MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 21, Mendocino County Board of Supervisors Chambers, 501 Low Gap Road, Ukiah, California

Transcription

1 MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 21, 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 Sandi Butterfield, Staff Assistant IV Raymond Hall, Director Frank Lynch, Chief Planner Frank Zotter, Deputy County Counsel Ben Kageyama, Dept of Transportation 1. Roll Call. The meeting was called to order at 9:04 a.m. Commissioner Nelson arrived at 9:06 a.m. Commissioner Lipmanson arrived at 9:34 a.m. 2. Determination of Legal Notice. Mr. Lynch advised the Commission that all items have been properly noticed. 3. Director s Report and Miscellaneous. Mr. Hall reviewed the written Director s Report submitted into the record. Commissioner Barth described conditions regarding hazardous trees in the Simpson Lane public right of way and asked if the Department of Transportation could respond. Mr. Ben Kageyama, Department of Transportation, noted that the Department would look into the neighbors concerns. 9. Matters from Public. Ms. Dori Kramer handed out correspondence regarding concerns about illuminated billboards in Mendocino County. She requested that the Planning Commission look into and adopt an ordinance prohibiting illuminated billboards in Mendocino County. Ms. Kramer submitted ordinances from Flagstaff, Arizona and Raleigh, North Carolina. Ms. Sheila Jenkins also spoke about illuminated billboards. She felt that lighted billboards ruin the natural beauty of our County.

2 MINUTES PAGE 2 4. Consent Calendar. 4A. A REED/BRADFORD West of Hopland Request: Creation of a new Type II Agricultural Preserve on an approximate 165-acre parcel of land for Navajo-Churro sheep grazing. The public hearing was declared open and subsequently closed when no one came forward to address the Commission. Upon motion by Commissioner Calvert, seconded by Commissioner Nelson and unanimously carried (6-0; Lipmanson Absent), IT IS ORDERED that the Planning Commission approves the Consent Calendar Item 4A and recommends to the Board of Supervisors approval of Agricultural Preserve #A finding that the request is consistent with the General Plan and Mendocino County Code Section Regular Calendar. 5A. CDU WESTPORT COUNTY WATER DISTRICT/WESTPORT VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT North of Westport Request: Coastal Development Use Permit to construct a 40 foot by 80 foot by 15 4 high steel building for use as a fire truck garage and construct a 100,000 gallon water tank and a 15 foot by 20 foot water treatment equipment building. Mr. Lynch reviewed the staff report. Mr. George Lancaster, Chief of the Westport Volunteer Fire District and the sole employee with the Westport County Water District, agreed with the staff report and requested that the Fish and Game fee be waived. In response to Commissioner Barth, Mr. Lancaster noted that the old fire trucks would be moved once the new garage is built. The public hearing was declared open and subsequently closed when no one came forward to address the Commission. Several Commissioners voiced support for waiving the Fish and Game fee, noting past permit history, impacts already made to the site, and the insignificant impact this project would have. Upon motion by Commissioner Barth, seconded by Commissioner Calvert and carried by the following roll call vote, IT IS ORDERED that the Planning Commission adopts a Negative Declaration and approves #CDU making the following findings and subject to the following conditions of approval: Environmental Findings: The Planning Commission finds that no significant environmental impacts would result from the proposed project which can not be adequately mitigated through the conditions of approval, therefore, a Negative Declaration is adopted.

3 MINUTES PAGE 3 General Plan Consistency Finding: As discussed under pertinent sections of the staff report, the proposed project is consistent with applicable goals and policies of the General Plan and the Coastal Element as subject to the conditions being recommended by staff. Department of Fish and Game Finding: The Planning Commission has evaluated the Initial Study and other information pertinent to the potential environmental impacts of this project and finds that, based upon the existing development on the subject parcel and surrounding parcels, the project will not have any adverse impact upon wildlife or the habitat upon which wildlife depends and, therefore, the Commission has rebutted the presumption set forth in subdivision (d) of Section Department of Fish and Game Findings: Because this use permit would create additional density and intensity of land use and would contribute to the overall reduction in wildlife populations and habitat from a cumulative standpoint, the de minimis finding can not be made for this project. The project is, therefore, subject to the Fish and Game fee of $1, Coastal Development Permit Findings: The Planning Commission finds that the application and supporting documents and exhibits contain information and conditions sufficient to establish, as required by Section of the Coastal Zoning Code, that: 1. The proposed development is in conformity with the certified local coastal program; and 2. The proposed development will be provided with adequate utilities, access roads, drainage and other necessary facilities; and 3. The proposed development is consistent with the purpose and intent of the zoning district applicable to the property, as well as the provisions of the Coastal Zoning Code, and preserves the integrity of the zoning district; and 4. The proposed development will not have any significant adverse impacts on the environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act. 5. The proposed development will not have any adverse impacts on any known archaeological or paleontological resource. 6. Other public services, including but not limited to, solid waste and public roadway capacity have been considered and are adequate to serve the proposed development. 7. Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (Riparian Corridor). (a) (b) (c) The proposed development will be sited and designed to prevent impacts which would significantly degrade such areas; The proposed development will be compatible with the continuance of such habitat areas by maintaining their functional capacity and their ability to be self-sustaining and to maintain natural species diversity; and There is no other feasible, less environmentally damaging site available on the parcel. 8. The proposed development will be sited and designed to protect views to and along the ocean and scenic coastal areas, will be subordinate to the character of its setting, will minimize the alteration of natural land forms and will be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas.

