e31b61dd9370fb40c8681c975c/orig.mp4?Expires=1771185342&Signature=Y9JxHDdqeF3eeQ6sBJWt9wbuXOwDmFamUYUbIWTB7I0A~IsekeI3d3nBzOi35YmEdIcNRlBjRy9FRb2BZ1Bl7r1OgApRMPdEzpENyjqNueN4dUq0dPnfDBJKGJMM87KnAd3WwBBb938vfLa53vN9zbb63tEnL6yL6t~Zi7c~G9n~bH9zksOqZZJW5oI5xYQ4dYWRf8C8W0ZT2RAHaNEOTV4cqcIWXr8yMmo5STj8PR-uQ3qtrucf-yx7wEZHkgY~KxibdxPX9PbeIc7WlRRnzE7jOuwSWtGN60572dLYadbmJuiXAzIB3QEfoCPzbovGvGY9CiBKUsYr9GBl1pZpmg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Board of Supervisors voted to place Susan (Sue) Henneke into acting status as chief administrative officer at step 1 of the CAO salary range effective August 16, 2025, and appoint her as interim chief administrative officer effective September 14, 2025. The Human Resources director confirmed Henneke meets the CAO qualifications and the board approved the personnel action in a standard staffing motion.

Why it matters: the CAO is the county’s senior administrative officer and continuity of operations is a priority during executive transitions. Henneke’s appointment is an internal interim measure while a recruitment is conducted. Human Resources indicated the posting and recruitment process will proceed while the interim CAO fulfills the duties of the office.

What the board decided: the motion to assign Henneke to the acting and interim positions at step 1 of the salary range passed by vote (record: motion passed). The board did not discuss interim recruitment specifics at length during the hearing; Human Resources will manage the formal recruitment and report back to the board on timing and process.

Ending: county staff said the appointment follows standard practice for an internal interim CAO assignment and that Human Resources had verified Henneke’s qualifications for the role.","Human Resources and the board approved Susan Henneke to serve in acting and interim roles as Chief Administrative Officer following the pending CAO resignation; effective dates were set in the staffing report.",{"_33":87,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":88,"_41":89,"_43":90,"_45":91,"_47":92,"_49":93,"_51":94,"_53":95,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":96,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":97,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6586432,"Board votes to repeal local tobacco ordinances, directs staff to return with smoke‑shop review and school‑setback options",2492,3939000,6431000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5504522-dedc0dd71e4857e1b26145e6617bc753&start=3939&end=6431","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5504522-dedc0dd71e4857e1b26145e6617bc753/thumbnail_3939000.jpg","/articles/6586432/El-Dorado-County/California/Board-votes-to-repeal-local-tobacco-ordinances-directs-staff-to-return-with-smokeshop-review-and-schoolsetback-options","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6586432-a5baa1ff253674ed8677ab1f07a86d7f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771185342&Signature=fJGZeGFk-BveGUiS~4DFCWopM9mYQq9fezCgVb4oZYoGPaIBDb0khPUA34In3dDzSXt9HecRIbjrdVR9sWg16HtzK0K1k1~vLu3mhhItoxjaiksDSdsGVMfE9NqKAo2Yd8O7qcV9uRqJXVk5xdBJkadXvujHy9835HBFRFGjzocav2GQQTDLvBbOAx7rnL3STfYwaxnr~wRBb5Ae3F-WrExy2hTJycIAgPym-p207Tr5K-xHMm~mtxe7B~QWvtyJKIHU~iuMOAZJhjhiqryLFailZt31gwtcDv5T38Q5HYhv8hKVpjaHLgSwZJgpV8IWPECIWrcdZ7FEfPG6ulF2Kw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors voted 3–2 to repeal both the county’s recently adopted tobacco zoning ordinance (Ordinance 5210) and the tobacco retail license ordinance (Ordinance 5211). In addition, the board directed staff to return with focused information and options on smoke‑shop licensing and on creating setbacks from schools — including an analysis of how a smoke‑shop‑specific ordinance would work and how any school setbacks could be drafted and applied.

