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

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.