4 MINUTES PAGE 4 Project Findings: The Planning Commission, making the above findings, approves #CDU subject to the conditions of approval recommended by staff. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: A. Conditions which must be met prior to construction and for the duration of this permit: 1. This permit shall become effective after all applicable appeal periods have been expired or appeal processes exhausted. Failure of the permittee to make use of this permit within two years or failure to comply with payment of any fees within specified time periods shall result in the automatic expiration of this permit. 2. This entitlement does not become effective or operative and no work shall be commenced under this entitlement until the California Department of Fish and Game filing fees required or authorized by Section of the Fish and Game Code are submitted to the Mendocino County Department of Planning and Building Services. Said fee of $25.00 $1, shall be made payable to the Mendocino County Clerk and submitted to the Department of Planning and Building Services prior to September 4, If the project is appealed, the payment will be held by the Department of Planning and Building Services until the appeal is decided. Depending on the outcome of the appeal, the payment will either be filed with the County Clerk (if project is approved) or returned to the payer (if project is denied). Failure to pay this fee by the specified deadline shall result in the entitlement becoming null and void. 3. That this permit be subject to the securing of all necessary permits for the proposed development and eventual use from County, State and Federal agencies having jurisdiction. Any requirements imposed by an agency having jurisdiction shall be considered a condition of this permit. 4. The applicant shall obtain all authorizations required by and comply with all conditions established by the following agencies having jurisdiction over the project: a. California Department of Fish and Game b. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers c. California Regional Water Quality Control Board d. Mendocino County Air Pollution Control District Proof of all such authorization(s) shall be submitted to the Department of Planning and Building Services prior to issuance of this use permit. 5. No material shall be placed into or where it may pass into any stream or watercourse in quantities which would be deleterious to fish, wildlife or other beneficial uses. 6. That adequate drainage controls be constructed and maintained in such a manner as to prevent contamination of surface and/or ground water, and to prevent erosion. 7. All exterior lighting fixtures shall be downcast, shielded, and designed or located so that only indirect non-glaring light is visible from beyond the parcel boundaries.

5 MINUTES PAGE 5 7. All lighting fixtures associated with the proposed office and parking area shall be designed and/or located so that only indirect non-glaring light is visible form beyond the parcel boundary. 8. The applicant shall comply with those recommendations in the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF) letter of February 5, 2003 or other alternatives as acceptable to California Department of Forestry (CDF #27-03). 9. All exterior building materials, colors and finishes shall be of earth tones and blend with the natural surroundings. Color samples shall be submitted to the Department of Planning and Building Services and approved by the Coastal Permit Administrator prior to approval of building permits. Windows shall be made of non-reflective glass. Any change in approved colors or materials shall be subject to the review and approval of the Department of Planning and Building Services for the life of the project. 10. In the event that archaeological resources are encountered during construction on the property, work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall be halted until all requirements of Chapter of the Mendocino County Code relating to archaeological discoveries have been satisfied. 11. That the application along with supplemental exhibits and related material be considered elements of this entitlement and that compliance therewith be mandatory, unless a modification has been approved by the Planning Commission. 12. This permit shall be subject to revocation or modification by the Planning Commission upon a finding of any one or more of the following grounds: a. That the permit was obtained or extended by fraud. b. That one or more of the conditions upon which the permit was granted have been violated. c. That the use for which the permit was granted is so conducted as to be detrimental to the public health, welfare, or safety, or as to be a nuisance. 13. This permit is issued without a legal determination having been made upon the number, size, or shape of parcels encompassed within the permit described boundaries. Should, at any time, a legal determination be made that the number, size, shape or parcels within the permit described boundaries are different that that which is legally required by this permit, this permit shall become null and void. 14. The use and occupancy of the premises shall be established and maintained in conformance with the provisions of Title 20 of the Mendocino County Code unless modified by conditions of the use permit. AYES: Nelson, Edwards, Little, Calvert, Barth, McCowen NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: Lipmanson

