MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 16, Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Chambers, 501 Low Gap Road, Ukiah, California

Transcription

1 MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES OCTOBER 16, 2003 LOCATION: COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: PLANNING & BLDG SVC STAFF PRESENT: OTHER COUNTY DEPARTMENTS PRESENT: Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Chambers, 501 Low Gap Road, Ukiah, California McCowen, Barth, Nelson, Calvert, Little, Lipmanson, Edwards None Debra White, Office Manager Raymond Hall, Director Chris Brown, Air Quality 1. Roll Call. The meeting was called to order at 9:08 a.m. Commissioner Edwards arrived at 10:56 a.m. 2. Determination of Legal Notice. Mr. Hall advised the Commission that proper notice has been given for the hearing. 3. Director s Report and Miscellaneous. Director Hall reviewed the written Director s Report submitted into the record. The Commission and Director Hall discussed the feasibility of scheduling an Abandoned Vehicle Abatement Amnesty Program for the coastal area. Commissioner Lipmanson requested that staff summarize the Coastal Commission s actions on projects in more detail, including a summary of modified conditions. Director Hall responded that he would attempt to comply with the request. Commissioner Lipmanson clarified that it is not his intent to create a significant increase in staff time, however, any information that Director Hall can provide regarding the Coastal Commission s action on projects would be helpful in making decisions on coastal projects in the future. 4. Regular Calendar. 4A. Grading Regulations. Subject: Review and recommendations to the Board of Supervisors regarding adoption of Grading Regulations prepared by the County Grading Committee and Planning staff. The proposed regulations include, but are not limited to, sections on grading standards, winter grading, vegetation removal, storm drainage and runoff, erosion and sedimentation control, protection of lakes and watercourses, roads, driveways and parking areas, reservoirs and dams, environmental review and enforcement. The grading regulations will be applicable in the unincorporated area of Mendocino County, excluding the Coastal Zone.

2 MINUTES PAGE 2 Chairing of the meeting was turned over to Vice-chairman Little. Vice-chairman Little advised that the Commission would be considering the recommendations dated October 9, 2003, from the special subcommittee of the Commission, comprised of Chairman McCowen and Commissioner Edwards. In response to Mr. Daniel Myers, Vice-chairman Little stated that the public would be allowed to comment upon the proposal by the subcommittee as the Commission considers each item. He further stated that, when a Commissioner has a concern with a particular item, it will be held for later discussion and the Commission will proceed with the remainder of the proposal by the subcommittee. In response to Mr. Daniel Myers, Director Hall advised that County Counsel Peter Klein has not completed his review of the conflict of interest issue raised by Mr. Myers, although he did advise staff that he is working on the issue. Chairman McCowen introduced the subcommittee s proposal dated October 9, He explained that the items that contain a check mark ( ) in the margin are items that were included within the subcommittee s proposal dated September 30, Section Purpose and Scope. The subcommittee recommended that earthworks be deleted consistent with the Commission s action on September 19, 2003 deleting the definition. It was the consensus of the Commission (7-0) to adopt the subcommittee s proposed revision and amend the first paragraph in Section as follows: This chapter is enacted for the purpose of regulating grading on public and private lands within the unincorporated areas of Mendocino County. This chapter establishes standards for grading, including filling and excavation activities, and for the construction of earthworks and in-ground structures in order to: Section (D) Agricultural Grading. The subcommittee recommended that the Commission adopt the Farm Bureau definition of agricultural grading: In response to Mr. Daniel Myers, Director Hall stated that agricultural grading is found on Page 13 of the ordinance. It was the consensus of the Commission (7-0) to adopt the subcommittee s proposed revision and adopt the definition for Agricultural Grading to be added to Section as follows: (D) Agricultural Grading. Grading for agriculture, including construction of a farm pond, agricultural road or an irrigation system. Section (E) Agricultural Road. The subcommittee recommended that the Commission adopt the following definition for agricultural road: (E) Agricultural Road. A road primarily used for agricultural operations that is located within or appurtenant to a field or crop area. Roads designed primarily to connect facilities or residential units are excluded. Mr. Steve Hall asked where agricultural road is used in the ordinance. In response to Mr. Hall, Chairman McCowen explained that the Commission has adopted separate permitting agencies, and as such, the Agricultural Commissioner would be the permitting agency for an agricultural road. Mr. Hall stated that

