Tier I - Long Range Planning Division - Santa Barbara County ...

DATE: July 5, 2012 

TO: GavPAC Members 

FROM: David Lackie, Supervising Planner 

Brian Tetley, Planner 

CC: Supervisor Doreen Farr, 3 rd Supervisorial District 

SUBJECT: GavPAC Meeting Nos. 54 & 55 

Planning and Development Department 

Long Range Planning Division 

Transmittal Memorandum 

The items listed below have been included as part of the meeting materials for GavPAC 

Meeting Nos. 54 & 55, to be held Wednesday July 11 & July 18, 2012, 6:00 p.m. in the Santa 

Barbara County Planning Commission Hearing Room: 

1. Meeting Agenda: Meeting Nos. 54 & 55 Agenda for agricultural policy deliberations 

and recommendations (Attachment 1). 

2. Draft Meeting Minutes: Staff has provided revised draft minutes for the GavPAC 

meeting of June 6, 2012 and draft meeting minutes for the GavPAC meeting of June 20, 

2012 for review and approval (Attachments 2&3). 

3. Draft Gaviota Coast Plan Proposed Schedule Diagram: Staff has attached a 

diagram for reference during the discussion of the proposed schedule for Draft Gaviota 

Coast Plan (Attachment 4). 

4. Revised Partners in Restoration Manual: Staff has attached the revised Partners in 

Restoration Manual for review (Attachment 5). 

5. Gaviota Agricultural Tiered Permit Structure: Staff has attached the draft Gaviota 

Agricultural Tiered Permit Structure for review and use during the discussion of the 

proposed permit structure (Attachment 6, Pages 1-24). 

6. Agricultural Clustering, Housing, & Incentives Information: Staff has attached 

information generated by the Agricultural Subcommittee regarding agricultural 

clustering, housing, and related incentives for review and use during the discussion of 

these components of the policy framework (Attachment 6, Pages 24-25, 29-30) 

7. Long-Term Schedule: The revised long term schedule is attached (Attachment 7). 

Planning and Development Department LONG RANGE PLANNING DIVISION 

- 1 -

In addition to this packet, please bring the GavPAC documents binder volume III with 

you to the meeting. 

All GavPAC materials are also available for download from the following webpage: 

http://longrange.sbcountyplanning.org/planareas/gaviota/gaviota.php 

Meeting 52 Revised Minutes Review and Approval (Agenda Item No. 4) 

There was discussion about the content of the draft Meeting No. 52 minutes during the last 

GavPAC meeting. The attached revised draft Meeting No. 52 minutes (Attachment 2) include 

the strikeout and underline changes for your review. In addition, the revised trails policy 

framework is included as an addendum showing changes made to the document during 

Meeting No. 52, as requested by the GavPAC. 

GavPAC Deliberations & Recommendations: Agricultural Policy Framework 

(Agenda Item No. 7) 

The main purpose of this meeting is to continue the introduction of the Agricultural Policy 

Framework developed by the Agricultural Subcommittee (AS) over their 26 meetings. This and 

subsequent meetings will describe the key components of the framework to elicit public 

comments and GavPAC feedback. We intend to rollout the components in two stages as noted 

below. The Agricultural Policy Framework is organized into the following sections, with 

background information on those components yet to be discussed and status update on those 

components that have been discussed: 

1. Statement of Purpose and Intent 

Discussed during GavPAC meeting 53. The GavPAC discussed the Statement of 

Purpose and Intent briefly, and then acted to postpone consideration of revisions after 

the discussion of all other components of the agricultural policy framework. 

2. Draft Steep Slopes Standards 

Discussed during GavPAC meeting 53. The GavPAC discussed the draft steep slopes 

standards and then acted to: “adopt the AS recommendation for agricultural 

development on slopes of 40% or more, adding direction to staff to work out a provision 

for reclamation (research issues such as including enforcement and timing issues) 

when the agricultural operation has been abandoned (to be defined). Staff is also 

directed to point out to the AS to conforming changes to the grading ordinance to 

implement the agricultural standards for slopes over 40%.” 

3. Partners in Restoration Program 

Discussed during GavPAC meeting 53. The GavPAC discussed the Partners in 

Restoration Program, and then acted to table the discussion of the PIR program until 

the next meeting to allow Van Leer and Coates time to incorporate the final AS 

identified revisions into the PIR. The requested revised PIR document is attached to this 

packet as Attachment 5. 


- 2 -

4. Agricultural Permit Streamlining Ordinance 

Discussed during GavPAC meeting 53. The GavPAC discussed the Agricultural Permit 

Streamlining Ordinance and then acted to: “adopt the AS recommendation to make the 

agriculture permit streamlining consistent throughout the plan area, subject to 

conforming to any changes necessary to conform with the permit structure.” 

5. Gaviota Agricultural Tiered Permit Structure 

Provided in this packet for meeting 54. 

A key agricultural land use proposal for the Gaviota Coast is the Gaviota Agricultural 

Tiered Permit Structure. The AS spent a majority of their meeting time to develop and 

refine the tiered permit structure. The tiered permit structure is meant to modify the 

existing agricultural permit process which is highly restrictive once a landowner wants to 

explore uses beyond agricultural cultivation or grazing. Even very limited agricultural 

support uses, such as limited processing of on-site agricultural products for sale (e.g., 

pressing walnuts into walnut oil), are disallowed in the agricultural zone districts. 

Recently, agricultural markets have changed to reflect the local, organic, or slow foods 

movements that recognize the value of products produced in the local region and sold 

locally through farmer’s markets, cooperatives, or specialty shops, often at a premium. 

The purpose and intent of the Gaviota Agricultural permit tiers is to allow increased 

flexibility to support and encourage regional agriculture operations by identifying 

appropriate permitting requirements for various scales of specific activities. The scale of 

the included activities is intended to support or be compatible with agricultural activities 

and the natural resources on the Gaviota Coast. Several key principles guided the 

review of the various permittable activities and are consistently reflected, with usespecific 

variations as appropriate. These principles are: 

1. The specific use “Does not interfere with agricultural production, resources, or 

operations on or adjacent to the lot on which it is located.” 

2. Products produced locally (defined as Gaviota Coast, Santa Barbara County, or 

the Tri-Counties depending on the use). 

3. The uses on-site generate no more than 10 or 20 cumulative additional vehicle 

roundtrips, depending on the mix of uses. 

4. For exempt uses, the use does not require new structure(s) that would require a 

planning permit. 

The categories of uses addressed by the tiered permit structure are: 1) Agricultural 

Cultivation and Grazing, 2) Agricultural Production, 3) Agricultural Processing, 4) 

Agricultural Ales, 5) Educational Experiences, 6) Recreation, 7) 

Accommodations/Lodging, 8) Entertainment. This list of activities is not the sole list of 

allowed uses; all currently exempt and allowed uses shall remain. This list of activities 

was developed from the guiding principle of what is appropriate for the Gaviota Coast 

taking into account; resources, being subordinate to existing operations, as well as the 


- 3 -

proposed visual policies. These activities currently have no exemptions, or have 

onerous permitting processes that deter permit applications for small-scale operations. 