6 MINUTES PAGE 6 5B. MS USHER Northwest of Redwood Valley Request: Minor subdivision creating three parcels of , , , and a Remainder Parcel of acres. The applicant is also proposing the name Zahadoom Way for the private road serving the four parcels. Mr. Lynch reviewed the staff report and correspondence. Mr. Javier Rau, agent for the application, and Roxanne Usher, Owner, discussed the Fish and Game permit process that they have already started. Mr. Rau also noted that they are already drilling to develop water on the proposed parcels. Commissioner Edwards expressed concerns with the bridge crossing and proposed road improvements. He also felt that a road maintenance agreement should be part of the entitlement. In response to Chairman McCowen, Ms. Usher stated that paving the road was proposed but requested that it not be a condition of approval. Ms. Cathy McKeon, Rau and Associates, described the design and load capacity of the proposed bridge. She handed out bridge design specifications from Caltrans. The public hearing was declared open and subsequently closed when no one came forward to address the Commission. Mr. Ben Kageyama, Department of Transportation, noted that the H 20-S specifications were acceptable as long as the engineer would guarantee that the design meets State legal load requirements. Several Commissioners supported a condition that the private road be paved or chip-sealed in the future, after individual lot development occurred. Commissioners agreed if the road was paved that they would waive the Fish and Game fee. RECESS: 10:19 10:29 a.m. Discussion ensued regarding the bridge specifications. Upon motion by Commissioner Edwards, seconded by Commissioner Nelson and carried by the following roll call vote, IT IS ORDERED that the Planning Commission adopts a Negative Declaration and approves #MS making the following findings and subject to the following conditions of approval: Environmental Findings: The Planning Commission finds that the environmental impacts identified for the project can be adequately mitigated through the conditions of approval or features of the project design so that no significant adverse environmental impacts will result from this project, therefore, a Negative Declaration is adopted. Department of Fish and Game Finding: The Planning Commission has evaluated the Initial Study and other information pertinent to the potential environmental impacts of this project and finds that, based upon the existing development on the subject parcel and surrounding parcels, the project will not have any adverse impact upon wildlife or the habitat upon which wildlife depends and, therefore, the Commission has rebutted the presumption set forth in subdivision (d) of Section

7 MINUTES PAGE 7 Department of Fish and Game Finding: The Planning Commission finds that because this division would create additional density and intensity of land use and would contribute to the overall reduction in wildlife populations and habitat from a cumulative standpoint, the de minimis finding can not be made for this project. The project is, therefore, subject to the Fish and Game fee of $1, General Plan Findings: Pursuant to Section of the California Government Code, the Planning Commission finds the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement is consistent with the applicable goals and policies of the General Plan. Project Findings: The Planning Commission, making the environmental and General Plan findings above, approves #MS , subject to the following conditions of approval as recommended within the staff report, further finding: Pursuant to California Government Code Section 66445(e) the Planning Commission finds that division and development of the property in the manner set forth on the approved or conditionally approved tentative map will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of the public entity or public utility right-of-way or easement. The proposed minor subdivision complies generally with all requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and of the Mendocino County Code, specifically with respect to area, improvement and design, flood and water drainage control, appropriate improved public roads, sanitary disposal facilities, water supply availability and environmental protection. STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: For a Minor Subdivision, which has been approved according to the Mendocino County Code, the following "Conditions of Approval" shall be completed prior to filing a Parcel Map/Unilateral Agreement. ALL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL MUST BE MET PRIOR TO EXPIRATION OF TWENTY-FOUR (24) MONTHS FROM DATE OF APPROVAL, UNLESS RENEWED PURSUANT TO THE MENDOCINO COUNTY CODE. 1. This entitlement does not become effective or operative and no work shall be commenced under this entitlement until the California Department of Fish and Game filing fees required or authorized by Section of the Fish and Game Code are submitted to the Mendocino County Department of Planning and Building Services. Said fee of $25.00 $1, shall be made payable to the Mendocino County Clerk and submitted to the Department of Planning and Building Services prior to September 5, If the project is appealed, the payment will be held by the Department of Planning and Building Services until the appeal is decided. Depending on the outcome of the appeal, the payment will either be filed with the County Clerk (if project is approved) or returned to the payer (if project is denied). Failure to pay this fee by the specified deadline shall result in the entitlement becoming null and void. 2. Prior to the development phase of the project, the subdivider shall contact the County of Mendocino Air Quality Management District for a determination as to the need for a District Permit to insure that proper dust control methods for asbestos-containing soils are in place. Written verification from Air Quality Management shall be submitted to the Department of Planning and Building Services stating that the project is in compliance with the District s standards.