3 MINUTES PAGE 3 definitions should not be added to the ordinance unless the term is used within the ordinance. Director Hall explained that agricultural roads are included within agricultural grading. Mr. Peter Bradford explained that the crop for livestock operations is the forage produced on the property and there is a need for operations to construct roads to connect areas for their agricultural use. He felt that adoption of a definition for agricultural road is appropriate. Vice-chairman Little held further discussion of agricultural road to later in the session. Section (B) Deep Ripping. The subcommittee recommended deletion of the definition of Deep Ripping consistent with the recommendation in Section (I). In response to Commissioner Nelson, Chairman McCowen explained that ripping less than two feet in depth is exempt from a grading permit. It was the consensus of the Commission (7-0) to adopt the subcommittee s recommendation to delete the following definition of Deep Ripping: (B) Deep Ripping. Any agricultural grading of soil four (4) feet or more below existing surface grade. Section (E) Erosion Hazard Rating (EHR). The subcommittee recommended breaking the definition into two sentences by adding a period after Parts and revising the wording as follows: (E F) Erosion hazard rating (EHR). A measure of susceptibility of soils to erosion by raindrop impact and surface runoff, shown on soil map units, as determined by the Natural Resources Conservation Service in collaboration with the Mendocino County Planning and Building Services Department and based on data from the Mendocino County Soil Surveys, Eastern and Western Parts.; or if a Qualified Professional chooses to use alternative Alternative methodologies for measurement of determining the erosion hazard rating, as recommended by a Qualified Professional, are acceptable if that are approved by the Permitting Agency. Chairman McCowen clarified that it was the intent of the subcommittee to make the language clearer based upon comments submitted by Commissioner Calvert. Mr. Daniel Myers had concerns, since the Commission adopted language creating three separate permitting agencies, that each agency will develop different criteria for acceptable alternative methodologies. He stated that the language allowing for alternative methodologies is not necessarily a bad idea, however, he had concerns that different methodologies would be acceptable to the three different permitting agencies. He stated that there should only be one permitting agency to insure that the ordinance is consistently implemented. Commissioner Lipmanson concurred with Mr. Myers comments and requested that this item be held for further discussion. Vice-chairman Little directed that this item be held for further discussion. Section (B) Feasible (re-letter following sections). The subcommittee recommended that the Commission adopt the proposed definition for feasible from Director Hall s August 18, 2003 memorandum as follows:

4 MINUTES PAGE 4 (B) Feasible. Feasible means capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, social and technological factors. Commissioner Lipmanson stated that he has concerns with the definition of feasible and requested that this item be held for further discussion. Vice-chairman Little directed that this item be held for further discussion. Section (I) Grading. The subcommittee recommended that the definition of grading be amended as follows: (I) Grading. Excavating, land planing, deep ripping, soil compaction, stockpiling, cutting, filling, terracing, ripping, road construction, or the removal of natural vegetation, clearing, grubbing, re-contouring, building pad development, trenching, excavation, installation of underground pipes for water drainage or delivery, and pond, reservoir or dam construction of a pond or any combination thereof, together with associated earthworks or other construction activity that creates the potential for erosion or sedimentation, including any change in the direction, velocity or volume of flow of water. Commissioner Calvert had concerns with the removal of natural vegetation being included within the definition of grading. This implies that removal of natural vegetation by any manner, such as cutting, would be considered grading. She recommended deletion of removal of natural vegetation or that language be added to clarify that removal of natural vegetation is only included when there is a soil change. She commented that cutting of poison oak at ground level would be considered grading. Commissioner Barth concurred with Commissioner Calvert s comments and added that clarifying language should be added that removal of invasive vegetation could be conducted provided no soil is disturbed. Vice-chairman Little directed that this item be held for further discussion. Section Riparian Boundary. The Commission decided (4-3; Lipmanson, Little and McCowen dissenting) to use the date of adoption of the ordinance rather than the year 2000 for determining existing riparian vegetation. The subcommittee recommend adoption of the second alternative from Director Hall s memorandum dated August 18, 2003 (Page 1), to include a definition for Riparian Vegetation, Existing. Given the previous vote by the Commission, the subcommittee is not asking for consent on the issue, but on language to implement the decision of the majority. The subcommittee recommend including Director Hall s suggested definition and showing it adopted by the same vote as above. It was the decision of the Commission (4-3; Lipmanson, Little and McCowen dissenting) to adopt the following definition: (E) Riparian Vegetation, Existing. That riparian vegetation in existence on the date that this ordinance was adopted by the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors. Section (E) Watercourse, Class IV. The subcommittee recommended, since the definition of stream setback was deleted, that the term be replaced with watercourse setback.