Background: The county began considering local tobacco regulations after public concern about vape and tobacco retail locations near schools and following a November town hall on youth vaping. Staff reported that California’s Department of Tax and Fee Administration inspects only about 1 in 10 tobacco retailers annually and that 230 jurisdictions across the state have adopted local tobacco retail licensing ordinances, including some rural counties. The county’s Ordinance 5211 had been designed to pay for a program of one inspection per store per year and to allow local enforcement beyond what the state conducts.

What staff presented: HHSA acting public-health director Kyle Fleet and planning director Karen Garner presented a county analysis, including an economic-impact assessment. Garner said two sampled gas-station convenience stores could lose roughly $1,100–$1,600 per month of tobacco revenue (and $1,800–$3,000 per month when discounts and loyalty offers were included); she estimated that if local restrictions drove tobacco purchasers to neighboring jurisdictions, county sales-and-use-tax revenue could fall by roughly $865,000 annually (county portion) in a conservative model.

Board debate and public comment: Board members and dozens of public speakers described two competing concerns. Supporters of repeal (and many local retailers) argued that gas stations and convenience stores are highly regulated, provide essential community services, employ local residents and contribute sales tax; they warned that strict rules would push buyers to other jurisdictions and reduce local tax revenue and could put planned development projects at risk. Citizens, health advocates and several youth speakers urged tighter local controls to reduce youth access and exposure, pointing to flavored vapes and other products that draw young users and to the limited frequency of state retail inspections.

Board action: The board adopted a motion to repeal both Ordinance 5210 (tobacco zoning) and Ordinance 5211 (tobacco retail license), and at the same time directed staff to return with a narrower analysis focused on: 1) smoke‑shops (a use defined in earlier staff materials as retail locations where tobacco/vape products represent a high percentage of sales) including a licensing and inspection model, nontransferability of smoke‑shop licenses and enforcement mechanics; and 2) options for local school setbacks and related mapping (staff was asked to provide how setbacks might be applied across community types and to present alternatives). The motion carried 3–2 (Supervisors Parlin and Lane voted no).

Next steps: Staff will prepare a return report with the requested analyses — a smoke‑shop‑focused approach, the potential economic impacts of different setback distances and options for license design (including nontransferability and inspection frequency) — and include information about grant funding for enforcement and education where available. The board did not adopt detailed setback distances or the smoke‑shop ordinance at this meeting.","The Board of Supervisors voted 3–2 to repeal local tobacco zoning and tobacco retail‑license ordinances and directed staff to return with focused information on smoke‑shop regulation and proposed school setbacks.",{"_33":99,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":100,"_41":101,"_43":102,"_45":103,"_47":104,"_49":105,"_51":106,"_53":107,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":108,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":109,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":56,"_73":56},6586435,"Board approves Waste Connections rate increase after presentation on Murphree transfer-station rebuild",2343,2907000,5250000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=5504522-dedc0dd71e4857e1b26145e6617bc753&start=2907&end=5250","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/5504522-dedc0dd71e4857e1b26145e6617bc753/thumbnail_2907000.jpg","/articles/6586435/El-Dorado-County/California/Board-approves-Waste-Connections-rate-increase-after-presentation-on-Murphree-transfer-station-rebuild","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6586435-891d3e8182eaefa3642bc639fc6a211f/orig.mp4?Expires=1771185342&Signature=SMIwaFq-hcpgdOMtHaMJTJUqKBCWnAWwpS9SYhw4SjlBYUrEAC5m78HwJHOrHluik~r1-FapxjfS-01esKbLGORzHuDeWD4d8LFfAG5e0jnH28CIE~YAmYcpMnUlwiGgiZw1xRPJTU3XmJlDgqMm4PO77uE9kMsF0GrQ47ribk-XHV9OLu72RD~uhIMIOWrQavKPTCBPLG7fKAPp~1G2tfwXGTfNmMvRnFZhbJm9zlrmrxW-cFT8VusVaXPUZ04n~m0cDocI-cSvMRWhNFmBjaX4eYE6ax2FpX-Fx-PPe13-qfOxdbuXSI50kTHlK9DnyamEQdn9sVEX37g6zdNTuA__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors approved a combined increase to material-recovery-facility (MRF) and solid-waste collection rates after a detailed presentation from Waste Connections of California (doing business as Eldorado Disposal) about the recent Murphree transfer-station rebuild and related cost challenges. The board voted 4–1 to adopt the two-part adjustment: a 3.62% interim (CPI-based) increase and a 2.74% charge tied to construction cost overruns identified in the county’s independent review.