8 MINUTES PAGE 8 3. Submit to the Division of Environmental health an acceptable site evaluation report (DEH Form Number 42.04) for Parcels 2 and 4 to be completed by a qualified individual demonstrating compliance with the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board s Basin Plan Policy for On-site Waste Treatment and Disposal and Mendocino County Division of Environmental Health s Land Division Requirements (DEH Form Number 26.09). The report shall also include identifying replacement areas for existing on-site sewage disposal systems, which exist on the Parcels 1 and Submit to the Division of Environmental Health an acceptable water quantity evaluation (DEH form Number 26.05) by a qualified individual of a water sources located on all parcels of the subdivision demonstrating an adequate water supply in compliance with the Division of Environmental Health s Land Division Requirements (DEH For Number 26.09), and submit to the Division of Environmental Health an acceptable standard mineral analysis performed by a certified public health laboratory on a sample from the subdivision water source. 5. In the event that archaeological resources are encountered during development of the property, work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall be halted until all requirements of Chapter of the Mendocino County Code relating to archaeological discoveries have been satisfied. 6. There shall be provided an access easement of forty (40) feet in width (as per tentative map) from a publicly maintained road to each parcel being created. Documentation of access easement shall be provided to the Mendocino County Department of Transportation for their review prior to final approval. 7. If a Parcel Map is filed, all easements of record shall be shown on the parcel map. All utility lines shall be shown as easements with widths as shown of record or a minimum of ten (10) feet, whichever is greater. 8. If approval of the tentative map is conditioned upon certain improvements being made by the subdivider, the subdivider shall notify the Mendocino County Department of Transportation when such improvements have been completed. 9. Access shall be restricted along West Road (CR# 237), except at the existing driveway opening for Parcel 1 and at the opening for the proposed forty (40) foot wide access easement. 10. All natural drainage and watercourses shall be considered as easements. Minimum width shall be twenty (20) feet, or to the high water level plus five (5) feet horizontal distance, whichever is greater. If a Parcel Map is filed, such easements shall be shown on the final parcel map. (All parcels 5 acres and less) 11. Eighteen (18) foot wide road within the access easement, including four (4) inch minimum rock base, one hundred twenty-five (125) foot minimum radius of horizontal curve, grade not to exceed fifteen (15) percent, drainage culverts where necessary. New or replaced culverts shall be a minimum of 12 inches in diameter. 12. Private road approach shall be constructed to a minimum width of eighteen (18) feet, area to be improved twenty (20) feet from the edge of the County road, to be surfaced with surfacing comparable to that on the County road. 13. Any proposed work within county rights of way requires obtaining an encroachment permit from the Mendocino County Department of Transportation.

9 MINUTES PAGE A forty (40) foot radius turnaround be constructed within a fifty (50) foot radius easement at terminus of access easement to the satisfaction of Mendocino County Department of Transportation. If approved in writing by the applicable fire protection service provider(s), in lieu of a traditional cul-de-sac turnaround, the subdivider shall construct a modified Hammerhead-T turnaround (with the leg of the T extending forty (40) feet from the edge of the road, within a forty (40) foot wide by sixty (60) foot long easement, as measured from the centerline of the forty (40) foot wide access easement), at the terminus of the access easement. Turnaround shall be constructed with four (4) inch minimum rock base, eighteen (18) feet wide, with twenty (20) foot radius surfacing returns. 15. Written verification shall be submitted from the Redwood Valley-Calpella Fire District to the Department of Planning and Building Services that adequate fire safe measures have been met to the satisfaction of the Redwood Valley-Calpella Fire District. 16. It shall be the responsibility of the subdivider to provide a street sign. The sign shall conform to the county standards for signs. Site addresses shall be posted for each of the proposed parcels in conformance with the Mendocino County Code Section Prior to recordation of the Parcel Map, the subdivider shall create an organization capable of maintaining the private access road to the satisfaction of the Department of Planning and Building and Mendocino County Counsel. A review fee by Mendocino County Counsel will be required. SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: 1. The creek crossing shall be constructed under the direct supervision of a Civil Engineer. Upon completion of the bridge, the Civil Engineer shall file a Completion Report with the Mendocino County Department of Transportation verifying the opening beneath the bridge has sufficient capacity to accommodate the 100-year flood, that the bridge can sustain H 20-S H (20 ton) loading, and that the bridge provides a minimum travel lane width of 9 feet. If the bridge meets the H 20-S H loading, but is not able to safely support all combinations of State legal loads (as determined by California Vehicle Code Section et seq.), the report shall also specify the allowable bridge capacity, and subdivider shall post signs on each side of the bridge (Uniform Sign Type R20B, 24 minimum, with appropriate Type R20D) to indicate load restrictions. 2. Prior to construction of the bridge, subdivider shall obtain any necessary permits from the California Department of Fish and Game, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and any other agencies with jurisdiction. The Civil Engineer shall verify in the Completion Report that all necessary permits were obtained. 3. A Conditional Certificate of Compliance shall be recorded for the Remainder Parcel concurrently with the recording of the Parcel Map. The Conditional Certificate of Compliance shall require that the following condition must be met prior to future development of the Remainder Parcel: Subdivider shall construct a ten (10) foot wide all weather driveway within the access strip serving the Remainder Parcel, including four (4) inch minimum rock base, fifty (50) foot minimum radius of horizontal curvature, grade not to exceed sixteen (16) percent. 4. A Conditional Certificate of Compliance shall be recorded for Parcels 2 and 3 concurrent with the recording of the Parcel Map. The Conditional Certificate of Compliance shall require that the following condition must be met prior to final building approval of the dwelling(s) constructed on Parcels 2 and 3:

10 MINUTES PAGE 10 Eighteen (18) foot wide road within the access easement, including four (4) inch minimum rock base, one hundred twenty-five (125) foot minimum radius of horizontal curve, grade not to exceed fifteen (15) percent, drainage culverts where necessary. New or replaced culverts shall be a minimum of 12 inches in diameter. Road shall be paved with minimum 2 inch asphalt concrete. Road improvements shall be constructed in accordance with improvement plans prepared by a civil engineer and approved by the Mendocino County Department of Transportation. In appropriate situations, when specifically requested and approved in advance by the County Engineer, required improvements may be constructed without formal improvement plans. If so approved, all work must be completed under the direct supervision and control of a California Registered Civil Engineer who, upon completion of the improvements, shall file a report with the Mendocino County Department of Transportation verifying the road improvements have been constructed in substantial compliance with the prescribed minimum standards and accepted industry practices. (Second generation minor subdivisions with parcel size of 2.5 acres or less. Easement serves, or has potential to serve, more than four lots.) AYES: Calvert, Barth, Lipmanson, Little, Nelson, Edwards, McCowen NOES: None ABSENT: None RECESS: 10:45 10:53 p.m. Vice-chairman Little presiding. 5C. 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. Director Hall summarized an sent to the Planning Commission regarding proposed modifications to Section (Exemptions), conflict of interest issues raised by Daniel Myers and discussion with the Board of Supervisors regarding the status of the Grading Ordinance. He reported that the Board of Supervisors concurred with staff that the Planning Commission should complete their review of the Grading Ordinance. The Board has requested that staff provide them with regular updates regarding the status of the ordinance. Commissioner Lipmanson stated that he disagrees with Director Hall s assessment of the conflict of interest outlined in a memorandum to County Counsel dated August 20, He remarked that the fact that two Planning Commissioners represent specific economic interests that are affected by the ordinance should be taken into consideration. He stated that there is an inherent bias by those two representatives in that it is their responsibility to minimize the costs to those special interests while balancing other things. Further, he stated that the Planning Commission is not accountable to the public and cannot be removed by the public.

11 MINUTES PAGE 11 Commissioner Nelson disagreed with Commissioner Lipmanson s comments and stated that Commissioners who represent resource based industries provide an important perspective that helps maintain our rural quality of life. Section (B)(2) Archaeological Sites. In response to Mr. Peter Ribar, Chairman McCowen commented that archaeological investigations conducted as part of a Timber Harvest Plan would be covered under the exemption for timber harvest operations. Mr. Peter Bradford submitted written comments into the record dated August 4, 2003 and requested that he be allowed to address Section (B)(1). Vice-chairman Little responded that the Commission would proceed with Section (B)(2), however, Mr. Bradford could raise the issue of agricultural exemptions when the Commission discusses road maintenance. Director Hall summarized correspondence received from the Farm Bureau dated August 4, 2003, the Employers Council of Mendocino County dated August 19, 2003 and Kieran Burke and Patti Fetzer- Burke dated August 20, Chairman McCowen recommended adoption of Section (B)(2) as presented in the ordinance. It was the consensus of the Commission (7-0) to adopt Section (B)(2) to read as follows: Archaeological sites. Excavations for archeological sites pursuant to Title 22 of the Mendocino County Code. Section (B)(4) Building Pads. Mr. Peter Ribar commented that he still has some question regarding the winter grading season. Vice-chairman Little commented that the winter season has been set as October 15 through April 15. Chairman McCowen recommended that sub-paragraph (d) and (f) be modified to read as follows: (d) (f) is not located within the watercourse in stream setback or riparian corridor; does not occur during the winter period season. Director Hall commented that the watercourse corridor is much broader than stream setback or riparian corridor. The watercourse corridor would capture more area. Chairman McCowen responded that the majority of the Commission has deleted the riparian corridor and that the riparian corridor as defined by the Grading Committee was not limited to the watercourse corridor. It was the consensus of the Commission (7-0) to reconsider and adopt Section (B)(4) to read as follows: (4) Building pads. Grading for building pads, provided the grading is integrated into and regulated under a valid building permit and: (a) the building pad does not exceed ten thousand (10,000) square feet;

12 MINUTES PAGE 12 (b) (c) (d) (e) does not move more than five hundred (500) cubic yards; the existing or finish cut or fill does not exceed three (3) units horizontal to one (1) unit vertical (3H:1V) (33% slope) or five (5) feet in height; is not located in stream setback or riparian within the watercourse corridor; does not obstruct a drainage course; and (f) does not occur during the winter period season between October 15 and April 15. Section (B)(5) Conservation Projects. Mr. Peter Ribar asked how broad the definition of conservation projects would be interpreted. He asked if this would include projects approved by the Department of Fish and Game. Commissioner Nelson pointed out that there are a number of resource agencies that could be included in this section and not necessarily just the Department of Fish and Game. Discussion followed by the Commission regarding other resource agencies, such as Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Army Corps of Engineers, that could be responsible for permitting conservation projects. Commissioner Lipmanson discussed historical projects approved by the Department of Fish and Game to remove woody material from the streams, which are now considered inappropriate. Mr. Steve Hall commented that conservation projects would not include timber harvesting. The project must benefit the environment. Chairman McCowen recommended that Section (B)(5) be amended to read: Conservation projects. Grading for a soil, water or other resource conservation project that is permitted by a public resource agency or is when the project is sponsored, approved, sponsored or mandated by a public resource agency and the height of cuts or depths of fills do not exceed the limits of subsections (B)(7) or (B)(10). Discussion followed by the Commission regarding the amendment proposed by Chairman McCowen. It was noted that do not exceed should be does not exceed. It was the consensus of the Commission (7-0) to amend Section (B)(5) to raed: Conservation projects. Grading for a soil, water or other resource conservation project that is permitted by a public resource agency or is when the project is sponsored, approved, sponsored or mandated by a public resource agency and the height of cuts or depths of fills does not exceed the limits of subsections (B)(7) or (B)(10). Section (B)(6) Disposal Sites. It was the consensus of the Commission (7-0) to adopt Section (B)(6) as presented in the ordinance to read: Disposal sites. Solid waste disposal sites permitted by the County of Mendocino.