Broadening of the allowable uses, particularly non-agricultural uses, implies a trend 

which may invite uses that have little or no relationship to agricultural crops grown on 

the premises. As a result, the intensification of use may impact resources and be 

incompatible with surrounding agricultural uses. Agritourism or quasi recreational uses 

are similarly restricted. Existing restrictions on agritourism uses are justified based on 

the protection of the rural lands from increased traffic and visitors and potential impacts 

to active agricultural operations, even though some of these uses are allowable with 

approval of a site specific Conditional Use Permit. Rural land use types that are more 

indirectly related to the on-site agricultural activities (e.g. recreation, educational 

experiences) have been reviewed with an eye toward allowing a permit reduction where 

appropriate while protecting the character of the land and the core agricultural 

operation(s) on-site. 

6. Agricultural Clustering, Housing, & Incentives 

Provided in this packet for meeting 54. 

Agricultural clustering has been examined as a potential tool to reduce potential impacts 

from the existing zoning development potential to agricultural land uses. By clustering 

structural development to an optimal location, maximum use of the agricultural potential 

of the land and minimum road and infrastructure development impacts may be realized. 

The general purpose of clustered development is to minimize impacts to agriculture 

from development and the subdivision of property while realizing financial benefits to the 

property owner through reduced infrastructure costs. 

The AS determined that the intended goal of agricultural clustering is to maximize 

agricultural use of the land and minimize impacts merits consideration, however 

implementation issues identified during their discussions remain unresolved. The AS 

reviewed transfer of development rights (TDR) and development agreements (DA) as 

potential mechanisms to facilitate cluster concepts and provided the following 

recommendation. The AS identified a need to identify potential receiver sites where 

additional density may be appropriate. In the absence of consensus regarding 

clustering, the AS is recommending direction to staff to develop a tool that would allow 

transfer development of development rights from one parcel to another to provide 

another primary housing unit available for generational housing without changing the 

zoning or creating a new for sale residential unit. 

Potential changes to agricultural housing policy were reviewed by the AS in order to 

achieve more choice in the type of units allowed and for more options for future 

generations to live on agricultural property. Discussions concentrated on an incentivesbased 

approach including voluntary actions that could merit an opportunity to either 

apply for a Residential Second Unit or convert an existing Guest House to a Residential 

Second Unit (RSU). The maximum size of the RSU allowed in agricultural zones could 

be tied to the size of the parcel using the following tiers: 


- 4 -

Parcel Size Maximum RSU (Square Feet) 

10-40 Acres 1,200 

40–100 Acres 1,600 

>100 Acres 2,000 

The Agricultural Policy Framework is meant to provide a formal direction to staff to utilize as a 

framework for the agricultural land use section of the Gaviota Coast Plan. The intent is for the 

GavPAC to review the framework and then ask questions to then make any appropriate 

changes prior to a formal motion directing Staff to proceed with drafting the plan section based 

on the approved trails policy framework. Additional work is necessary to integrate all GavPAC 

deliberations, concepts, and comments into standards, policies, narrative text, and items for 

future action. The plan narrative will provide the purpose and intent of the GavPAC motions 

and more detail for each issue area. 

Attachments: 

1. Meeting 54 Agenda 

2. Meeting 52 Revised Draft Minutes 

3. Meeting 53 Draft Minutes 

4. Draft Gaviota Coast Plan Proposed Schedule Diagram 

5. Revised Partners in Restoration Manual 

6. Gaviota Agricultural Policy Worksheets 

7. Long Term Schedule 


- 5 -

Notice of Public Meeting 

Gaviota Coast Planning Advisory Committee (GavPAC) 

Meeting Nos. 54 & 55 

Note: The meeting venue has changed. This agenda lists discussion topics for the GavPAC 

meetings on: 

Wednesday, July 11, 2012 – 6:00 p.m. and 

Wednesday, July 18, 2012 – 6:00 p.m. 

Attendees: GavPAC Members, County Staff, and Public Participants 

Please review: Meeting Materials Packet for Meetings on 07/11 & 07/18/12 

Please bring: Meeting Materials Packet for Meetings on 07/11 & 07/18/12 

Location: Santa Barbara County Planning Commission Hearing Room, Engineering Building, Room 17, 123 East Anapamu 

Street, Santa Barbara 

Agenda Item Discussion Topics 

CALL TO ORDER 

1 Pledge of Allegiance & Roll Call 

2 Public Comment 

The Public Comment period is set aside to allow public testimony on items not on today’s agenda. The time allocated to 

each speaker will be set at the discretion of the Chair. 

3 Administrative Briefings 

Staff and/or committee member updates regarding local or other legislative activities, local planning decisions, or other 

updates of interest to the Committee. 

4 Meeting 52 Revised Minutes Review and Approval 

5 Meeting 53 Minutes Review and Approval 

6 Discussion of Proposed Schedule and Review Process for Draft Gaviota Coast Plan 

7 GAVPAC DELIBERATIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 

Agricultural Policy Framework: 

a. Partners in Restoration Program 

b. Gaviota Agricultural Tiered Permit Structure 

c. Agricultural Clustering 

i. Incentives 

d. Agricultural Housing 

i. Incentives 

e. Statement of Purpose & Intent 

8 Discussion of Long-Term Meeting Schedule 

Adjourn 

Questions or comments about the Gaviota Coast Plan may be directed to David Lackie at 805-934-2023 or dlackie@co.santa-barbara.ca.us and further 

information may be obtained on the following web site: http://longrange.sbcountyplanning.org/planareas/gaviota/gaviota.php 

Writings that are a public record under Government Code § 54957.5(a) and that relate to an agenda item of a regular meeting of the Planning Advisory Committee that are distributed to a majority of all of the 

members of the Planning Advisory Committee less than 72 hours prior to that meeting shall be available for public inspection at Santa Barbara County Planning & Development Department, 123 E. Anapamu 

Street, Santa Barbara, CA, and also on the County’s website at http://longrange.sbcountyplanning.org/ 

Attendance and participation by the public is invited and encouraged. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the 

Hearing Support Staff (805) 568-2000. Notification at least 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Hearing Support Staff to make reasonable accommodations. 

Gaviota Planning Advisory Committee Meeting 1

1 

Gaviota Coast Planning Advisory Committee 


REVISED DRAFT MINUTES MEETING No. 52 

Thursday, June 6, 2012 

Planning Commission Hearing Room, Santa Barbara 

The meeting recording may be accessed along with the materials for this meeting on the GavPAC web page 

using the following link: 

http://longrange.sbcountyplanning.org/planareas/gaviota/GavPAC.php 

These minutes include time markers for key locations in the meeting recording where discussion of an item, 

public comments and GavPAC actions may be heard. Due to technical issues, the recording for the first half of 

this meeting is not available. 

Meeting Called to Order: By Chair Kim Kimbell at 5:59 p.m. 

1. Roll Call 

GavPAC Members Present: Boise-Cossart, Bowman, Feeney (arrived at 6:10 p.m.), Kimbell, 

Lloyd, McKenna, McNabb, Tautrim, and Van Leer 

GavPAC Members Absent: McGinnis 

County Staff Present: 

David Lackie, Long Range Planning, Supervising Planner 

Brian Tetley, Long Range Planning, Senior Planner 

Bret McNulty, Long Range Planning, Planner 

2. Public Comment for Items Not on the Agenda: 

ACTION: Motion by Boise-Cossart that the GavPAC adopt a resolution thanking Jose Baer for his 

work on the GavPAC. Motion seconded by Van Leer and passed unanimously. 

3. Administrative Briefings: 

Tetley reviewed comment letters: 1) from Chris Shaeffer from Caltrans District 5 in response to a 

question from the GavPAC regarding the conversion of Highway 101 to a freeway and 2) from Dianne 

Vanderhave, Gaviota resident, regarding the process and use of a “blanket” policy approach to trails 

in the western plan area. 