The vote followed a 09:00 presentation showing how the rebuilt transfer station operates, what services it provides and how the capital overrun arose. Christopher Brown, district manager for Eldorado Disposal, described the facility as “a one-stop shop” that processes municipal solid waste, mixed organics and a range of recyclable materials and also accepts many items at no gate charge in order to keep them out of the landfill. Brown and company engineer Dave Brown walked the board through operational changes — new lanes, separate commercial scales, an expanded household-hazardous-waste area, and a baler/processing bay — and then explained why the project cost exceeded earlier estimates.

Why it matters: county staff and an independent consultant (Crow) reviewed the firm’s request and found the Murphree project met the franchise agreement’s threshold for cost recovery. Project circumstances cited in the staff report and consultant review included discovery and remediation of lime waste on the site, pandemic-era delays, evolving building and fire-code requirements, and post‑COVID spikes in construction pricing and contractor availability. Those factors pushed the final cost to about $38.7 million, well above the original $8–$12 million estimate used when the 2014 franchise agreement was drafted.

Supervisor questions and public comments focused on how much of the overrun rate was already being collected, how the recovery will be monitored, and whether there will be a future rate reduction once the overrun is paid. Staff and Eldorado Disposal representatives said revenue from earlier interim adjustments and the newly approved increase will be tracked on a base‑year review cycle (every three years); when construction-cost recovery for a particular tranche is completed, base‑year reviews will reassess rates. County and company staff warned that a future formal rate reduction is not guaranteed: an offsetting CPI or other adjustments in a later base-year review could produce a small net increase or very small decrease, depending on conditions at that time.

Public comments included concerns about perceived double‑billing and requests for clearer charts showing outstanding recovery balances and pay‑off schedules; speakers asked for a transparent amortization schedule to be made available during subsequent base-year reviews. Several local civic and nonprofit representatives and residents also praised Eldorado Disposal’s community programs and the improved customer flow and safety of the rebuilt transfer station.

What the board decided: the supervisors adopted the combined adjustment: the 3.62% CPI-based interim increase and a 2.74% rate component to recover construction costs that Crow and county staff found to be an “unforeseen circumstance” under the franchise agreement. The motion carried 4–1 (Supervisor Parlin registered a no vote). County staff will continue to collect financial reports from Eldorado Disposal and include the overrun recovery in future base‑year reviews to determine whether the recovery has been completed and whether rates should be adjusted then.

Ending note: Eldorado Disposal emphasized the facility’s expanded services — more free recycling drop-offs, new household hazardous-waste capacity and a community education center — and said the rebuild increases daily capacity while aiming to reduce material sent to landfill.","After a presentation on the rebuilt Murphree transfer station and its cost overruns, the Board of Supervisors approved a combined rate adjustment that includes a CPI pass-through and a charge to recover construction overruns; the vote was 4–1.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Board declines action on Serrano Village M5 subdivision after planning commission denial; residents cite traffic and density concerns

Board appoints Susan Henneke acting and interim chief administrative officer

Board votes to repeal local tobacco ordinances, directs staff to return with smoke‑shop review and school‑setback options

Board approves Waste Connections rate increase after presentation on Murphree transfer-station rebuild