13 MINUTES PAGE 13 Section (B)(7) Excavations. Chairman McCowen recommended that Section (B)(7) be amended to read: Excavations. Excavations outside the watercourse corridor less than 2 feet in depth or cut slope less than 5 feet and no steeper than one and one-half (1.5) units horizontal to one (1) unit vertical (1.5H:1V) (66.7% slope), provided the excavation does not exceed one hundred (100) cubic yards and is not located within the stream setback or riparian corridor. It was the consensus of the Commission (7-0) to amend Section (B)(7) to read: Excavations. Excavations outside the watercourse corridor less than two (2) feet in depth or cut slope less than five (5) feet and no steeper than one and one-half (1.5) units horizontal to one (1) unit vertical (1.5H:1V) (66.7% slope), provided the excavation does not exceed one hundred (100) cubic yards and is not located within the stream setback or riparian corridor. Section (B)(8) Exploratory Excavations. Mr. Steve Hall recommended adding outside the watercourse corridor consistent with previous action by the Commission. Chairman McCowen also recommended amending Section (B)(8) to read Excavations outside the watercourse corridor not exceeding In response to Mr. Peter Ribar, Chairman McCowen commented that drilling of wells is listed as a separate exemption (Subparagraph 23). It was the consensus of the Commission (7-0) to amend Section (B)(8) to read: Exploratory excavations. Exploratory excavations outside the watercourse corridor not exceeding ten thousand (10,000) square feet of surface area under the direction of a soils engineer or engineering geologist provided earth materials are returned to the excavation within sixty (60) days. Section (B)(9) Farm Ponds. Chairman McCowen recommended that Farm Ponds be amended, for consistency, to read: Farm Ponds. Offstream water storage facilities outside the watercourse riparian corridor not in excess of exceeding 6 feet in height and not exceeding which have a storage capacity not in excess of 15 acre feet in storage capacity, are exempt from the provisions of this Chapter, provided notice is given to the Agricultural Commissioner prior to construction. Mr. Daniel Myers recommended that Farm Ponds be deleted from the list of exemptions. He also commented that no final decision has been made at this time regarding the Commission s proposal to have the ordinance implemented by three separate departments. He suggested, if the section is retained, that Agricultural Commissioner be amended to read permitting agency. Chairman McCowen commented that he would not object to changing Agricultural Commissioner to permitting agency. It was the consensus of the Commission (7-0) to reconsider and amend Section (B)(9) to read:

14 MINUTES PAGE 14 Farm Ponds. Offstream water storage facilities outside the watercourse riparian corridor not in excess of exceeding six (6) feet in height and not exceeding which have a storage capacity not in excess of fifteen (15) acre feet in storage capacity, are exempt from the provisions of this Chapter, provided notice is given to the Agricultural Commissioner prior to construction. Section (B)(10) Fills. (Originally Section (B)(9)) Mr. Daniel Myers stated that Section (B)(10) should be modified to clarify that it applies to areas outside the riparian corridor. Chairman McCowen recommended that Section (B)(10) be modified to read Fills outside the watercourse corridor (a) less than It was the consensus of the Commission (7-0) to modify Section (B)(10) to read: Fills. Fills outside the watercourse corridor (a) less than one (1) foot in depth on natural terrain with slope less than five (5) units horizontal to one (1) unit vertical (20% slope) or (b) fill less than three (3) feet in depth not intended to support structures provided the fill does not exceed one hundred (100) cubic yards. Section (B)(11) Firebreak. Director Hall advised that the Commission, on October 3, 2002, requested that staff prepare an exception for firebreak. According to the minutes, the Commission was discussing exemptions and firebreaks and There were concerns of tree cutting and riparian areas being damaged. Director Hall stated that the California Forest Practice Rules define fuel break as a strip of modified fuel to provide a line from which to work in the control of fire. He commented that the Commission could identify fuel break located outside the riparian boundary as exempt and direct that the definition of fuel break be included in Section Director Hall provided the Napa County and Lake County exemptions for firebreaks, as follows: Napa County: Creation and/or maintenance of firebreaks required by, and completed under the direction of the California Department of Forestry. Lake County: New firebreaks that are consistent with the California Forest Practices Rules. Chairman McCowen suggested that the definition for firebreaks read: Grading to create or maintain firebreaks along public roads, property lines, ridge lines and around dwellings or other structures. Commissioner Edwards objected to limiting firebreaks to outside riparian zones. He commented that applicants proposing a firebreak within the riparian zone would be regulated by the Department of Fish and Game. Commissioner Calvert objected to restricting firebreaks noting that a fire would do more environmental damage than a firebreak within a riparian area. Mr. Steve Hall commented that there are numerous ways that a firebreak could be constructed and applicants should be encouraged to use the method that creates the least environmental damage and protects the riparian zone.

