El Dorado County Grand Jury 2013-2014 Golden Center Plaza Approved in Violation of Legal Requirements

Both the Planning Department and Commission failed to properly review the Golden Center Golden Center Plaza design based on County Zoning Ordinances and accepted standards. a) The shopping center has significantly fewer parking spaces provided than are required by the Zoning Ordinance. b) There is no loading zone on site as required by Zoning Code 17.18.080. c) There are no recreational vehicle spaces as required by Zoning Code 17.18.060 d) No internal operations analysis was performed resulting in a highly congested shopping center which does not function well for pedestrians, vehicular traffic or tenants. Response: The respondent disagrees with the finding. The minutes from the May 12, 2005 Planning Commission clearly state that parking was reviewed, including the fact that there was reciprocal parking agreement in place with adjoining properties to alleviate any concerns of inadequate parking. Condition 6 of the permit (PD03-0006) required a minimum of 191 parking stalls, 30 percent which could be compact size stalls, and a minimum of 5 ADA stalls. The Parking Ordinance for Neighborhood shopping centers requires 1 parking space per 200 square feet of gross floor area and does not require recreational vehicle spaces. Parking for shopping centers is not additive to other sections of the Parking Ordinance that identifies specific uses and standards. It is a separate and distinct parking standard designed for multi-building and multi-tenant facilities that are called “shopping centers.” The parking for the site was not calculated on an individual use basis, as the Grand Jury may have interpreted. For example, the Parking Ordinance states that a Restaurant is required to provide 1 space per 3 fixed seats plus 3 spaces per drive-up window and one recreational vehicle space per 10 spaces. Similarly, Office space requires 1 space per 250 square feet and a Barber or Beauty Shops: 2 spaces per chair or station; etc. The Neighborhood Shopping standard of 1 space per 200 gross square feet supersedes those other standards and serves as the comprehensive standard for all the business uses in the shopping center. Therefore, the recreational vehicle space required normally for fast food restaurants is not applicable within a shopping center. Loading zones are often omitted for shopping centers where there is a mix of small shops and tenants where there is no logical location for a single or central loading zone. It would be illogical to require a large loading zone for each and every building. For these types of shopping centers and their types of businesses, typical deliveries are by smaller vehicles and trucks and occur during off-peak hours. Therefore, areas specifically designated as loading zones are often omitted from these types of shopping centers as allowed by Section 17.18.040.D (Increases and Decreases in Requirements) and Section 17.18.080.D (Modification of Loading Zone Requirements) of the County Code. There is no requirement in the Zoning Ordinances for an “internal operations analysis.” The project had two public hearings, May 12, 2005 with the Planning Commission and June 7, 2005 with the Board of Supervisors. Both made findings of consistency with the County Zoning Ordinance after reviewing the staff report, site plan, and receiving public comments. The County has authority under section 17.18.040.D and 17.18.080.D to adjust the requirements in the Parking Ordinance. There is no violation of the Zoning Ordinance.

The lack of professional review by the Planning Department and Planning Commission along with failure to require proper parking, loading zones and recreational vehicle parking resulted in material benefits to the developer in terms of increased building coverage. Response: The respondent disagrees with the finding. See response to finding number 1.

The action of (now) former Board of Supervisors member Jack Sweeney, interceding with the Director of Transportation to have a loading zone approved on Golden Center Drive, a public right of way, for the benefit of a private development, was inappropriate. Response: The respondent disagrees with the finding. See response to finding number 1.

When deficiencies in the project became apparent no action was taken to require the developer to fix the deficiencies and bring the project into compliance with mandatory legal requirements. Response: The respondent disagrees with the finding. See response to finding number 1.

The Planning Services Discretionary Review Process should be modified to include review of projects by the Department Director as well as the Principal Planner. Response: The recommendation has been implemented. All discretionary applications are reviewed by a Principal Planner and the Development Services Division Director since October 2008.