Matthew
02-05-2008, 12:06 PM
It may have seemed like it took longer than a tree to grow from seed, but if all goes according to schedule, the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors will be poised to adopt a long-awaited oak woodland management plan April 1.
The draft document was released for public review in November, and planners sought the board's direction recently on several policy issues. Planner Peter Maurer said he expected to release the environmental report next week, schedule a hearing before the Planning Commission in March, then bring the plan to the board for a hearing and adoption in April.
Available board meeting dates, Maurer said, were April Fool's Day and Tax Day. The board chose April 1.
The plan, which has been debated for nearly two years, outlines how trees are to be protected while allowing for land development. It is required under the general plan, the county's blueprint for growth.
Adoption of the plan will allow landowners who must remove trees for development the option of paying into a fund to preserve oaks at other sites, rather than planting replacement trees elsewhere on their property or at off-site locations.
The county's general plan, adopted in 2004, provided both options. But under a legal settlement with the environmental group El Dorado County Taxpayers for Quality Growth, the Board of Supervisors agreed to postpone the fee option pending adoption of the oak woodland management plan.
The management plan identifies prime oak woodlands appropriate for conservation and provides the basis for the fee.
Updating the board on the plan Tuesday, Maurer said, "The amount of the fee is still a matter of paramount concern."
The goal, he said, is to "make sure it is as low as possible, but still does the job it is intended to do."
The supervisors directed Maurer, as part of the environmental study, to examine fees from $3,250 to $14,000, allowing them to choose a figure in that range when the plan comes back for adoption.
Among other policy issues, Maurer asked for board direction on how to measure the tree canopy. Choices ranged from identifying just the footprints of each individual oak tree or stand of oaks affected by development, to measuring the oak woodland habitat, including not only the tree canopy, but also associated grassland and other vegetation.
Maurer recommended basing the measurement on the oak woodland canopy, which would include all trees, not just oaks, within the oak woodland. This method, he said might be less expensive for landowners than identifying individual oaks because the woodland area could be easily determined from aerial photographs.
But Supervisor Jack Sweeney said, "People are upset enough that we're trying to save oak trees. And we're going to save digger pines?"
The board directed that only the oak tree canopy be measured.
The board also directed staff members to:
- Require payment into the conservation fund, in lieu of replacing trees on-site, on a 1:1 ratio, the same as for on-site replanting, rather than a 2:1 ratio. Staff members had suggested that the 2:1 ratio would help compensate for the net loss of oak woodlands.
- Define areas of "agricultural cultivation" as they are defined in the Public Resources Code, to include production facilities such as packing sheds and wineries, as well as land planted with crops. Areas of agricultural cultivation are exempt from the requirements of the oak woodland management plan.
- Exempt from the plan trees that must be removed within 30 feet of a structure to provide defensible space for fire protection.
- Work with the county counsel on a provision exempting road-widening projects if the widening is critical to the road alignment.
The board also approved a Planning Department recommendation to begin including the fee option as a condition for projects that are likely to obtain building permits after the oak woodland management plan is adopted.
The board stressed that the option would be contingent on adoption of the plan.
The draft document was released for public review in November, and planners sought the board's direction recently on several policy issues. Planner Peter Maurer said he expected to release the environmental report next week, schedule a hearing before the Planning Commission in March, then bring the plan to the board for a hearing and adoption in April.
Available board meeting dates, Maurer said, were April Fool's Day and Tax Day. The board chose April 1.
The plan, which has been debated for nearly two years, outlines how trees are to be protected while allowing for land development. It is required under the general plan, the county's blueprint for growth.
Adoption of the plan will allow landowners who must remove trees for development the option of paying into a fund to preserve oaks at other sites, rather than planting replacement trees elsewhere on their property or at off-site locations.
The county's general plan, adopted in 2004, provided both options. But under a legal settlement with the environmental group El Dorado County Taxpayers for Quality Growth, the Board of Supervisors agreed to postpone the fee option pending adoption of the oak woodland management plan.
The management plan identifies prime oak woodlands appropriate for conservation and provides the basis for the fee.
Updating the board on the plan Tuesday, Maurer said, "The amount of the fee is still a matter of paramount concern."
The goal, he said, is to "make sure it is as low as possible, but still does the job it is intended to do."
The supervisors directed Maurer, as part of the environmental study, to examine fees from $3,250 to $14,000, allowing them to choose a figure in that range when the plan comes back for adoption.
Among other policy issues, Maurer asked for board direction on how to measure the tree canopy. Choices ranged from identifying just the footprints of each individual oak tree or stand of oaks affected by development, to measuring the oak woodland habitat, including not only the tree canopy, but also associated grassland and other vegetation.
Maurer recommended basing the measurement on the oak woodland canopy, which would include all trees, not just oaks, within the oak woodland. This method, he said might be less expensive for landowners than identifying individual oaks because the woodland area could be easily determined from aerial photographs.
But Supervisor Jack Sweeney said, "People are upset enough that we're trying to save oak trees. And we're going to save digger pines?"
The board directed that only the oak tree canopy be measured.
The board also directed staff members to:
- Require payment into the conservation fund, in lieu of replacing trees on-site, on a 1:1 ratio, the same as for on-site replanting, rather than a 2:1 ratio. Staff members had suggested that the 2:1 ratio would help compensate for the net loss of oak woodlands.
- Define areas of "agricultural cultivation" as they are defined in the Public Resources Code, to include production facilities such as packing sheds and wineries, as well as land planted with crops. Areas of agricultural cultivation are exempt from the requirements of the oak woodland management plan.
- Exempt from the plan trees that must be removed within 30 feet of a structure to provide defensible space for fire protection.
- Work with the county counsel on a provision exempting road-widening projects if the widening is critical to the road alignment.
The board also approved a Planning Department recommendation to begin including the fee option as a condition for projects that are likely to obtain building permits after the oak woodland management plan is adopted.
The board stressed that the option would be contingent on adoption of the plan.