4. Meeting 51 Minutes Review and Approval 

The GavPAC reviewed the draft minutes of Meeting 51 held on May 24, 2012. 

Deliberation: 

The GavPAC discussed concerns about the generic way public comments are described in the 

minutes. Boise-Cossart asked that minutes be revised with at least a full sentence to reflect the time 

and effort speakers have invested. McNabb expressed that she could not listen to MP3 format 

recordings and asked for more specificity in the minutes. Staff will work on capturing the essence of 

the main points and work to accommodate McNabb. Specific revisions were identified to the minutes 

and will be shown in track changes in the approved Meeting 51 minutes. 

Public Comments: 

Susan Petrovich expressed that the previous meeting minutes do not adequately express what 

people said and that these comments are important to the context of the GavPAC’s motions. 

Andy Mills, representing Hollister Ranch, expressed that he had made his comment at previous 

meeting in the hope it would be reflected in the minutes. He restated his comments regarding his

GavPAC Meeting #52- 

DRAFT Meeting Minutes 

concern regarding the braided trail and corridor concepts and how they would affect Hollister Ranch 

roads. He expressed that at least four property owners had expressed similar trail related concerns. 

2 

ACTION: Motion by Van Leer to approved the Meeting 51 minutes with revisions. Motion 

seconded by Lloyd and passed unanimously. 

5. GavPAC Deliberations and Recommendations 

Trails Policy Framework 

Tetley and Kimbell introduced the trails policy framework included in the agenda packet. The 

framework consists of six discrete sections (Statement of Purpose and Intent, Updated PRT Map, 

Siting Principles, & Criteria, Specific Criteria & Narrative for Trail Segments, General Policies, and 

Incentives). The Trails Policy Framework provides formal framework which staff will use to draft the 

trails section of the Gaviota Coast Plan. 

a. Statement of Purpose and Intent 

The GavPAC was introduced to the Gaviota Community Plan Parks, Recreational & Trails Element 

Statement of Purpose and Intent statement drafted by GavPAC member Mark Lloyd and distributed 

at the meeting. The GavPAC discussed creating a Gaviota Trails Implementation Study using 

language from the PRT Guidelines, the corridor concept, existing trails planning, segments, and 

motions from the Trails Subcommittee (TS) as modified by the GavPAC. The GavPAC considered the 

use of a graphic to visualize how components of the trail would relate to the Plan, development of 

multi-use standards, and examples of incentives in the work of the Agricultural Subcommittee (AS). 

The GavPAC and staff discussed the Plan structure, including the arrangement of the text narratives, 

policy, development standards and guidance document. 

The GavPAC discussed the contents of the revised policy framework, the need for brevity in the 

content, and the use of the framework approach in general. 

ACTION: Kimbell polled the GavPAC on their opinion regarding the use of the Trails Policy 

Framework as a formal framework for drafting the trails section of the Gaviota Coast Plan. 

The GavPAC members affirmed the Trails Policy Framework approach unanimously and 

without a formal motion. 

b. Updated PRT Map 

Tetley reviewed the revised Parks, Recreation & Trails (PRT) map hanging on the Hearing Room 

wall. He noted instances where the map, which is still being revised, had not yet been updated to 

reflect changes made by the GavPAC. These changes include the Dos Pueblos Ranch and Gaviota 

Terminal Site. These changes are in process and will be made in the draft PRT map that will return to 

the GavPAC with the trails section of the draft plan. Staff asked for input on the revised map and for 

confirmation that the map reflects the changes made by the GavPAC. 

At 6:35 p.m. the GavPAC took a break to allow the public and GavPAC an opportunity to review the 

updated PRT map. 

Deliberation: The GavPAC discussed how the braided trails concept as drafted in the framework 

requires dedication of three trails types. The GavPAC discussed removing the braided trails concept 

and the utility of using in its place the existing Trail Corridors language in the County PRT 

Description/Guidelines. The GavPAC considered text describing acquisition of proposed trails, the 

need to eliminate conflicts in the framework, and the GavPAC direction to the Trails Subcommittee 

(TS) when they started their work and the priorities for inland and coastal trails. Staff described how 

the guiding principles would be captured by the policies in the plan document. The GavPAC 

discussed making appropriate use options available. The GavPAC discussed the language in item 2, 

under General Trails Siting Principals on Page 7 of the Trails Policy Framework and specificity 

regarding uses. 

ACTION: Motion by Lloyd to strike #3, page 7 of the framework, and add in its place, the PRT 

Guidelines definitions for trail corridors adapted to the Gaviota Plan context. 

Motion seconded by Bowman and approved unanimously. 

Gaviota Coast Planning Advisory Committee



3 

ACTION: Motion by Lloyd to Strike principle #5 on page 8 (Coastal Trail Specific Siting) 

should be removed. Motion seconded by Bowman and approved unanimously. 

Deliberation: The GavPAC discussed lines on the PRT map depicting trails outside the Plan Area 

and the potential for misunderstandings if a change should occur. The GavPAC and staff discussed 

the use of an index map with legend and diagram to help people locate maps and policies applicable 

to specific areas. The GavPAC and staff discussed listing formal access points including El Capitan, 

Refugio, and Camino Cielo along with locations that provide new access opportunities. 

The GavPAC discussed whether the motion for PRT line from Gaviota State Park to Jalama directed 

the line to be on the beach, or to retain the existing PRT line. Boise-Cossart expressed that the 

motion was to move the PRT line to the beach at Hollister Ranch, and Bowman expressed that the 

motion was to retain the concept of a continuous existing PRT line west of Gaviota. The recorded 

motion directs retention of the existing PRT line. Boise-Cossart expressed that the inland trail from El 

Capitan to Gato Canyon was too long a trail to for just day use and it should be acknowledged that 

water and a campsite would be required. The GavPAC discussed the importance of the map text 

boxes. Feeney expressed that there are nine coastal access points on the map that may be infeasible 

and that staff should come back with recommendations. 


Susan Petrovich expressed that the County described easement at the GTC site is actually an 

agreement to construct, not an easement. She reviewed the terms of the agreement. 

Andy Mills, representing Hollister Ranch, expressed that the in minutes reflect that the existing 

PRT line is described as being on the beach to 2000 feet inland. His understanding is that the PRT 

line is a coarse line generally following the beach and not a broad swath. as close to the beach as 

possible. 

ACTION: Motion by Van Leer to confirm the draft PRT map that incorporates the GavPAC 

recommended trail alignments as direction to staff to prepare a draft PRT map inclusive of 

the study area. Subject to inclusion of the text boxes which incorporate GavPAC motions. 

Motion seconded by Tautrim and approved unanimously. 

Van Leer confirmed that his motion adopts previous motions of the GavPAC. 

After a break at 8:30 p.m., the Statement of Purpose and Intent was placed on the overhead screen 

(Recording available starting here) 

Public Comment: 

(1:22) Susan Petrovich, expressed that the County PRT Description/Guidelines Acquisition of 

Proposed Trails should be revised to include the concept that trails will not disrupt agricultural 

operations and cite the existing Agricultural Element purpose statement since staff takes the position 

that the element does not apply in the Coastal Zone. She expressed that developments with existing 

dedications should not be required to provide additional dedications (multiple trails). She suggests 

that the last bullet in the Statement of Purpose and Intent be revised to say “provide responsible 

infrastructure maintenance and management.” She expressed that maintenance is vital to public 

safety and to avoid impacts to sensitive coastal resources. 