5 MINUTES PAGE 5 It was the consensus of the Commission (7-0) to adopt the subcommittee s proposed amendment to Watercourse, Class IV as follows: (E) Watercourse, Class IV. A watercourse which is constructed and maintained to facilitate the use of water and includes, but is not limited to, ditches and canals used for domestic, hydropower, irrigation, and other beneficial uses (man-made watercourses do not include road side drainage ditches). Class IV watercourses are not subject to stream watercourse setback, riparian protection or erosion control standards of this ordinance provided Best Management Practices are employed. Section (F) Watercourse Corridor. The subcommittee recommended the following modification to the definition of watercourse corridor finding that it provides a clearer definition of the term watercourse corridor : (F) Watercourse Corridor. The width of the watercourse corridor shall be obtained by adding the watercourse widths to specified widths from the top of banks for Class I, Class II, and Class III Streams on both sides of the stream. The specified widths from the tops of the stream banks are based on the Erosion Hazard Rating of soils adjacent to the watercourse, and are found in Section (G)(3) of this ordinance. That area within the tops of the stream banks that contains the watercourse during high flows plus the distance outward from the tops of both banks for Class I, II and III watercourses as specified in Section (G)(3). It was the consensus of the Commission (7-0) to adopt the subcommittee s proposed modification to the definition of watercourse corridor as shown above. Section (B) Exemptions. The subcommittee recommended adding to the extent feasible, replace operations with activities and reverse the order of the last two sentences, which were previously added by the Commission. Mr. Steve Hall voiced concerns that use of to the extent feasible allows economics to trump the environment. He stated that to the extent feasible means if it is not inconvenient, therefore, why even have regulations. Commissioner Lipmanson supported Mr. Hall s comments. He stated that he may ask for reconsideration of this item if he has a problem with the final definition of feasible. It was the consensus of the Commission (7-0) to adopt the modification proposed by the subcommittee to Section (B) as follows: (B) Exemptions. The following activities are exempt from the requirements to obtain a grading permit, provided Best Management Practices are employed and the standards in Section through Section et seq. shall be are used, to the extent feasible, as construction and site management guidelines for the performance of grading under this subsection as necessary to achieve the purposes of this chapter. Guidelines as used in this section are intended to provide general direction and should not be interpreted as mandatory standards. Exempt grading operations activities which adversely affect water quality or create a hazard are subject to enforcement action pursuant to Section

6 MINUTES PAGE 6 Section (B)(1)(d)(i) Exemptions (Rangeland Conversion to Intensive Agriculture). The subcommittee recommended adding tilling and re-contouring, consistent with subparagraphs (d) and (d)(ii) through (d)(iv). The subcommittee sees no reason to treat ripping and re-contouring differently when both exceed two feet in depth. Commissioner Lipmanson objected to the 40 acre or less exemption from grading found in the preamble to this section (Section (B)(1)(d)). It was the consensus of the Commission (7-0) to adopt the subcommittee s proposed modification to Section (B)(1)(d)(i) as follows: (i) the owner/applicant files an Erosion Control Plan with the Permitting Agency prior to tilling, tilling or ripping or re-contouring to a depth of two (2) feet or more forty (40) to one hundred sixty (160) acres. (Recontouring less than one hundred (100) cubic yards is exempt from permit and erosion control plan); Section (B)(11) Fire Suppression. The subcommittee recommended adding a new exemption for fire suppression between Fills and Firebreaks and that subparagraphs be renumbered accordingly. It was the consensus of the Commission (7-0) to adopt the subcommittee s proposal to add fire suppression to Section (B), as follows, and direct that staff modify section numbering accordingly: (11) Fire Suppression. Fire suppression under the direction of local, state or federal agencies. Section (B)(11) Firebreaks. The subcommittee recommended that Best Management Practices be deleted as they are already referenced in the introductory paragraph (Section (B)) and renumber subparagraphs. Mr. Chris Brown, Air Quality Management District, recommended that a definition be included for firebreaks. Director Hall reviewed the definition of firebreaks as previously adopted by the Commission on August 21, It was the consensus of the Commission (7-0) to adopt the amendment proposed by the subcommittee to Section (B)(11) and direct that staff renumber subparagraphs as may be necessary. ( 11 12) Firebreaks. Grading to construct and maintain firebreaks provided Best Management Practices are employed and all required permits are obtained from public resource agencies. Section (B)(15) Eradication of Listed Invasive Species. The subcommittee recommended adding an exemption for invasive species, as follows, between Graves and Pest Control and direct that staff renumber subparagraphs accordingly. (15) Invasive Species. Eradication of listed invasive species contained on a list maintained by the Agricultural Commissioner. Commissioner Barth supported adding an exemption for eradication of invasive species, however, had concerns when major quantities of some species, such as pampas grass, are removed on steep slopes.

7 MINUTES PAGE 7 Chairman McCowen pointed out that removal would be subject to Best Management Practices, which should address the concern. Commissioner Barth commented that she also has a concern that grading permits may be required for any removal of vegetation even if soils are not disturbed. Vice-chairman Little held further discussion of this section until later in the day. Section (B)(16) Public Works Projects. The subcommittee recommended deletion of earthworks consistent with previous action and renumber section. On August 21, 2003 the Planning Commission added language that required that public works projects would only be exempt from a grading permit if the project were otherwise subject to CEQA. The subcommittee does not believe it was the intention of the Planning Commission to be so broad as to require that maintenance of existing public roads be subject to a grading permit. Therefore the subcommittee recommends the following language: (1618) Public Works Maintenance Projects. Grading for the maintenance, earthworks, construction and maintenance of public roads, emergency access roads, bridges, levees and flood control facilities and other public works, undertaken by a public agency. and subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. (1618a) Public Works Projects Subject to CEQA. Grading, earthworks, and construction and maintenance of new public roads, emergency access roads, bridges, levees and flood control facilities and other public works, undertaken by a public agency and subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. (Road maintenance is exempted under Section (B)(18).) Chairman McCowen suggested deleting new to address rehabilitation of an old road. Commissioner Edwards concurred with the recommendation. It was the consensus of the Commission (7-0) to adopt the modifications proposed by the subcommittee, deleting new in subparagraph (18a), as follows, and direct that staff renumber subparagraphs accordingly: (1618) Public Works Maintenance Projects. Grading for the maintenance, earthworks, construction and maintenance of public roads, emergency access roads, bridges, levees and flood control facilities and other public works, undertaken by a public agency. and subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. (1618a) Public Works Projects Subject to CEQA. Grading, earthworks, and construction and maintenance of new public roads, emergency access roads, bridges, levees and flood control facilities and other public works, undertaken by a public agency and subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. (Road maintenance is exempted under Section (B)(18).) Section (B)(17) Public Utilities. The subcommittee recommended deletion of earthworks consistent with previous action and renumber section. It was the consensus of the Commission (7-0) to adopt the amendment proposed by the subcommittee to Section (B)(17) as follows:

8 MINUTES PAGE 8 (1719) Public utilities. Grading or earthworks required for testing, installation, maintenance, or repair of utility connections, distribution or transmission systems and facilities regulated by the California Public Utility Commission, including communications, water, sewer, electrical, or natural gas. Section (B)(18) Road Maintenance. The subcommittee recommended the following modification to the road maintenance exemption: (18) Road Maintenance. Regrading, or resurfacing or repair of existing roads for maintenance purposes, where the road width, length, height of cuts, or depth of fills are is not increased and the road prism is not substantially changed. Road maintenance activities which result in heights of cuts or depths of fills which exceed the standards in excess of the limits of subsections (B)(7) or (B)(10) (B)(9) shall be conducted under the auspices of a qualified professional. In response to Commissioner Lipmanson, Chairman McCowen explained that they recommended deletion of road width because it could change the prism of the road. Mr. Peter Rebar voiced concerns that limitations are being placed on property owners who want to improve existing roads. He commented that a property owner should be exempted from obtaining a permit for improvements to existing roads when other public agencies support the improvement. Mr. Peter Bradford recommended that an exemption be added for projects that make road improvements that are geared toward reducing sedimentation. In response to Mr. Bradford, Chairman McCowen pointed out that there is an exemption for conservation improvement projects. An individual would have to hire a qualified professional if the road maintenance exceeded the limits specified in subsections (B)(7) or (B)(10). Mr. Steve Hall recommended, if a project complies with Hagans and Weaver, more latitude should be allowed. Commissioner Calvert recommended that this section be held for further discussion. She stated that she has some concerns with the thresholds established for excavations and fills. Vice-chairman Little held further discussion on Section (B)(18) until later in the day. Section (B)(20) Sewage Disposal Systems and Waste Cleanup. The subcommittee recommended that subparagraphs be renumbered and that the Commission adopt separate exemptions for sewage disposal systems and toxic or hazardous wastes as per Commission direction on August 21, Additionally, the subcommittee recommended that the reference to access roads be revised to make it clear that this specific subsection does not exempt new or substantially improved roads. It was the consensus of the Commission (7-0) to adopt the amendment proposed by the subcommittee as follows: ( 20 22) Sewage disposal systems, waste cleanup. Grading and earthworks for testing, construction, installation or repair of sewage disposal systems, or cleanup of toxic or hazardous wastes or materials, approved or undertaken under the direction of the County Health Department or other applicable governmental agency. Access roads are not

9 MINUTES PAGE 9 exempted. Roads to access the sewage disposal system are not exempted under this subsection. (24) Toxic or hazardous waste cleanup. Grading for cleanup of toxic or hazardous wastes or materials, including soil re-mediation and site restoration, approved or undertaken under the direction of applicable government agencies. Section (B)(21) Timber Operations. The subcommittee recommended the subparagraphs be renumbered and the section revised to exempt Timber Operations rather than Timber Harvesting. In response to Mr. Steve Hall, Vice-chairman Little explained what the code sections pertain to. In response to Commissioner Lipmanson, Vice-chairman Little explained that conversions are a separate regulatory process administered by the Board of Forestry. It was the consensus of the Commission (7-0) to adopt the amendment proposed by the subcommittee as follows: ( 21 23) Timber Operations: Timber operations as defined in Section 4527 of the Public Resources Code. Operations exempt from a grading permit include, but are not limited to timber harvest plans, non industrial timber management plans, and those exempt activities listed in Section 4584 of the Public Resources Code and regulated under 14 CCR 1038 and 14 CCR Timber harvesting. Land clearing, fire breaks and grading necessary for forestry and timber harvesting operations, in conformance with an approved timber harvest plan, pursuant to the Forest Practices Act administered by the California Department of Forestry. Activities that are exempt from a timber harvest plan shall be subject to the requirements of this chapter unless exempted by this section. Section (B)(22) Trenches (Previously (B)(19)). The subcommittee recommended that trenches be modified to add outside the watercourse corridor. It was the consensus of the Commission (7-0) to adopt Trenches with the amendment proposed by the subcommittee as follows: (24 19 ) Trenches. Trenches for utilities outside the watercourse corridor with surfaces restored to previous or better condition within sixty (60) days. Section (B)(23) Underground Storage Tanks (Previously (B)(20)). The subcommittee recommended that outside the watercourse corridor be added to Underground storage tanks. It was the consensus of the Commission (7-0) to adopt underground storage tanks with the modification proposed by the subcommittee as follows: (25 20 ) Underground storage tanks. Excavations for underground storage tanks outside the watercourse corridor, provided that all other permits required by law are obtained. Section (B)(26) Wells (Previously (B)(21)). The subcommittee recommended deletion of earthworks from exemptions only, consistent with the Commission s previous action to delete the definition of earthworks. Additionally, the subcommittee recommended that the reference to access roads be revised to clarify that this specific subsection does not exempt new or substantially improved roads.

