The El Dorado Business Alliance
P.O. Box 121, Shingle Springs, CA 95682
March 27, 2006

EDC Planning Commission
2850 Fairlane Court
Placerville, CA 95667

Re: Interpretation and Solution for General Plan Policies 7.4.4.4 and 7.4.2.8

Honorable Planning Commissioners:

On December 8, 2005 the El Dorado Business Alliance (BA) forwarded a letter to the Board of Supervisors relative to
the provisions of Policy 7.4.4.4 of the 2004 General Plan. The Board did not take action on this matter, and the BA has
since learned that the process for new general plan ordinances and policies is to go before the Planning Commission for
consideration prior to being heard by the Board. Based on this information we are seeking your consideration of this
matter.

In our original letter we noted that General Plan Policy 7.4.4.4 indicates that a landowner, when seeking to develop
his/her property, generally must do one of the following:

Option A: Retain a large percentage of the existing tree canopy as set forth in the chart included in this
section, or

Option B: “The project applicant shall provide sufficient funding to the County’s INRMP conservation
fund, described in Policy 7.4.2.8, to fully compensate for the impact to oak woodland habitat.”

Turning to Policy 7.4.2.8 we note that Section A describes five areas of habitat inventory that are required to be
part of the INRMP as follows: 1) Habitats that support special status species; 2) Aquatic environments includ-
ing streams, rivers and lakes; 3) Wetlands and riparian habitat; 4) Important habitat for migratory deer herds;
and 5) Large expanses of native vegetation. However, this section does not include any reference to the
inventory of oak trees.

Further, Policy 7.4.2.8, Section H, references funding and describes how the county shall develop a conservation
fund to ensure adequate funding of the INRMP, but again there is no link or tie specific to oak trees, oak
woodland habitat or trees in general.

It is our opinion that the original intent of this section was applicable to oak trees only, and there is a disconnect
between the two sections: Policy 7.4.4.4 refers to Policy 7.4.2.8 for funding, but there is no requirement relating
to oak woodlands or trees in general in that section. Yet staff has indicated that the INRMP must be established
prior to developing a mitigation fee and is holding up projects based on this interpretation and the lack of any
established funding amount or mechanism. We note there is no requirement that the INRMP be established
prior to developing a mitigation fee.

The solution proposed by the BA is to allow applicants to proceed with projects if they agree to fully fund
impacts to oak woodlands, as required in the General Plan. SB 1334 (Kuehl), which was recently passed by the
state legislature and is now law, sets forth acceptable state provisions for a mitigation fee.

The BA is comprised of the following organizations: El Dorado Builders’ Exchange, El
Dorado County Association of Realtors (EDCAR), El Dorado County Joint Chambers
Commission, El Dorado Forum, North State Building Industry Association (NSBIA) and
Surveyors, Architects, Geologists and Engineers (SAGE).