(5:20) Deliberation: Lackie asked for clarification regarding the idea of liability transfer, to protect 

private property, since it a concept that does not have traction with the County. The GavPAC 

discussed including “visitors” along with County residents and whether they were prioritizing trails 

over campgrounds and other recreation uses and whether there is a priority for the Coastal Trail 

among trail uses. The GavPAC discussed specific edits to the Statement of Purpose and Intent 

following the criteria the GavPAC and the status in the plan of policies regarding parks and 

recreation. The GavPAC discussed McKenna’s suggestion to use a definition of purpose and intent, 

whereby the purpose was to design and suggest where trails ought to go in the study area and 

balance the interests of the public to access their native grounds and rights of the owners to enjoy 

their property. The GavPAC discussed adding public and privately owned lands to the list of lands, 




and adding a statement regarding a vision for a vast network of trails from the ridgeline to the coast 

with loops. The GavPAC discussed including a statement that clarifies working with “public and 

private owners” and not including a statement transferring liability to the County. 

4 

(17:15) ACTION: Kimbell polled the GavPAC regarding their support for providing Statement of 

Purpose and Intent, as revised, to staff with direction to integrate it into the Trails Section of the 

plan. The GavPAC members affirmed the Statement of Purpose and Intent unanimously and 

without a formal motion. 

c. Siting Principals and Criteria 

(18:30) Deliberation: The GavPAC discussed how to recognize the various components of a trail, 

referring to a range of uses, and removing the reference to braided trails in item 2 on page 7. Boise- 

Cossart indicated that the TS did not use the term “braided trails” and had discussed specific uses 

including whether equestrian uses are appropriate along bluffs. The GavPAC discussed descriptions 

of trails to serve a range of users, multi-use trails, that some trails would have limitations due to site 

conditions and the potential when the GavPAC revisits the issue in the future for addressing a crossregion 

bike trail, a set of more primitive trails, and the character of trails. Lackie discussed developing 

the general and specific trails siting guidelines using the guidance provided by the GavPAC in the trail 

map and supporting narrative, including the multiplicity of trails concept. Lackie clarified that the PRT 

Trails Siting Guidelines would be incorporated into the Gaviota Coast Plan and adopted to give them 

official status. They can be included on the map as well. Lackie distributed example PRT maps to the 

GavPAC. 

(29:25) ACTION: Motion by Van Leer, Under General Siting principles, page 7, #2 – Remove “or 

braided,” and remove all text after “Note”. Motion seconded by McNabb and approved 

unanimously. 

(31:10) The GavPAC discussed and staff noted their specific edits and items missing from the 

General Siting Principles, including protection of agricultural operations, residential development, 

privacy, and balancing the interest of the public and land owners, and use of the words alignment 

instead of corridor, limiting or increasing use of the word, “shall” or “should” in policy statements and 

managed access. The GavPAC discussed instructing property owners about fire safe land clearing, 

Forest Service maintenance resource reductions, and the potential for the County to provide 

maintenance and clearing of trails. 


(46:00) Susan Petrovich inquired about the use of the word, “priority” in item 1 and asked that it be 

clarified what it means. In item 6 she asked if it should be worded, “close as feasible consistent with 

the other policies,” and introducing the Agricultural Element policies into the section. In item 8, she 

recommended that trails not be allowed to open until all the amenities were in place. In item 10 page 

9, the list should add owner privacy and security. 

County PRT Description/Guidelines 

(48:40) Kimbell directed the discussion toward the County PRT Description/Guidelines. Tautrim 

expressed his support for the guidelines. Kimbell noted the guidelines seem to be written for plan 

areas that don’t have a lot of public land. The first, being that they emphasize exactions more suitable 

to other plan areas, and the other that they need to emphasize the potential opportunities for trails on 

public lands. In Gaviota the unique opportunity exists to locate trails in the public corridors and needs 

to be reflected in the guidelines. 

(50:40) ACTION: Kimbell polled the GavPAC members who expressed their support for use of 

the County PRT Description/Guidelines in the trails section of the Plan without a motion. 

General Policies 

(51:30) The GavPAC discussed the General Policies on pages 22-23. The GavPAC provided specific 

edits including: clarifying or removing item 3, on page 23; general direction to remove redundancy 

from the policies including item 5, which may be redundant; item 2 (a), on page 22 should clarify that 




a trail should not be open until an entity assumes control and not rely on volunteers; “shall be 

encouraged” item 2 (c) should be linked to incentives; and removing item 3, on page 23, as it 

provides no flexibility. The GavPAC discussed item 4 on page 23 limits to the Coastal Conservancy 

guidelines and what that means when it comes back. The GavPAC discussed the definitions of 

discretionary and ministerial permits as they apply to various uses. Staff will include general 

information regarding the factors that are considered when requiring permits. 

Incentives 

(1:00:40) Staff and the GavPAC discussed working cooperatively with agencies and owners to 

achieve trails, more so than exactions from discretionary projects, and incentives as development 

standards or policies. The GavPAC discussed the work of the AS on incentives and putting out a call 

to the public for their ideas for incentives. 

5 

ACTION: Kimbell polled the GavPAC and directed staff to make edits to the General Policies and 

recognize in the Plan the importance of incentives as a tool and continue the discussion on 

incentives during the AS reportback, without motions. 

6. Discussion of Long Term Meeting Schedule 

The GavPAC will meet next at 6:00 p.m. Wednesday, June 20, 2012 at Las Cruces School. 

The GavPAC discussed taking the week of the July 4 th holiday off and holding back-to-back meetings 

on July 11 and 18, 2012. 

7. Adjournment 

Meeting adjourned by Chair Kimbell at 9:08 p.m. 

Meeting notes prepared by Bret McNulty. 

N:\GROUP\COMP\Planning Areas\GAVIOTA\Gaviota Coast Plan\GavPAC\GavPAC Meetings\Meeting No. 52\Agenda & Minutes\Draft Minutes 

Meeting No. 52.docx 


GavPAC Trails Policy Framework 

Revised 07/05/12 

1

I. Statement of Purpose & Intent 

2

Gaviota Community Plan 

Parks, Recreational & Trails Element 

Statement of Purpose and Intent 

Mark Lloyd – June 5, 2012 

The purpose and intent of the Parks, Recreation and Trails Element (PRT) of the Plan is 

to create quality public recreational experiences for County residents, while preserving 

and protecting valuable agricultural operations, natural resources and the rural 

character of the plan area. The Gaviota Planning Advisory Committee (GAVPAC) has 

recognized that the recreational trail component is the overriding priority in crafting the 

PRT, acknowledging that adequate recreational park and camping opportunities 

currently exist in the region through Federal, State and privately owned recreational 

properties. The spirit in which the GavPAC addressed trail issues was one of 

cooperation and respect for divergent viewpoints, intending to effectively balance the 

interests of both the public at-large and private property owners. 