15 MINUTES PAGE 15 Vice-chairman Little commented that he generally supports the definition contained in the Napa County ordinance, except that firebreak should be change to fuel break. He suggested that the exemption state; Creation and/or maintenance of fuel breaks completed under the direction of the California Department of Forestry. Commissioner Edwards pointed out that the California Department of Forestry may not be willing to direct creation and/or maintenance of fuel breaks in grasslands. Mr. Peter Ribar recommended that Section (B)(1) read; Fuel breaks. Creation and/or maintenance of fuel breaks. He also recommended that the definition of fuel breaks contained in the Forest Practice Rules be added to the definitions section of the ordinance to read; Fuel break means a strip of modified fuel to provide a line from which to work in the control of fire. Mr. Ed Berry voiced concerns that the regulations will be so strict that property owners will no longer construct firebreaks to protect the land. He stated that there is too much bureaucracy. He pointed out, as an example, that property owners at one time made repairs to the streams based upon a general discussion in the field with a Fish and Game representative. Now, property owners are not attempting to clean up or make repairs to the stream because of over-regulation. Director Hall explained that one concern is that property owners will develop a road but call it a firebreak in order to circumvent the regulations. He reminded the Commission that it has been pointed out many times that roads are the primary source of sediment in the County. He advised that the regulations contain exemptions for projects moving less than 100 cubic yards and, as a result, it may not be necessary to add a definition for fuel break. Chairman McCowen commented that an exemption could be added for fuel breaks that do not exceed the limits in Subparagraph (B)(7) and (B)(10). Vice-chairman Little commented that fuel breaks do not involve the excavation of soils whereas fire breaks may require the movement of soil. Mr. Larry Mailliard stated that he reconstructs miles and miles of firebreaks each year. These are not used as roads; however, any Type I or Type II CDF truck can travel these firebreaks. He emphasized the importance of being able to reach a fire in its infancy. He stated that he moves more than 100 cubic yards of material each year in the first 300 yards during maintenance of the firebreaks. He objected to requiring a permit for firebreaks. RECESS: 12:04 1:37 p.m. (Commissioner Lipmanson arrived at 1:50 p.m.) Mr. Daniel Myers suggested that the definition for firebreak read: The maintenance of existing fuel breaks are exempt. The creation of new fuel breaks outside the riparian zone are exempt if they do not exceed the standard for vegetation removal in Section (A)(9) and (A)(10). Commissioner Edwards proposed that an exemption be added for firebreak to read; Grading to create or maintain firebreaks necessary to limit the spread of wildfire or to aid in fire suppression activities. Trails shall be constructed using Best Management Practices and all necessary permits shall be obtained from public resources agencies. Chairman McCowen withdrew his earlier recommendation for fire breaks He pointed out that fuel breaks and fire breaks are quite different. He stated that he has no objection to an exemption for fuel breaks. He remarked that firebreaks can involve extensive movement of earth and, as such, they should have a

16 MINUTES PAGE 16 separate definition. He suggested that new firebreaks require consultation with the California Department of Forestry. Commissioner Barth agreed that firebreaks and fuel breaks should be handled separately since firebreaks could involve significantly more grading. Chairman McCowen suggested adding an exemption for fuel breaks to read; Creation or maintenance of fuel breaks. He also suggested a definition be added to Section to read; Fuel break means a strip of modified fuel to provide a line from which to work in the control of fire. Commissioner Calvert proposed adding an exemption for fuel breaks to read; The maintenance of existing fuel breaks is exempt. The creation of new fuel breaks is exempt if they do not exceed the standards for vegetation removal in Section (A)(9) and (A)(10). She also suggested adding a definition to Section to read; Fuel break means a strip of modified fuel to provide a line from which to work in the control of fire. Mr. Steve Hall objected to exempting vegetation removal in riparian zones. He voiced concerns that land owners could develop roads and circumvent the grading regulations by calling them firebreaks. He supported distinguishing between fuel breaks and firebreaks. Mr. Peter Bradford supported Commissioner Edward s proposal. He stated that construction of firebreaks within the riparian area would be subject to regulations by the Department of Fish and Game. Mr. Daniel Myers voiced concerns that the exemptions would enable construction of miles of roads without them being subject to the grading regulations. He objected to the proposal by Commissioner Edwards. Commissioner Lipmanson arrived at 1:50 p.m. Mr. Bruce Strickler, California Department of Forestry, supported the proposal by Commissioner Edwards. He suggested modifying the second sentence to read; Trails shall be constructed and maintained using Best Management Practices He pointed out that there are some areas where the Department of Forestry has no jurisdiction and he cautioned against the Commission adopting regulations that state under the direction of the California Department of Forestry. In response to Chairman McCowen, Mr. Strickler stated that CDF personnel are available to assist landowners in planning for fire and fuel breaks. In response to Commissioner Nelson, Mr. Strickler stated that the width of a fuel or fire break would depend on the types of fuel. As an example, he stated that the width of a fuel break should be approximately 1.5 times the height of the fuel. For example, eight-foot high brush would indicate a fuel break of 12 feet but a 140-foot tree could mean a fuel break of over 200 feet; however, slopes can also play an important part in determining appropriate widths. He stated that many times firebreaks are the width of the blade on whatever equipment is readily available to the property owner. In response to Commissioner Barth, Mr. Strickler stated it would take significant study to determine whether there are adequate firebreaks in Mendocino County. He stated that property owners should not be discouraged from developing firebreaks. Mr. Larry Mailliard commented that his firebreaks are approximately 12 feet in width. He stated that the purpose is to protect structures on his property. He stressed that the firebreaks are out-sloped and are well

