Skip Ribbon Commands
Skip to main content
Sign In
General Contact Number: (530) 621-5567

County Press Releases

 

 

El Dorado County Statement Regarding Measure E Ruling​

Department:
CAO

Date:
8/9/2017
Contact:
Carla Hass

Phone:
(530) 621-4609

(PLACERVILLE, CA) – The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors today issued the following statement about El Dorado County Superior Court Judge Warren Stracener’s decision regarding the constitutionality of Measure E, which was passed by voters in June 2016 and enacted or reinstated certain restrictions and policies concerning roads and traffic congestion, especially traffic issues related to new development: “Superior Court Judge Stracener last week ruled that certain aspects of Measure E are unconstitutional, violate state law, and are inconsistent with the County’s General Plan, while also upholding other aspects of the Measure. Judge Stracener found that certain provisions of Measure E were unconstitutional because they would require developers to pay more than a project’s fair share of costs to improve roads to mitigate the impacts of a project. He also held that another provision would interfere with the Board of Supervisors’ ability to manage financial affairs of the County. At the same time, Judge Stracener upheld other provisions of Measure E, including its extension of the General Plan’s prohibition of a project resulting in Level of Service F to multi-unit residential projects, not just single family projects.

“Measure E was challenged by Alliance for Responsible Planning, which is a California nonprofit public benefit corporation that focuses on issues affecting El Dorado County. The proponents and drafters of Measure E, Save Our County and Sue Taylor, intervened to defend the merits of the Measure. The County had supported the proponents’ efforts to join the lawsuit and defend the Measure. Since its passage by the voters in June 2016, the County had concerns about some provisions of Measure E. County staff had spent an exceptional amount of time working to offer potential ways to constitutionally apply the Measure so that the County could carry out its duty to enforce a law passed by a majority of the voters.

“In the lawsuit, the County’s primary concern was preserving its ability to interpret and apply its General Plan—including any amendments to it by Measure E. In the short time since its passage, a specific project had not yet been approved that would have required the Board to interpret the Measure. Judge Stracener’s decision provides clarity for future projects and, most importantly, allows the Board to apply the County’s General Plan in the context of a specific project.

“We are pleased that the decision will provide greater clarity for future projects and that the intent of the County’s General Plan in continuing to mitigate traffic impacts will continue to guide development decisions in our County.”

(NOTE TO EDITOR: Attached is a chart indicating which sections of Measure E were upheld and which were struck down.)

###

Providing safe, healthy and vibrant communities, respecting our natural resources and historical heritage