In order to realize the vision of creating a complimentary network of trails, linking the 

sea and the mountains, the PRT is comprised of a set of maps graphically depicting a 

network of lateral and vertical trail alignments accompanied by text guidelines 

explaining contextual conditions; a general policy framework for general trail siting, 

design and intensity of use issues; location guidelines and design standards for specific 

trail segments; and incentive policies and guidelines to induce completion of the 

network. The intent of the PRT policies and maps, therefore, is to direct the County as 

it incrementally implements the plan while adhering to the following principals: 

To establish a regional trail system that effectively meets the needs of County 

residents; 

To manage the human impact on agricultural operations, natural resources, 

and private property and privacy; 

To prioritize trail locations on public lands, or on private lands of willing 

property owners; 

To respect private property rights through due process in the planning and 

design of trails; 

To provide necessary infrastructure, maintenance, responsible trail 

management and accept liability arising from the public’s use of trails; 

By following these principals while implementing the PRT, the County will, over time, 

establish an effective system of trails that provides the public with a superior 

recreational experience, protects natural resources and adjoining land uses, and 

preserves the rural character of the region.

II. Updated PRT Map 

4

Provided at meeting 52 

5

III. Siting Principles & Criteria 

6

General Trail Siting Principles 

1. The Gaviota Coast Plan Parks, Recreation and Trails (PRT) map identifies general trail corridors 

alignments and locations for planning purposes to establish a network of inland and coastal 

public trail opportunities within the Gaviota Coast Planning Area. Potential trails corridors on 

the PRT include both general and more defined trail corridor alignments which should be 

considered along with adopted Plan policies, development standards, and supporting Plan text. 

Trails described by the Plan should be prioritized for implementation of practical trail routes 

within the planning horizon in those areas with the highest perceived need. The Plan provides 

additional information regarding trail corridor alignment preferences and intent (where 

specified), opportunities and constraints, as well as resource, land use and ownership 

considerations to be addressed in all phases of trail planning, easement acquisition, and trail 

siting, construction, and operation. Together, the policy intent reflects the necessity for 

flexibility in planning the locations of proposed trails. The terrain of an area, privacy of the 

property owner and neighbors, safety of trail users, environmental constraints, and other 

factors will influence the ultimate placement of a trail. 

2. The basis for trails planning on the Gaviota Coast is a vision of an interconnected or “braided” 

system of trails linking the eastern and western coastal areas, and inland areas that identifies 

appropriate launching points and facilities serving a range of trail users at the appropriate 

intensity for each location. [Note: to be developed further indicating the braided system can be 

developed more fully with a rustic blufftop trail and a trail that would be for broader level of 

users and experiences closer to the highway] 

Siting of the Coastal Trail 

3. The Coastal Trail shall be generally located between the northerly limit of the Highway 101 rightof-way 

as augmented by any unused rights-of-way held by CalTrans or the county (e.g., former 

coast highway alignments) and the mean high tide line of the Pacific Ocean. The specific location 

to be sited in accordance with the siting principles stated below and the adopted Gaviota Coast 

Trails Siting Guidelines. In the Planning Area west of Gaviota State Park where there is no public 

roadway, the Coastal Trail shall be generally located between the northerly limit of the private 

road running parallel to the coast and the mean high tide line of the Pacific Ocean. The scope 

and location of the Coastal Trail may be augmented by gifts, offers, and purchase of land of 

willing landowners(Insert the the PRT Guidelines definitions for trail corridors adapted to the 

Gaviota Plan context). 

4. Planning for the establishment and enhancement of coastal access and trails shall recognize the 

multiple uses served, use intensity, and level of infrastructure along the coastline. In general, 

high intensity transportation uses such as cycling should be focused near the highway. 

Whereas, lateral and vertical hiking uses can be accommodated near the bluff or on the beach, 

where appropriate. 

7

Coastal Trail Specific Siting Principles: 

The following principles shall be followed with respect to the specific siting of the Coastal Trail: 

5. The Coastal Trail shall be a "braided trail" consisting of: 1) a Class I bike path located in proximity 

to, but physically separated from, Highway 101, 2) a beach/bluff trail, which shall be for hiking 

and equestrian use, and 3) vertical connectors and loop trails in between the bike trail and the 

beach/bluff trail. 

6. The beach/bluff trail shall be as close to, or on the beach as feasible consistent with all other 

planning constraintspossible and on the beach where feasible. 

7. The vertical connector and loop trails shall provide reasonably spaced and periodic connections 

between the bike trail and the beach/bluff trail. 

8. All trails and related facilities shall be located with consideration of the following: 

(a) Opportunities to establish and enhance public trails, access, and recreational 

opportunities shall be pursued in the following order of preference: 1) public and quasipublic 

lands, 2) private lands of willing landowners, and 3) lands exacted as a result of 

the discretionary development process, subject to prevailing law. 

(b) Trails shall be located to maximize the preservation of fragile coastal resources, 

agricultural operations, historic and cultural resources and in consideration of future sea 

level rise and associated bluff retreat. 

(c) The carrying capacity of the land traversed by the trail should be considered in order to 

protect existing resources as required by the Coastal Act. 

(d) Trailhead parking facilities should be located as close as possible to Highway 101, and 

sanitation and trash facilities should be provided at major trailheads, as deemed 

appropriate. 

(e) Existing informal paths that are dangerous or detrimental to the environment should be 

improved or closed and remediated. 

(f) To the extent feasible, proposed trail alignments should seek to avoid areas that are 

highly geologically unstable or especially prone to erosion. 

8

Trail Specific Siting Principles 

9. Trail alignments as indicated on the trails map(s) represent suggested alignments that provide 

visual connectivity to the planned trails system. These suggested alignments should not be 

construed as final trail alignments for construction due to the coarse scale of the mapping, and 

the lack of detailed, site-specific information. Precise trail alignments are subject to detailed 

review, analysis and approval at the time of any specific implementation of the Coastal Trail in 

accordance with the foregoing principles. 

10. Planning for the location and intensity of use of public trails, access, and recreational 

opportunities shall consider minimize impacts to agricultural, biological, and cultural resources. 

Trails and other recreational facilities shall be sited to minimize impacts to habitat and historic 

sites while allowing some public experience of these resources. 

11. Planning for the location and intensity of use of public trails, access, and recreational 

opportunities shall consider impacts such as sea level rise and accelerated bluff retreat due to 

climate change. 

12. Planning for the location and intensity of use of public trails shall consider siting and design 

features to keep hikers, bicyclists and equestrians on the cleared pathways, to minimize impacts 

to sensitive habitat areas and environmental resources, and to avoid or minimize erosion 

impacts and conflicts with surrounding land uses. 

13. For proposed County trails which extend into USFS owned lands, a Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU) should be established between the County or NGO and the USFS to 

coordinate planning and funding of future trail implementation, environmental review, 

construction, and long-term maintenance. 

14. Establishment of a new trail or segment shall consider the appropriate uses to allow under the 

county’s multiple-use trail policy. Appropriate use determination will depend on the area 

setting, whether the trail provides a loop or connection to other trails in the system, and the 

terrain over which the trail crosses. Trail design shall reflect these uses. For example, trails 

which are expected to attract hikers, equestrians and bicyclists may require a wider trail tread or 

even separate trail routes and surfaces. A narrower trail tread and dirt surface may be adequate 

for trails which would be used primarily by hikers and equestrians. As part of the trail 

implementation process, County Parks Department evaluates appropriate use limitations, if any. 

Modifications to the county's multiple-use trail policy are considered on a case-by-case basis. 

[Note: Address managed access as concept to address carrying capacity or resources concerns] 

9

IV. Specific Criteria & Narrative for Trail 

Segments 

10

GavPAC Meeting 50, May 9, 2012 

Summary of GavPAC Trails Related Actions 

May 29, 2012 

Inland Trails in the Vicinity of West Camino Cielo West of Refugio Road through Young 

America’s Foundation Property 

ACTION: Motion by McKenna to adopt the TS recommendation. Motion seconded by Feeney. 

