Board continues Serrano Village M5 appeals; orders traffic count, asks for CSD park follow‑up and ROW offer

The board continued a contentious appeal hearing on the Serrano Village M5 project on June 16 after nearly four hours of testimony from planning staff, three appellants, the applicant’s counsel and more than a dozen residents.

What the project is: the applicant sought approval of a tentative subdivision map and plan development permit to subdivide an 8.42‑acre parcel in the El Dorado Hills specific plan area into ten single‑family lots and four landscape lots. Planning staff (Cameron Welch) recommended upholding the planning commission’s approval and concluded that the application was statutorily exempt from further SEQA review under CEQA Guideline 15182 (residential projects within a specific plan certified after 1980).

Why the appeal: three neighborhood appellants — Dean Gats, Gary Kinghorn and Tara McCain — raised overlapping concerns. They focused on park obligations and fee accounting (Gats argued the developer has retained fee credits tied to earlier park promises and that public funds have effectively subsidized developer obligations), alleged procedural irregularities (zoning/reserve change filings and prior approvals), and traffic/safety at the proposed new access near the Appian Way / Sanjiovesi intersection (McCain and Kinghorn cited limited sight distance, backups at the gated entrance and urged additional traffic modeling and mitigation). Public commenters who live near the intersection described repeated stacking behind the gate, cars crossing double yellow lines and near‑misses during busy times.

Applicant response: Serrano Associates’ representatives (attorney Mike Cook and agent Kirk Bone) said the parcel’s approvals are consistent with the specific plan and that the county and the community services district previously negotiated a three‑party agreement intended to satisfy park obligations; they said the applicant has earned credits for earlier park construction and is willing to work with DOT on right‑of‑way needs to allow a wider roadway edge that could function as a turn‑pocket. Applicant counsel argued the Planning Commission and staff properly applied the 15182 exemption and that a supplemental EIR was not triggered.

Board action and next steps: after extensive questions and public comment, the board voted unanimously to continue the hearing to a date no later than Sept. 29, 2026. The board directed DOT to collect peak‑period traffic counts (including school‑session data), produce a supplemental traffic analysis for the Appian/Sanjiovesi intersection, and requested staff follow up with the El Dorado Hills Community Services District to document efforts to develop the Village J park and to clarify available funding (the June 16 discussion repeatedly referenced a 2020 agreement and $3.5 million of park funds in a county custodied fund). The board also requested the applicant and DOT explore an offer of dedication along the M5 frontage sufficient to create a de‑facto right‑turn pocket to relieve stacking at the gated entrance.

Why it matters: appellants said SEQA review should be revisited because the specific‑plan area has changed substantially since the plan was adopted and because an existing gate and stacking create a safety risk that was not analyzed in the older EIR; the applicant and staff said project density and plan consistency keep the matter within the specific plan’s scope. The board’s continuance preserves decision authority while requiring focused technical work (traffic counts/analysis and CSD park status) before a final vote.