El Dorado County supervisors workshop changes to oak-woodlands rules; staff to refine exemptions and inspection options

County planning staff said they will revise the draft Oak Woodlands ordinance to carve out clearer exemptions for county and private roads and to explore lower-cost inspection options for trees removed at an insurer's request, following a lengthy workshop and public comment before the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors.

The workshop on revisions to the Oak Woodlands protections drew repeated concerns from homeowners about additional costs and county intrusion, and questions from supervisors about how the proposal would interact with the county general plan, CEQA and existing mitigation rules. Tom Purcell, long‑range planning, said staff is looking for “something in the middle ground to give county oversight into what oak trees are being removed where,” and is exploring whether some inspections could be handled by county staff rather than paid outside consultants.

Why it matters: The Oak Woodlands rules implement policies in the county general plan and an Oak Resources Management Plan (referenced in the draft). The board and public emphasized that any revisions must avoid putting homeowners at greater risk of losing insurance coverage or imposing excessive costs, while still preserving habitat and public safety.

Board and staff discussion

Tom Purcell, long‑range planning, told supervisors that county road projects are already treated differently in the draft and that staff recommends substituting parallel language for “private non‑county maintained road development” so there is a consistent standard for clearance and when mitigation applies. “Staff feels that there may be some options for what I call base level inspections,” Purcell said, distinguishing those from full resource surveys.

Purcell and other staff repeatedly described the exemption language as being placed under the ordinance’s mitigation exemptions, not as wholesale exemptions from permitting. He said the administrative permit envisioned for insurance‑related removals would be “one of the lowest cost permits…for staff to collect the documents, memorialize what’s happening on a particular property and why,” provided the request meets the stated conditions.

Sue Henicke, chief administrative officer, told the board that building and planning staff and fire staff have been discussing how to avoid conflicting determinations between defensible‑space inspectors and private insurers. “Often we’re hearing people that pass their defensible space inspection, but the insurance company says it’s not enough,” Henicke said, and she supported exploring county assistance for the documentation planning needs.

Public concerns and examples

Multiple members of the public objected to what they called regulatory overreach and urged focus on protecting woodland areas rather than micro‑managing individual property owners. A resident, Linda Campbell of El Dorado Hills, said the ordinance’s original intent was the protection of oak woodland ecosystems in the general plan and warned against making the ordnance unduly burdensome for individual homeowners.

Ken Greenwood, a district resident, argued the county should remain focused on preserving the larger oak ecosystems and avoid requiring expensive consultant assessments for routine property maintenance. Another commenter described a friend who waited years for a utility‑contracted tree removal that later caused property damage, using the anecdote to underline frustration with delay and regulation.

Insurance conflicts and inspection options

Supervisors raised the practical problem where an insurer demands tree removal to maintain coverage but county staff or a qualified professional might recommend removing a different tree or fewer trees. Purcell said staff is not proposing to eliminate certification requirements but is exploring administrative approaches and coordination with other departments and stakeholders so that property owners would not always have to hire an arborist at substantial cost.

Board direction and next steps

Staff summarized the next steps: incorporate board and public feedback, coordinate with OWAPA staff and other departments on inspection options, and return with revised documents. The board asked staff to come back with a check‑in before sending the ordinance to the Planning Commission and to include a high‑level memo describing scope, schedule, likely CEQA implications (e.g., whether an addendum or a new environmental document would be required), and cost estimates for the longer‑term issues such as defining the status of live oaks in the ordinance.

Tom Purcell noted some changes could be administrative and fast, while the question of removing live oaks from the ordinance or changing their status would likely require more time, research and consultation with county counsel because of the general plan and CEQA connections. Staff said their timeline aims to have administrative pieces ready by spring (the board had previously discussed a May milestone), but that the live‑oak question could take longer.

Public comment summary

Speakers at the public comment period urged several consistent themes: keep the ordinance focused on large‑scale habitat protection rather than micromanaging private yards; avoid adding expense or processes that could cause residents to lose insurance; and ensure monitoring and enforcement of any replanting or mitigation required of developers. One commenter urged the county to prioritize monitoring of replacement plantings, saying several earlier plantings in El Dorado Hills had not survived.

What was not decided

No final ordinance amendments or votes were taken at the workshop. The meeting was a staff‑led workshop to solicit direction and refine language; formal hearings before the Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors will follow.

Ending

Staff will incorporate the board’s and public’s feedback, pursue interagency coordination on inspections and documentation, and return with revised code language and a memo laying out the schedule, costs and environmental analysis options before forwarding the draft to the Planning Commission and then back to the Board for formal action.