Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Placerville council denies rezoning, declines mitigated negative declaration for 2752 Coloma Street
Summary
The council voted unanimously to deny a request to apply a housing opportunity overlay to 2752 Coloma Street and declined to adopt the associated mitigated negative declaration, citing pedestrian safety, traffic and wildfire evacuation constraints and staff's finding that the site is not required for RHNA compliance.
Carol Kendrick, Placerville's director of Development Services, recommended the council deny General Plan Amendment GPA 26-03, Zone Change ZC 26-03 and decline the mitigated negative declaration for 2752 Coloma Street, a 3.77-acre parcel on Highway 49. Kendrick told the council the rezone would have allowed up to 67 multifamily units and at least 50% affordable units but that the planning commission unanimously recommended denial after citing site-specific concerns around pedestrian safety, traffic operations and wildfire evacuation constraints. She said subsequent consultation with the California Department of Housing and Community Development confirmed the city can remain in substantial compliance with its housing element without rezoning the parcel.
During public comment, Max Mizell, a resident at 2744 Coloma Street that borders the parcel, thanked the planning department for acknowledging deficiencies in the CEQA study and urged the council to deny the rezoning. Mizell said the CEQA analysis did not account for impacts to vehicle and pedestrian safety, wildfire evacuation and response routes, and he asserted his house had historical significance under Resolution 58-94.
After the public hearing, a council member moved to adopt staff's recommendation and the council voted by roll call to deny GPA 26-03 and ZC 26-03 and to decline adoption of the mitigated negative declaration. The motion carried with ayes recorded on the roll call.
Why it matters: Staff told the council the parcel is not in the city's housing element site inventory and is not required to meet the city's Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA), so denial does not jeopardize the city's compliance while preserving public-safety considerations the planning commission flagged.
What comes next: Staff will transmit the council's findings to HCD as directed in the resolution. The city did not adopt any rezoning or environmental determination for the site at this meeting.
