Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Zoning Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board adopts Administrative Zoning Ordinance Update after public objections about scope and CEQA
Summary
The Board approved an Administrative Zoning Ordinance Update intended to correct errors and codify director interpretations, despite strong public concern that some changes are substantive and should receive environmental review and broader notice.
The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors on Aug. 19 adopted an Administrative Zoning Ordinance Update (AZOU) revising parts of Title 2 (administration) and Title 130 (zoning). Staff said the package corrects typographical errors, reconciles director interpretations, updates state-mandated provisions and clarifies procedures; the board voted 5–0 to adopt the ordinance.
Tim Pitt, senior planner in long-range planning, said the update bundles noncontroversial edits collected from frontline staff and incorporates several director interpretations that staff viewed as appropriate to codify. The package included clarifications on appeals timelines (proposing an extension from 30 to 60 days), updates required by state law (including provisions tied to SB 234 and AB 2904), and the addition of a “taproom/tasting room” or “taproom” use within the brewery code section to reflect current industry practice.
Public speakers urged the board not to treat significant code changes as administrative exemptions from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Several speakers — including members of the public, land-use advocates and a district planning commissioner — said some edits alter policy, impact wildfire safety setbacks and reduce public notice or discretionary review opportunities. One planning commissioner told the board he would not have recommended forwarding the package to the supervisors had he known the full implications.
County staff and counsel responded that most edits are corrective or procedural and that some rules, such as fire setback review, were updated to reflect a 2023 board decision authorizing local fire protection districts to exercise setback review. Counsel explained that certain code timelines in county administrative sections have historically been non-binding; the change from “shall” to “should” and lengthening the appeal period to 60 days was intended to reflect how timelines operate in practice and to provide more time for staff reports and processing.
Supervisors discussed whether the zoning administrator or planning commission should hear certain large or complex projects and asked staff to consider a future, comprehensive zoning update tied to a general-plan revision. Several supervisors said the AZOU package was appropriate as a periodic cleanup, while public commenters urged the board to pull specific items for deeper review.
Outcome: The board approved the AZOU as presented and directed staff to return annually with future administrative updates (vote: 5–0). Staff said they will continue to work with stakeholders on future, larger-scale code updates and clarified that major or controversial changes would follow a normal public-review and environmental review path when appropriate.