ACTION: Revised motion by McKenna to include clarification that end of the action refers to the 

alternate connection over the Dos Vistas trails and the properties to the north of the ridge line as 

an alternative. Revised motion seconded by Feeney. 

ACTION: Revised motion by McKenna, to revise the last sentence to read, “Include a narrative 

discussing the potential for alternative trails, including existing trail easements as an alternative. 

Revised motion seconded by Feeney. 

ACTION: Motion by McKenna to restore the section of the existing PRT line up on the ridge 

down Refugio Road to where the previous recommendation takes off. Motion seconded by 

Feeney. 

TS Meeting 13, March 5, 2012 

TS ACTION: Motion by McGinnis, seconded by Feeney, to adjust the existing ridge top PRT 

map line to generally follow existing boundary boundaries between the Young American’s and 

adjacent southern properties, primarily following the existing road and keeping to previously 

disturbed areas. Include a narrative discussing the potential to connect to existing trails 

easements as an alternative. Motion passed 3-0. 

Brinkman Property-San Onofre Canyon 

ACTION: Motion by Boise-Cossart to adopt sections of the TS recommendation to designate 

the westernmost exploratory trail route as a primary trail linking to the Trespass Trail and have a 

narrative that says that the GavPAC would support other exploratory routes in this area that 

respect environmental and cultural resources and private property. The other lines will be taken 

off the map. 

Kimbell summarized the motion: the westernmost exploratory trail show on the map connecting 

from the near the fire station up to the Trespass Trail or an analogous alignment that respects 

the criteria be left in place. The eastern part of the Brinkman trail extending from that junction to 

the east of San Onofre Canyon, other exploratory trails, and the PRT Trail through San Onofre 

Canyon be eliminated from the map. Boise-Cossart affirmed the summary. 

ACTION: Motion amended by Boise Cossart to add the route to Squat Camp suggested by 

Lunsford and that the PRT line south of Squat Camp be eliminated. 

ACTION: Motion by Lloyd that it be expressed in the policy recommendation for the previous 

item that the Brinkman property due to its proximity to the existing public lands and potential 

public lands and infrastructure should be targeted as a conservation property and that if and 

when acquired by the public would be the subject of additional recreational studies that would 

braid with the adjoining trail opportunities. Seconded by van Leer 

11

Deliberation: Feeney expressed agreement with the motion and the sentiment but is nervous 

about using the word targeted, and suggested instead that “…there may be an opportunity for 

future public acquisition…”. 

ACTION: Motion amended by Lloyd as suggested by Feeney. 

Nojoqui Falls PRT Line 

ACTION: Motion by Van Leer to accept the TS recommendation to remove the existing Nojoqui 

Falls PRT line from the map. Motion seconded by Boise-Cossart. 

Naples 

ACTION: Motion by Boise-Cossart to accept the TS recommendation for the Naples seal haul 

out area amended to clarify that the alternative is to the beach trail. Motion approved 8-0 

TS Meeting 15, April 5, 2012, Unapproved notes 

TS ACTION: Motion by Feeney, seconded by McGinnis, to add policy requiring future lateral 

and vertical access to be planned in such a way as to avoid the harbor seal haulout area in the 

proximity of Tomate Canyon, with consideration of a bluff top alignment as an alternative. 

Motion approved 4-0. 

GavPAC Meeting 49, April 25, 2012 UNAPPROVED 

Inland Trails in the Vicinity of West Camino Cielo West of Refugio Road through Young 

America’s Foundation Property 

ACTION: Motion by Lloyd, seconded by Van Leer to continue the matter to a later date to allow 

the owners additional time and that the owners contact staff to let them know when that would 

be. 

Amendment to the Motion by Lloyd, seconded by Van Leer to continue the matter to the next 

meeting. Motion approved 8-1, with Feeney dissenting. 

Initial Discussion of the Chair’s Proposed Trail Policy Framework 

ACTION: Restatement of the motion by Lloyd, seconded by Feeney, for staff to prepare, within 

four weeks, an inventory of all the policy direction to date from the GavPAC and written public 

comments for the full GavPAC to review with a direction to confirm, eliminate or revise as policy 

direction to staff for the preparation of draft inland and coastal trail policies. 

Amendment to the motion by Lloyd to clarify that the summary will include public comments that 

are consistent with the conclusions of the GavPAC. Motion, as amended, approved 8-1, with 

Boise-Cossart dissenting. 

Coastal Trails and Access 

San Onofre to Jalama Beach 

ACTION: motion by Lloyd, seconded by Bowman to adopt the TS recommendation that there 

be a corridor approach (from San Onofre to Gaviota State Park) and to record as a narrative 

text note that the tank farm property and the adjacent State Park properties will be planned 

cohesively, and leave the trail designations in this area except the designated County easement 

on the GTC property, to the future planning of the properties. 

12

Clarification of the motion, by Lloyd that the motion also applies to the State Parks properties 

adjacent to the GTC site. Motion approved as clarified 8-1, with Tautrim dissenting. 

ACTION: motion by Feeney, seconded by Boise-Cossart to add a narrative to stress the 

importance of looking at connecting the corridor (applied to the coast from San Onofre to 

Gaviota State Park) across the Mariposa Reina interchange to the Gaviota State Park property 

and look at opportunities for vertical beach access in this area. Motion approved 9-0. 

Hollister Ranch 

ACTION: Motion by Lloyd, seconded by McGinnis to accept the TS recommendation for the 

stretch of coast at Hollister Ranch. Motion passed 7-0 with Kimbell and Boise-Cossart 

abstaining. 

West of Hollister Ranch to Jalama County Beach 

ACTION: Boise-Cossart moved, Lloyd seconded, to adopt the TS recommendation applicable 

to the stretch of coast from the western edge of Hollister Ranch to the western plan area 

boundary to accept the existing PRT map lines. Recognize the unique value of the area and 

support negotiations between willing landowners, the county and other agencies to explore 

options for future trails. The motion passed unanimously. 

GavPAC Meeting 48, April 11, 2012 


Arroyo Quemada to Arroyo Hondo 

ACTION: Motion by McGinnis, seconded by Tautrim, to amend the TS recommended overlay 

for the area of coast between the fish hatchery and Arroyo Hondo as follows: 

Revise the first sentence to read, “Adopt policy to address the following issues, as applicable in 

the area between the coast and the northern extent of Caltrans ROW.” 

Revise the last bullet to read, “Beach access, trails, and bicycle routes shall be considered 

where feasible and existing access protected and enhanced during Caltrans’, Union Pacific’s, & 

State Parks’ planning to reconfigure or relocate their facilities in the plan area.” 

Motion approved unanimously. 

Tajiguas to Arroyo Hondo 

ACTION: Motion by Lloyd, seconded by McNabb, to approve the overlay concept, from Tajiguas 

to Arroyo Hondo, as a planning tool to establish the trails, with an initial priority being the 

alternative trail that generally lies and is mapped between the railroad and the highway, 

recognizing negotiations between regional agencies as required. 

Motion approved 9-0, Feeney abstained. 

All Trails 

ACTION: Amendment to Motion by McGinnis, seconded by Boise-Cossart “All trails shall 

address sensitive cultural and natural resources including wildlife corridors and both public 

projects and trails and physical aspects of trails, carrying capacity study of the impacts of public 

uses with regard to supporting infrastructure, and impacts anticipated from climate change, 

including sea level rise and bluff erosion.” 