17 MINUTES PAGE 17 maintained. He stated that most are located along ridge tops and only one short section comes close to the watercourse. He stated that he employs Best Management Practices on his ranch. Chairman McCowen voiced concerns that some proposals restrict vegetation removal for fuel breaks but would allow for unlimited vegetation removal, as well as removal of considerable amounts of dirt, for fire breaks. Discussion continued by the Commission with members of the public responding to questions and comments by Commissioners regarding fuel breaks and firebreaks. Commissioners Edwards, Nelson, McCowen and Little supported the second proposal by Chairman McCowen for fuel breaks. Commissioners Calvert and Barth supported the proposal by Commissioner Calvert. Commissioner Lipmanson supported the proposal presented by Mr. Daniel Myers. It was the decision of the Commission (4-3; Calvert, Barth and Lipmanson opposed) to adopt the following exemption and definition for fuel breaks: Section (B)(12): Fuel breaks. Creation or maintenance of fuel breaks. Section : Fuel break means a strip of modified fuel to provide a line from which to work in the control of fire. Commissioner Edwards suggested adding Firebreak. Grading to construct and maintain fire breaks to the exemptions section and add the following new definition to Section ; Firebreaks. A preconstructed trail or cleared area installed to limit the spread of wildfire or to aid in fire suppression activities. Trails shall be constructed using Best Management Practices and all necessary permits shall be obtained from public resource agencies. Firebreaks shall be used only for their intended purposes in times of emergency. Director Hall noted several modifications which he felt should be made to Commissioner Edward s suggestion for clarification. It was the decision of the Commission to recess to provide staff an opportunity to formulate a formal recommendation for firebreaks. RECESS: 2:25 2:37 p.m. Director Hall suggested, if the Commission adopts an exemption for firebreaks, adding to Section (B); Firebreaks. Grading to construct and maintain firebreaks provided Best Management Practices are employed and all required permits are obtained from public resource agencies. Director Hall also suggested adding the following definition to Section ; Firebreak. A trail or cleared area intended to limit the spread of wildfire or aid in fire suppression activities. Firebreaks shall not serve as driveways or roads except during an emergency. It was the consensus of the Commission (7-0) to adopt the proposal as presented by Director Hall adding Firebreaks to Section (B) and the definition to Section to read: Section (B)(11) (renumbering subsequent subparagraphs): Firebreaks. Grading to construct and maintain firebreaks provided Best Management Practices are employed and all required permits are obtained from public resource agencies.

18 MINUTES PAGE 18 Section : Firebreak. A trail or cleared area intended to limit the spread of wildfire or aid in fire suppression activities. Firebreaks shall not serve as driveways or roads except during an emergency. Section (B)(13) Graves. (Originally Section (B)(10)) Chairman McCowen recommended that the exemption be modified to read; Graves. Excavations for cemetery graves or for farm and domestic animal burial outside the watercourse corridor. It was the consensus of the Commission (7-0) to amend Section (B)(13) to read: Graves. Excavations for cemetery graves or for farm and domestic animal burial outside the watercourse corridor. Section (B)(14) Pest Control. (Originally Section (B)(11)) It was the consensus of the Commission (7-0) to adopt Section (B)(14) as presented in the ordinance to read: Pest Control. Pest Control regulated by or under the authority of the Mendocino County Agricultural Commissioner. Section (B)(15) Private Projects. (Originally Section (B)(12)) Chairman McCowen asked how the improvement plan process differs from an encroachment permit. Mr. Ken Seckora stated that the Department of Transportation or the California Department of Transportation dictates what needs to be done for an encroachment permit. It was the consensus of the commission (7-0) to amend Section (B)(15) to read: Private projects subject to the improvement plan process or an encroachment permit administered by County Department of Transportation or California Department of Transportation. Section (B)(16) Public Works Projects. (Originally Section (B)(13)) Chairman McCowen noted that both Regional Water Quality Control Board and the Farm Bureau recommend deletion of public works projects from the exemptions. Mr. Peter Bradford commented that public projects should not be exempted from grading regulations when private landowners are not. He noted that Mendocino County has 1, miles of County roads. He stated that there are significant problems with many of these public roads and they could benefit from the same process as required of private landowners. Director Hall stated that it does not make a lot of sense to have a public agency obtain a permit from themselves. He noted that many public works projects are subject to environmental review. Mr. Larry Mailliard discussed sub-standard public roads in the County and commented that if he were to use some of the practices employed by public agencies he would be reprimanded or even fined.