10 MINUTES PAGE 10 In response to Commissioner Calvert, Director Hall explained that a person can drive over an open area to obtain access to a well, however, roads are not included within this exemption. It was the consensus of the Commission (7-0) to adopt Wells with the modification proposed by the subcommittee as follows: (26 21) Wells. Grading and earthworks for testing, construction, installation, repair or cleanup of wells approved or undertaken under the direction of the County Health Department or other applicable governmental agency. Access roads are not exempted. Roads to access the well are not exempted under this subsection. Section (C) Emergency Work and Section Emergency Grading. The subcommittee recommended moving the final two sentences in Section (C) to Section which follows Section (C). It is redundant to have the language in both sections, especially since Section (C) is subject to Section Director Hall recommended deleting the procedures and requirements in in the second sentence of Section (C). Vice-Chairman Little recommended changing activity to activities in the first line. Commissioner Calvert proposed additional changes, which the Commission supported. It was the consensus of the Commission (7-0) to amend Section (C) as follows: (C) Permit for emergency work. Grading activities activity projects and protection measures as defined in Section may be permitted in response to an emergency situation when approved by the Permitting Agency, provided an application is made for a grading permit is subsequently applied for and issued. Emergency grading work is subject to the procedures and requirements in Section This section does not prohibit emergency grading, pursuant to Best Management Practices, which is necessary to protect life or property when circumstances do not allow for the prior notification to the Permitting Agency. Use of Best Management Practices shall create a rebuttable presumption that work undertaken pursuant to this section will not be subject to penalties set forth in Section It was the consensus of the Commission (7-0) to amend the first paragraph of Section as follows: This section describes procedures to process applications for grading permits to perform work resulting from an "emergency" as defined in this chapter. This section does not prohibit emergency grading, conducted pursuant to Best Management Practices, which is necessary to protect life or property or prevent environmental degradation when circumstances do not allow for the prior notification to the Permitting Agency. Use of Best Management Practices shall create a rebuttable presumption that work undertaken pursuant to this section will not be subject to penalties set forth in Section Section (A) Immediate Action Required. The subcommittee recommended adding prevent environmental degradation after danger or damage. It was the consensus of the Commission (7-0) to amend Section (A) as follows: (A) Immediate action required. The requirement to obtain a regular grading permit may be deferred by the Permitting Agency when immediate action is necessary to protect life or

11 MINUTES PAGE 11 property from imminent danger or damage, prevent environmental degradation, or to restore, repair, or maintain public works, utilities or services destroyed, damaged or interrupted by natural disaster, serious accident, or other emergency. Section (B) Time of Application. The subcommittee recommended that sub-paragraph (B) be amended to give the applicant more time but establish a fixed time frame. The subcommittee proposed changing five days to 10 days and changing performing to commencing. Commissioner Lipmanson requested that the amendment to Section (B) be held for additional discussion and Vice-chairman Little directed that the section be held until later in the day. Section (C) Application Information Emergency Work. The subcommittee recommended changing includes to shall include, adding including Best Management Practices, following preventative work, deleting appear to and deleting probable (second occurrence of probable ). It was the consensus of the Commission (7-0) to amend Section (C) as follows: (C) Application information. The information to be reported shall include includes the nature, probable cause, and location of the emergency, remedial protective or preventative work, including Best Management Practices, required to deal with the emergency, and circumstances that appear to justify the course of action (which may include the probable consequences of not taking action). Section (D) Granting Emergency Permit. The subcommittee recommended that the language contained within the Draft Grading Ordinance be adopted. It was the consensus of the Commission (7-0) to adopt Section (D), as presented in the draft ordinance, which states: (D) Granting emergency permit. The Permitting Agency may grant an emergency permit if an emergency exists that requires action more quickly than permitted by the procedure for regular grading permits. An emergency permit shall be valid for not more than sixty (60) days from the date of issuance. Section (E) Grading Permit Application. The subcommittee recommended that the language contained within the Draft Grading Ordinance be adopted. It was the consensus of the Commission (7-0) to adopt Section (E), as presented in the draft ordinance, which states: (E) Grading permit application. Prior to expiration of the emergency permit, the permittee must submit an application for a regular grading permit in conformance with Sections through Section (A) and (B) Erosion Control Plans. The subcommittee recommended changing projects to grading activities in Section (A). It was the consensus of the Commission (7-0) to amend Section (A) as follows:

12 MINUTES PAGE 12 (A) Erosion control plans. An Erosion Control Plan (ECP) prepared in accordance with this section shall be required for the following grading activities projects: The subcommittee recommended adding and sediment between appropriate erosion and control and changing project design to planned grading activities in the second sentence of Section (B). Mr. Daniel Myers recommended that the language and the environmental sensitivity of adjacent areas be retained in Section (B). Chairman McCowen noted that it was the intent of the Commission to reconsider this section if it is determined at the conclusion of the hearing process on the ordinance that endangered, rare or threatened species are not adequately addressed. He suggested that the note regarding the Commission s intent to reconsider this section be retained in the ordinance. It was the consensus of the Commission (7-0) to amend Section (B) as follows: (B) Contents of Erosion Control Plan. When erosion control plans are required, said plans shall be signed and stamped by a qualified professional. Selection of appropriate erosion and sediment control measures and Best Management Practices shall be based on evaluation of planned grading activities, project design, site conditions, predevelopment erosion rates and water quality objectives as set forth in the Regional Water Quality Control Board s Basin Plan and the environmental sensitivity of adjacent areas. The plans shall contain the following information: It was the consensus of the Commission (7-0) to retain the staff note that Section (B) may be reconsidered at a future time if it is determined that endangered, rare and threatened species are not adequately addressed elsewhere in the ordinance. The subcommittee recommended the following amendment to Section (B)(1). Erosion rate calculations. Erosion and sediment control plans shall use the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE), or the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) developed by the Natural Resource Conservation Service or alternative methodologies that may be approved by the Permitting Agency, to calculate erosion rates before and after the proposed grading activity, development, and evaluate projected runoff to on adjacent properties and the effect on existing drainage facilities. Rainfall, soil erodibility, topographic, and erosion control factors shall be obtained from sources approved by the Permitting Agency. Mr. Daniel Myers objected to allowing the permitting agencies to approve alternative methodologies. He felt that it could be confusing with three permitting agencies allowing three different alternatives. Mr. Peter Bradford expressed concern that the section, as written, could subject the process to CEQA review. Vice-chairman Little held further discussion of Section (B)(1) at the request of Commissioner Lipmanson. Section (B)(2)(e) Contents of Erosion Control Plan Proposed Control Measures. The subcommittee recommended amending the section to read Sediment treatment, detention and removal.

13 MINUTES PAGE 13 Commissioner Nelson recommended changing and to or and Chairman McCowen suggested changing it to and/or. It was the consensus of the Commission (7-0) to amend Section (B)(2)(e) to read: e. Sediment treatment, detention and/or removal. Section (B)(2)(i) Contents of Erosion Control Plan Proposed Control Measures. The subcommittee recommended adding (B)(2)(i) to read Minimizing sediment tracking onto public roadways. It was the consensus of the Commission (7-0) to add Section (B)(2)(i) to read: (i) Minimizing sediment tracking onto public roadways. Section (F) Vegetation Management Plans. The subcommittee recommended amending the fourth line to read; protected or unique plant species or habitats, in designated visually sensitive areas Chairman McCowen commented that visually sensitive is subjective and the subcommittee recommended that it be limited to designated visually sensitive areas such as wild and scenic rivers or the designated highly scenic areas in the coastal area. Commissioner Calvert suggested adding officially designated. Commissioner Edwards stated that he still has concerns with the list of specialists as well as the statement that plans shall include type, location and characteristics of species Vice-chairman Little held Section (F) for further discussion. RECESS: 10:28 10:44 a.m. Section Application Processing and Section Application Review. The subcommittee recommended combining these closely related sections and using the only sentence from Section as the opening sentence for the combined section. It was the consensus of the Commission (7-0) to adopt the following amendment to Sections and , combining the sections as proposed by the subcommittee: Sec Application Processing and Review. Upon receipt of an application for a grading permit, the application shall be processed pursuant to Sections through Sec Application Review. (A) The Permitting Agency shall review each application

14 MINUTES PAGE 14 Section (E)(1) Environmental Review. The subcommittee recommended revising the section to clarify that exempt activities are not subject to environmental review and to refer a reader back to the exemptions section. It was the consensus of the Commission (7-0) to modify Section (E)(1), as proposed by the subcommittee, as follows: (1) Except for exempt projects, areas planted to an agricultural crop, activities as specified in Section , grading in excess of: Section (E)(3) CEQA Exemptions. The subcommittee recommended that this subsection be deleted since these projects are proposed to be exempted from grading permits within Section Director Hall advised that this section is repetitive and confusing and he recommended deletion of the subparagraph. It was the consensus of the Commission (7-0) to delete Section (E)(3) as follows: (3) Exemptions. Grading for ongoing agriculture, fire suppression with subject to CDF approval by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, habitat improvement, eradicating and the eradication of specific invasive species shall be exempt from the requirements of this section. [Alternate (3): Exemptions for ongoing ag, fire suppression with CDF approval, habitat improvement, eradicating specific invasive species (original language).] Section (C) Action - Flexibility in Attaining Compliance. The subcommittee recommended the section as follows: (C) Flexibility in attaining compliance. In granting a grading permit, the Permitting Agency may approve the substitution of methods and materials other than those specified in this chapter, provided that the change will achieve achieve the same or better result or meet or exceed the same permanent result or required prescribed standard. In response to Commissioner Lipmanson, Chairman McCowen explained that the intent of the modification is to allow the applicant to come in with a better result. Also in response to Commissioner Lipmanson, Commissioner Nelson stated that, regardless of which permitting agency regulates the permit, the proposed change would allow more flexibility. It was the consensus of the Commission (7-0) to amend Section (C) as follows: (C) Flexibility in attaining compliance. In granting a grading permit, the Permitting Agency may approve the substitution of methods and materials other than those specified in this chapter, provided that the change will achieve achieve the same or better result or meet or exceed the same permanent result or required prescribed standard. Section (B) Permit Time Limits. The subcommittee recommended that the Commission adopt the language proposed in Director Hall s memorandum dated August 18, 2003 (bottom of Page 2), changing actively to diligently. It was the consensus of the Commission (7-0) to adopt the following amendment to Section (B), as proposed by the subcommittee:

15 MINUTES PAGE 15 (B) Time period. Grading operations shall be started within one (1) year from the effective date of the grading permit unless extended by the Permitting Agency for good cause, or the permit shall expire and a new application shall be required. Good cause shall include, but not be limited to, delays in obtaining required permits from other agencies provided the applicant has diligently pursued said permits. The grading permit shall be valid for a period of two (2) years. (Note: Section (B) was reconsidered later in the session.) Section (B) Modified Site Conditions. The subcommittee recommended that operation be changed to activity and project to professional. It was the consensus of the Commission (7-0) to modify Section (B) as follows: (B) Modified site conditions. Where conditions encountered in an approved grading activity operation differ from those anticipated or described in professional project reports, or where field conditions warrant changes in the recommendations in the original reports, revised reports shall be submitted for the approval of the Permitting Agency prior to their use. Substantial changes may be subject to the requirement for a grading permit modification pursuant to Section Section (B) Permit Time Limits. Commissioner Calvert requested that the Commission reconsider its action on Section (B) in order to discuss the possibility of extensions for grading permits beyond the proposed two-year limit. Vice-chairman Little held action on Section (B) for further discussion later in the day. Section et. seq. Grading Standards. Best Management Practices (BMP s) are referenced in the opening paragraph of this section, but as written, only apply to this section. The Commission has added BMP s to the first paragraph of most, but not all of the subsequent sections and has also included BMP s in several sub-paragraphs. The subcommittee recommended adopting language in the opening paragraph of this section that will apply BMP s to all grading and deleting the multiple references. The subcommittee believed this would help streamline the document and clarify that BMP s apply to all grading. The subcommittee also recommended deleting practical in favor of feasible, consistent with the recommendation to include a definition for feasible. Commissioner Lipmanson stated that he is concerned with the language in Subparagraphs (B) and (E) and he requested that they be held for further discussion. He explained that he is concerned with the language To the maximum extent feasible Mr. Daniel Myers recommended changing Sections et seq. to Sections through in the first paragraph. Commissioner Calvert stated that she would support the amendment to the first paragraph, with the modification proposed by Mr. Myers, however, she stated that she still has concerns that the ordinance will require an erosion control plan for graves in the winter. Vice-chairman Little held the amendments to Sections (B) and (E) until later in the session.

16 MINUTES PAGE 16 It was the consensus of the Commission to adopt the following amendment to the first paragraph under Section and to Section (H). Sec Grading Standards. Grading operations activities shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the requirements of Sections through et seq., which shall be implemented through the use of Best Management Practices. In the event of conflict between the grading standards in this chapter and other requirements of law, the more stringent or protective requirement shall prevail. The following general requirements shall apply to all grading and shall be implemented through the use of Best Management Practices: (H) Propose Employ a new or modified erosion and sediment control technique if the technique is preferred and meets the intent of these regulations. Obtain approval from the Permitting Agency County prior to implementation. Section Winter Grading. The subcommittee recommended adoption of Section , with modifications as noted below. The subcommittee also recommended discussion by the Commission to determine if flexibility should be provided for grading after October 15 and before April 15. Commissioner Calvert recommended that the Commission discuss Section (A). Mr. Peter Rebar supported some flexibility in the dates for winter grading. Section (D)(2) Winter Grading Prohibition. The subcommittee recommended changing riparian corridor to watercourse corridor: (2) within the Riparian Watercourse Corridor Section (F) Winter Clearing. The subcommittee recommended the following change: (F) Winter clearing in preparation for grading operations will be subject to the above conditions standards. Section (H)(6) Erosion Control Plan Requirements for Winter Grading. The subcommittee recommended the following change: (6) Methods to prevent minimize vehicle tracking of mud onto public roadways; It was the consensus of the Commission (7-0) to adopt Section with the following modifications proposed by the subcommittee to Sections (D)(2), (F) and (H)(6), and continue the issue of flexibility for the winter grading period for future discussion: (D)(2) within the Riparian Watercourse Corridor (F) Winter clearing in preparation for grading operations will be subject to the above conditions standards. (H)(6) Methods to prevent minimize vehicle tracking of mud onto public roadways;