Motion approved 9-1, Lloyd dissenting. 

13

Arroyo Hondo to San Onofre 

ACTION: Motion by Boise-Cossart, seconded by Feeney, to accept the TS overlay concept 

from Arroyo Hondo to San Onofre with the trail marking only indicating a continuation of the 

PRT line with no specific alignment. 


GavPAC Meeting 47, March 28, 2012 


El Capitan State Park to Refugio State Beach 

ACTION: Motion by Baer, seconded by Van Leer to adopt the TS recommendations for trails in the 

section of coast from El Capitan State Park to Refugio State Park, and to identify as a priority the 

development of a feasible, long-term solution to the repair of the damaged Refugio State Beach to El 

Capitan State Beach bikepath. Motion approved 10-0, with Feeney absent. 

Refugio State Park to Tajiguas Landfill 

ACTION: Motion by Lloyd, seconded by Tautrim to adopt accept the TS recommendations for trails in the 

section of coast from Refugio State Park to Tajiguas Landfill, including the recommended overlay concept 

with no priority for a specific trail alignment beyond preference for an alignment(s) south of Highway 101 

and to explore vertical access opportunities, where feasible, adding language to explore opportunities for 

vertical access, where feasible. Motion approved 10-0, with Feeney absent. 

Naples 

ACTION: Motion by Lloyd, seconded by McNabb to remand back to the TS their recommendations 

applicable to the Naples area and the seal haul out area for reconsideration in light of existing Policy 7.19 

and direct the TS to draft trails guidelines that consider issues related to siting and construction of trails, 

address environmental conditions, respect agriculture and private-property, and direct trails to be located 

on public land and land of willing owners. Motion approved 10-0, with Feeney absent. 

GavPAC Meeting 46, March 14, 2012 


Goleta El to Capitan State Park 

ACTION: Motion by Bowman, seconded by Van Leer that staff to take the overlay language and refine 

the text and bring the language back for further discussion by the GavPAC. Motion passed 5-2, with 

Feeney and McKenna dissenting, and Kimbell abstained. 

ACTION: Motion by Tautrim, seconded by Feeney to accept the sandy beach red line alignment, make 

the alignment along the south side of Highway 101 under the bridge, then west to the tunnel, the 

proposed primary alignment, with the alignment north of Highway 101 as an alternative, and accept the 

vertical trail to the beach as proposed by Las Varas Ranch. Motion approved 6-1 with McKenna 

dissenting, and Van Leer abstaining. 

ACTION: Motion by McKenna, seconded by Boise-Cossart to remand the Trails Council proposed 

alternative trail on Las Varas Ranch to the TS for further review of its feasibility and a recommendation. 

Motion approved 5-1 with Feeney dissenting, McNabb absent, and Van Leer abstaining. 

GavPAC Meeting 45, February 29, 2012 


Goleta El to Capitan State Park 

14

ACTION: Motion by Lloyd, seconded by McNabb, that the GavPAC recognize a pre-existing lateral trail 

access exists through the westerly end, coastal side of the highway in the Goleta Community Plan and 

that if and when that trail is established it would be necessary for it to connect to the easterly terminus of 

a trail through the Paradiso del Mare property. 


ACTION: Motion by Lloyd, seconded by Tautrim that the GavPAC update the proposed PRT map to 

reflect the previously approved trails, or applicant proposed trail alignments as the preferred trail 

alignments running east to west and south of the railroad on the Santa Barbara Ranch and Makar 

properties, and defer to the public planning process for these projects to finalize the trail alignments. 


ACTION: Motion by Lloyd, seconded by Tautrim, recommending that the remaining Makar property and 

the Naples property be considered for a trail alignment and beach access that would be located south of 

Highway 101 and as close to the ocean as possible during negotiations with the property owner. 

Clarification of the motion as read by Petrovich and clarified by Lloyd: 

We recommend to the Board of Supervisors that on the Makar parcel outside Paradiso del Mare, and the 

Naples property, owned by Santa Barbara Ranch, be considered for a trail alignment south of the 

highway as close to the ocean as feasible in negotiation with the property owner, and that beach access 

would be found somewhere along that route. Motion passed unanimously. 

GavPAC Meeting, 44, February 15, 2012 

Existing PRT line along the ridgeline in proximity to the Young American’s property (Rancho 

Cielo) off West Camino Cielo. 

ACTION: Motion by Baer, seconded by Feeney, to remand the trail section to the TS to retain a line on 

the PRT map that somehow connects a portion of the ridge road (Camino Cielo) west of the Reagan 

Ranch to the ridge road near Refugio Road. The motion passed unanimously. 

Inland and Interconnecting Trails 

San Onofre to Gaviota State Park (Western Trails Map) 

Add Trail Alignments 

1) Exploratory route from county fire station road to Brinkman jeepway. 

2) Brinkman jeepway from Gaviota State Park trail to San Onofre Canyon. 

ACTION: Motion by Lloyd, seconded by McNabb, to remand the exploratory routes to the TS for restudy 

of an interconnecting trail from Highway 101 near Hot Springs Trail or Gaviota Peak on public land to the 

western Brinkman property, along the edge of the property and remove the existing lower portion of the 

existing San Onofre Canyon PRT line. Motion passed 8-2, McKenna and Tautrim dissenting. 

Other Trails Recommendations 

1) Research practicality of existing PRT alignment from Brinkman to Nojoqui Falls. 

ACTION: Motion by McKenna, seconded by Van Leer, to remove the existing PRT map line along 

Refugio Road. The motion passed with Lloyd dissenting. 

ACTION: Motion by McGinnis, seconded by McKenna to remand the existing PRT map line between 

Gaviota to Nojoqui Falls for further consideration by the TS. The motion passed unanimously. 

GavPAC Meeting 43, February 1, 2012 

Inland and Interconnecting Trails 

Goleta to Las Flores Canyon (Eastern Trails Map) 


1) From Naples through Dos Pueblos Ranch passing Condor Point through to the ridge top - 

lateral connector extending to east to connect with Farren Road. 

15

ACTION: Motion by McKenna to refer the study of this trail back to the subcommittee to review an 

appropriate site for the trail so that it does not negatively affect existing development and is sensitive to 

future development. Seconded by McGinnis. 

Modification to Motion: Add a TS site visit and consideration of the potential Farren Road connector 

route. Motion with modification approved 8-3. 

2) Add Trail Alignment to the Bill Wallace Trail (As indicated on draft PRT Map) 

Consensus: Kimbell polled the GavPAC who unanimously indicated support for the recommended 

alignment. 

3) Lateral connecting alignment between Bill Wallace trail through Forest Service lands to Las 

Varas Canyon PRT alignment 

Consensus: Kimbell polled the GavPAC who indicated support for the recommended alignment by a 

vote of 8-3. 

4) Lower link to Bill Wallace trail along State Parks road from Calle Real 

Consensus: Kimbell polled the GavPAC who unanimously indicated support for the recommended 

alignment. 

5) New mid-link connecting Bill Wallace trail 

Consensus: Kimbell polled the GavPAC who unanimously expressed support for the recommended 

alignment. 

Remove Trail Alignment 

2) Lower portion of Las Varas Canyon PRT trail below connection point with proposed connector 

on Forest Service land. 

ACTION: Motion by Feeney to remove the trail segment as recommended by the TS, seconded by Baer 

and approved unanimously. 

