Opinion by Lee Tannenbaum
The Parker + G3 Development Must Be Rejected — A Catastrophe for El Dorado County
The proposed Parker + G3 development—comprising the Village of Marble Valley and Lime Rock Valley Specific Plans—proposes over 4,000 housing units in a region characterized by fire danger, water scarcity, inadequate infrastructure, and a deeply rooted rural identity. This project violates multiple provisions of El Dorado County’s General Plan and exposes the County to long-term financial, environmental, and legal risk. It is an outdated entitlement no longer aligned with the needs or will of the County’s residents. The County must immediately terminate any support for the project.
I. Violations of the El Dorado County General Plan
Land Use Element – Policy 2.2.1.2: Rural Region Preservation
The proposed high-density development directly conflicts with designated Rural Regions that are intended to remain low-density to preserve the County’s rural character.
Transportation and Circulation Element – Policy TC-1p: Level of Service (LOS)
The project would degrade LOS on key roads like Bass Lake Road and Highway 50, violating the County’s own traffic performance standards.
Public Services and Utilities Element – Policy 5.2.1.3: Adequate Water Supply
The project fails to demonstrate a long-term, drought-resilient water source. This contradicts the County’s requirement that new development ensure adequate water before approval.
Conservation and Open Space Element – Policy 7.4.4.4: Oak Woodland Conservation
The development will eliminate large areas of oak woodland without sufficient mitigation, defying the County’s conservation goals.
II. Environmental and Infrastructure Concerns
Wildfire Risk
The development lies within a High Fire Hazard Severity Zone. Adding thousands of homes into this zone endangers lives, raises insurance rates, and increases suppression costs.
Traffic and Emergency Response
Traffic congestion will worsen significantly, straining roads that already experience delays. Emergency vehicles will be delayed, and fire evacuation will become more dangerous.
Underfunded Public Services
Schools, fire, and EMS are already stretched thin. The developer has not demonstrated how new demand will be funded without placing new burdens on current taxpayers.
III. Legal Precedents on General Plan Consistency
Under California law, all land use decisions must align with the General Plan. Courts have struck down projects that conflict with key policies.
Neighborhood Action Group v. County of Calaveras (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 1176 affirmed that consistency is not optional.
Proceeding with the Parker + G3 project despite its known conflicts places the County at serious legal risk.
IV. Fiscal Transparency and Public Mandate
No public fiscal analysis has been produced that shows this project pays for its full impact.
Under General Plan Policy 10.1.2.1, discretionary projects must demonstrate long-term fiscal neutrality.
Proceeding under expired 1980s entitlements without public re-approval is a violation of transparency and public trust.
V. Comparable Failures Across California
LA County’s Tejon Ranch Centennial Project was delayed for years due to CEQA litigation.
Placer County’s Gunnison Ranch proposal was withdrawn after General Plan-based lawsuits.
If El Dorado proceeds with Parker + G3, it risks years of litigation, uncertainty, and expense.
VI. Community Opposition
Residents have consistently voiced opposition. This includes objections based on:
Fire risk
Traffic congestion
Strained schools
Environmental destruction
Lack of water
No current polling or community forum supports this development. Public opposition is both widespread and grounded in fact.
Conclusion
It is no longer enough to request reconsideration or further study. The County must formally:
Withdraw its support
Terminate all vesting rights or development agreements
Issue a finding of inconsistency with the General Plan
To do anything less is to abandon the County’s duty to its residents and violate both the spirit and letter of its planning laws.
What can you do?
Write a letter of opposition to your Supervisor and Planning Commissioner. (See photo for all email addresses). You don’t have to be creative or well written. A letter to each simply stating that you are opposed to the project will be sufficient.
Show up for all hearings and voice publicly your concerns.
Do not sit idly by thinking your voice does not matter, it does!