17 MINUTES PAGE 17 Section Vegetation Removal. The subcommittee recommended adoption of the language from Director Hall s memorandum dated August 18, 2003 (Page 3). Chairman McCowen noted that, although the Commission did not have unanimity on Sections (A)(5), (A)(6) or (A)(7), it should not affect adoption of the language proposed for Section The proposed language clarifies that, if the thresholds in Sections (A)(5), (A)(6) or (A)(7) are exceeded, an erosion control plan is required. In response to Mr. Steve Hall, Chairman McCowen clarified that the Commission previously changed the section numbers referenced. Subparagraphs (A)(5), (A)(6) and (A)(7) refer to vegetation removal. The language, as currently adopted, contained in these sections was displayed for review by the Commission and public. It was the consensus of the Commission (7-0) to adopt the amendment proposed by the subcommittee to Section , as follows: Grading operations shall be conducted to minimize the removal or disturbance of vegetation to the maximum extent feasible. Trees not approved for removal or for approved minor grading within their dripline on the grading plan shall be protected from damage by proper grading techniques, including a prohibition on grading within the drip line of the tree. The limits of grading shall be clearly defined and marked to prevent damage to vegetation by grading or construction equipment. In no event shall vegetative groundcover be destroyed or removed more than thirty (30) days prior to grading unless approved by the Permitting Agency. An Erosion Control Plan may be is required for vegetation removal pursuant to Sec (A) which equals or exceeds the thresholds in Sections (A)(5), (A)(6) or (A)(7). Section Revegetation for Soil Surface Stabilization. In addition to the changes for BMP s, earthworks and practical/feasible, the subcommittee recommended re-wording Section as follows: To prevent erosion during and after construction, grading activities, including vegetation removal, exposed erodible surfaces disturbed by grading, vegetation removal, temporary haul roads, or other earthworks that alter vegetative cover and which are designated by the grading plan to be re-vegetated shall be replanted to the extent feasible practical as set forth in this section using Best Management Practices. It was the consensus of the Commission to adopt the amendment proposed by the subcommittee to the first paragraph of Section as follows: To prevent erosion during and after construction, grading activities, including vegetation removal, exposed erodible surfaces disturbed by grading, vegetation removal, temporary haul roads, or other earthworks that alter vegetative cover and which are designated by the grading plan to be re-vegetated shall be replanted to the extent feasible practical as set forth in this section using Best Management Practices. Section Excavations and Fills. The subcommittee recommended that Best Management Practices be deleted, pursuant to the explanation found under Section , and that Director Hall s proposed modification be adopted (Page 3 of his August 18, 2003 memorandum), deleting practical and from his proposal.

18 MINUTES PAGE 18 Mr. Daniel Myers stated that changing practical to feasible grossly weakens the intent of the ordinance. He objected to the proposed modification and stated that the change makes the ordinance voluntary. Chairman McCowen noted that there is a definition of feasible. He did not feel changing practical to feasible weakens the ordinance. Both terms are subjective. At the request of Commissioner Lipmanson, Vice-chairman Little held further discussion on this section. Section (A)(1) Area of Cuts and Fills. The subcommittee recommended deletion of the modification adopted by the Planning Commission on January 16, 2003 (See Page 3 of Director Hall s memorandum dated August 18, 2003). It was the consensus of the Commission (7-0) to adopt the amendment proposed by the subcommittee to Section (A)(1), as follows: (1) Area of cuts and fills. While facilitating the proposed development, cuts and fills Cuts and fills Cuts and fills shall be limited to the minimum amount necessary to provide stable embankments and conform to in conformance with and conform to this section. Section (B). The subcommittee proposed the following modification: (B) Standards for Fills. Fills shall be designed and constructed consistent with the following provisions, except where an approved soils engineering report recommends and the Permitting Agency approves other standards, or where the Permitting Agency waives these standards for minor fills not intended to support structures. Unless otherwise recommended in an approved report from a qualified professional, fills shall conform to the provisions of this subsection. In the absence of an approved report from a qualified professional these provisions may be waived for minor fills not intended to support structures. The subcommittee also suggested that wherever the terms soils engineer, civil engineer or engineering geologist appear within this section that the term be changed to qualified professional. Commissioner Calvert requested that a comma be added after qualified professional. It was the consensus of the Commission (7-0) to amend Section (B) as follows: (B) Standards for Fills. Fills shall be designed and constructed consistent with the following provisions, except where an approved soils engineering report recommends and the Permitting Agency approves other standards, or where the Permitting Agency waives these standards for minor fills not intended to support structures. Unless otherwise recommended in an approved report from a qualified professional, fills shall conform to the provisions of this subsection. In the absence of an approved report from a qualified professional, these provisions may be waived for minor fills not intended to support structures. Mr. Steve Hall requested, if the Commission adopts the proposal to replace soils engineer, civil engineer or engineering geologist with a qualified professional, that the term qualified professional be defined within the ordinance.