THIS IS AN ARCHIVE OF LAKE TAHOE NEWS, WHICH WAS OPERATIONAL FROM 2009-2018. IT IS FREELY AVAILABLE FOR RESEARCH. THE WEBSITE IS NO LONGER UPDATED WITH NEW ARTICLES.

1,000-home development proposed for Shingle Springs


image_pdfimage_print

By Richard Chang, Sacramento Bee

Shingle Springs residents are gearing up for a showdown over a proposed 1,000-home mega development off Mother Lode Drive.

The project, named San Stino, will have 1.6 units per acre over a 645-acre tract. Developer Joel Korotkin of San Stino LLP estimates the build-out could take several years, depending on market conditions.

But neighbors are launching a grass-roots effort to stop the proposal. They say the project is too dense and will threaten their rural lifestyle.

“The development is so large it will affect almost all Shingle Springs residents,” said Frank Verdin, an organizer for No San Stino, one of two grass-roots groups opposing the development.

No San Stino and the Shingle Springs Community Alliance are asking the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors to halt review of the plan and for the developer to go back to the drawing board.

The county is in the process of preparing an environmental impact review, which will assess the project in terms of traffic, infrastructure and other factors. But officials caution that final approval is still far away.

“For this many lots, you’re looking at 10 years or more before you achieve a full build-out,” said Pierre Rivas, the county’s principal planner.

The stiff opposition from the community has the developer on the defensive.

“We’ve been very open from the beginning,” Korotkin said, noting that San Stino has already been scaled down from the original 1,300 houses proposed two years ago.

“If you think this is going to affect you, we want you to write a comment setting forth your concerns,” he said.

El Dorado County’s elected leaders are taking note of the growing chorus of criticism.

Supervisor Ray Nutting, who represents Shingle Springs, said he is “very aware” of the constituent backlash against the project.

“I’m very skeptical of the numbers,” Nutting said. “My hope is that those numbers come way down. The developer needs to build trust with the community.”

Korotkin said that he has followed the application process from the beginning and that the county had previously designated the land as an area for growth in the 2004 General Plan.

The site has historically been a grazing ground for farm animals and is currently zoned as one home for every 5 acres.

Many in Shingle Springs live on plots of 1 acre or more, according to data from the county planning department. Community leaders have expressed concern that the large influx of people could upend the area’s rural lifestyle.

“If you take 1,000 homes and multiply that by two, you’re looking at 2,000 cars,” said Verdin, whose home sits on 8 acres and is 400 feet from the development site. “Traffic is a huge concern. People have to drive because it’s rural.”

But Korotkin contends that he has made ample provisions to allow San Stino to fit in with the community, including creating a new road to minimize traffic and setting aside 42 percent of the land, or 270 acres, toward open space.

“It’s a challenge, but I believe we can do this in a way that doesn’t hurt Shingle Springs,” he said.

The 30-day public comment period for the environmental impact report ended Friday.

The report is likely to be released by next spring.

Rivas, the county planner, doesn’t expect the Board of Supervisors to vote on the project until mid-2014.

“You’re looking at years off into the future,” he said. “But the project tells me there is a positive outlook in the future of the economy.”

image_pdfimage_print

About author

This article was written by admin

Comments

Comments (14)
  1. Dogula says - Posted: April 2, 2013

    Hmmmm. I wonder where all the protesters moved to El Dorado County from? And how big the plots of land where their homes are were before THEY were subdivided?

  2. MTT says - Posted: April 2, 2013

    They should stick tho thier guns on lot size.

    If built it will change the area forever, and will ultimatly become a getto.

    In unincorperated area’s the Lot size rules ceep thing resonable. Every instance I have seen where A city has incorperated an area (At the request of a developer) to build at a greater density than county rules allow has been bad news for everyone.

    What is the Minumim lot size in Eldorado County?

  3. MTT says - Posted: April 2, 2013

    You should follow the money on this one. Who had the money to buy up a 645-acre tract of land, and the means to build out 1,000 homes. They will have to change many existing rules to do this. They will have to buy off public officals.

  4. Careaboutthecommunity says - Posted: April 2, 2013

    1.6 units per acre is not dense at all. It is going to change things, and that is the main issue, people hate change, and they want things to stay the way the always have, but it’s unrealistic, and none of us would be where we are today without change. It seems reasonable, make them address the traffic increase, drainage, maybe some green spaces/parks, at least control how it’s done.

  5. MTT says - Posted: April 2, 2013

    I was looking for any excuse not to work so I seached for Zoning rules in that area.

    It was publishede in this Article. 1 house for every 5 acres. And that is a new rule down from 1 for every 10 acres.

    This project proposes 260 acres open space leaving 405 acres for 1,000 lots + the roads and sidewalks.

    Less than .4 acres per home that is designated Rural determined to support 1 home per 10 acres.

    Sounds like a nice place! right now buy a 10 or 5 acre plot build a home.

    San Stino LLP, does not see as much profit dealing with an existing town or municipality. So just buys up a couple defunct farms in a nice rural area, bribe all the right people, change the rules over build an area not designated to be a beedroom urban community.

    This has all that is evil in this world written all over it.

  6. concerned says - Posted: April 3, 2013

    It is already being called “San Stinko” by the reactionaries.
    Folks it is private money and not dense like El Dorado Hills. Should be a welcome addition to El Dorado County. There are still tens of thousands of acres of very rural land for the 5 acre types.
    MTT, you mean a ghetto like Frisco or LA or San Jose?
    90% of homes in CA occupy what was once farm land. How big is your lot?

  7. John says - Posted: April 3, 2013

    I assume that the zoning laws were not handed down to Moses on a stone tablet. So they can be changed by the locals. However, the people that live in that area MAY lsuffer a loss of home value because of the change in traffic patterns and over feel of the community. So they have every right to bring that up. Thats not reactionary, that is just protecting your net worth and it would be foolish not to do so.

  8. Careaboutthecommunity says - Posted: April 3, 2013

    John, good point about home/property values, they could go up as well.

  9. tahoeadvocate says - Posted: April 3, 2013

    All requests for zoning changes, particularily from agricultural use to residential should require personal notification of all property owners within many miles. Zoning departments are given too much freedom to change land use.

  10. Alex Campbell says - Posted: April 3, 2013

    Developers and their friendly Supervisors will work it out.
    Any one! Has the Briggs property been developed after Jack’s Bridge gave easy access to it ?
    DOGULA>>> 1/3 of an acre in 1999.
    The same developer has submitted plans for 70 units sbout the size of San Stino

  11. TeaTotal says - Posted: April 3, 2013

    Rest assured that our esteemed representative Ray Nutting will do whatever benefits his total net worth on our behalf. After all whats more important in life than one family’s money?

  12. ljames says - Posted: April 3, 2013

    “It is going to change things, and that is the main issue, people hate change, and they want things to stay the way the always have, but it’s unrealistic, and none of us would be where we are today without change”

    using this logic, “we all die, everyone hates to die, so why go to the doctor just to live longer.” (this is exactly the logic used in the statement above) People move and invest their family roots in an area because it has certain attributes and they are entitled to protect those attributes. Death is inevitable, adverse changes to one’s environment are not!

  13. Careaboutthecommunity says - Posted: April 3, 2013

    I guess someone just made a horrible mistake buying 645 acres, maybe they can subdivide it into 5 acre parcels, and sell them off.

  14. nature bats last says - Posted: April 4, 2013

    pull the survey steaks!