Las Flores Canyon to San Onofre (Central Trails Map) 


1) Baron Ranch loop trail 


alignment. 

2) Upper Baron Ranch alignment to ridgeline 


alignment. 

3) Arroyo Hondo Preserve trail alignments 


alignment. 

Remove Trail Alignment 

1) Arroyo Hondo canyon alignment 

16


alignment. 

Other Recommendation 

1) Consider Las Flores Canyon for recreational opportunities once the energy facility is 

decommissioned. 

Consensus: Kimbell polled the GavPAC who indicated support for the recommended alignment 

by a vote of 8-3. 

Formation of Trails Subcommittee 

GavPAC Meeting 36, June 15, 2011 

GavPAC ACTION: Van Leer moved, seconded by Baer, and carried by a vote of 10-0, to create a 

Gaviota Trails Subcommittee including the following GavPAC members: McGinnis, Bowman, Feeney, and 

Boise-Cossart. The GavPAC requested that all GavPAC Committee members be noticed of the 

Subcommittee meetings and that the Subcommittee should engage stakeholders (Rachel Couch, 

California Coastal Conservancy, CRAHTAC, State Parks, County Parks, agriculturalist/ranchers, 

landowners, Forest Service, etc) in the planning process. The GavPAC directed the Subcommittee to 

discuss the following recommendations: 

1) Update PRT maps for the eastern and western portions of the Gaviota planning area and 

consider updating the PRT maps with appropriate trail linkages between inland and 

coastal trails, including linkages between Baron Ranch, Arroyo Hondo, and El Capitan 

Canyon. 

2) Consider incentives for trail dedication, including reducing the existing permit requirement 

for a trail from a CUP to a CDP/LUP 

3) Develop thematic scheme for trail development and consider the appropriate intensity of 

use for a trail and the trail audience 

4) Consider Policy to encourage specific plans for trail development on large landholdings 

5) Consider issues related to Coastal Trail planning, including the proximity of the trail to the 

ocean and the CCC guidelines for the Coastal Trail and Coastal access. 

6) Consider implications for desired infrastructure (e.g. parking) associate with trails 

development 

7) Consider potential impacts of trails development from the landowner perspective 

8) Consider minimizing the use of asphalt for trails 

9) Consider CRAHTAC adopted principles for trail development. 

GavPAC Meeting 35, June 7, 2011 

GavPAC ACTION: Feeney moved, seconded by Baer, and carried by a vote of 10-0, to agree to the 

formation of a GavPAC Subcommittee on trails with input from CRAHTAC and other stakeholders 

(including the agriculture community, State Parks, County Parks, Forest Service). That GavPAC directed 

the Subcommittee to consider the 11 principles created by CRAHTAC and to consider the following: 

1) Incentives for trail dedication 

2) Development of a thematic scheme for trail development 

3) Encouraging specific plans for trail development on large landholdings 

4) Issues related to Coastal Trail planning. 

The GavPAC directed Staff to work with County Counsel to revise existing policies to recognize limits on 

exaction "subject to prevailing law". 

17

Public Recreation 

Gaviota Coast Planning Worksheets 

Coastal Access and Trails Related Issues Areas 

REC-1a Provide appropriate access to and along the coast and provide public recreational 

opportunities; including development of improved access to the Bill Wallace Trail 

REC-1b Safe access for various informal coastal uses 

REC-2a Assess need and feasibility of trails on public & private land 

REC-2b Development of a California Coastal Trail (CCT) 

REC-2c Establishment of a Multi-Use Trail Between El Capitan and Gaviota State Parks 

REC-2d Maintain Multi-Use Trail Between El Capitan and Refugio State Parks 

REC-3 Improved & Safer Highway Access for Cyclists 

REC-4 Facilitate Re-Use of Disturbed Lands for Public Use (Texaco Tank Farm, Mariposa Reina) 

REC-5 Better coordination of recreational access among agencies 

REC-6 Private Recreational Uses (i.e., Equestrian Uses) 

REC-7 Off-road recreational vehicles (i.e. motos) 

Transportation, Energy and Infrastructure 

TEI-3 Improve Bicycle Access Along the Coast 

18

TS Meeting 15, April 5, 2012 

Summary of Trails Subcommittee Actions 

June 1, 2012 

ACTION: TS Chair Bowman will report back to the GavPAC that the TS recommend no further 

trails changes in the Las Varas Ranch area. 

ACTION: Motion by Feeney, seconded by McGinnis, to add policy requiring future lateral and 

vertical access to be planned in such a way as to avoid the harbor seal haulout area in the 

proximity of Tomate Canyon, with consideration of a bluff top alignment as an alternative. 

Motion approved 4-0. 

ACTION: Motion by Bowman, seconded by McGinnis, to maintain the existing PRT lines along 

the coast at Hollister Ranch and add policy narrative directing continued dialog with willing 

property owners to explore managed public access and recreation options. 

Motion approved 3-0, Boise-Cossart recused. 


ACTION: Motion by Bowman, seconded by McGinnis, applicable to the stretch of coast from the 

western boundary of Hollister Ranch property to the northwest edge of the Plan Area, to accept 

the existing PRT map lines. Recognize the unique value of the area and support negotiations 

between willing landowners, the county and other agencies to explore options for future trails. 

Motion passed unanimously. 


ACTION: Motion by Feeney, seconded by McGinnis to recommend that one additional trail route 

be created between El Capitan State Park and the eastern planning area boundary, with the 

intent of achieving one additional vertical trail to West Camino Cielo. For this trail alignment, 

routes on the Dos Pueblos Ranch route or the Farren Road route will be reviewed and one 

selected as the best achievable route. The route will generally follow along property lines 

between the Parsons, Dryfus and Dos Pueblos land holdings. The unused route will be 

abandoned from further trails planning. 

Remove the previously proposed trails connector between the Dos Pueblos and Farren Road 

routes. 

Add a potential trail alignment north of the highway between the western edge of Santa Barbara 

Ranch and the plan boundary along the north side of Calle Real. 

ACTION: Motion by McGinnis, seconded by Feeney, to adjust the existing ridge top PRT map 

line to generally follow existing boundary boundaries between the Young American’s and 

adjacent southern properties, primarily following the existing road and keeping to previously 

disturbed areas. Include a narrative discussing the potential to connect to existing trails 

easements as an alternative. Motion passed 3-0. 

TS Meeting 12, February 22, 2012 

ACTION: Motion by Feeney, seconded by Boise-Cossart, to remove the existing Gaviota to 

Nojoqui Falls PRT line from the proposed trails map. The motion was approved unanimously. 

19

ACTION: Motion by Bowman, seconded by Feeney, designating Baron Ranch as providing 

vertical access, Arroyo Hondo as providing a loop trail through managed access, removing the 

lower San Onofre PRT line based on habitat concerns, and to designate the westernmost 

exploratory trail route as a primary trail linking to the Brinkman Jeepway on the west side that 

ties in to the Squat Camp trail and keeping on the map the previously recommended exploratory 

route lines located on the western Brinkman property north of the Gaviota Terminal Company 

(GTC). The issues related in the area around the exploratory lines will be described in a 

narrative. The motion was approved unanimously. 

TS Meeting 11, January 10, 2012 

Motion by Bowman, second by Boise-Cossart to forward the map as revised to the GavPAC on 

February 1st. Motion passed unanimously (3-0, Feeney absent). 

TS Meeting 9, December 6, 2011 

Motion, by Feeney, to remove the reference to the tunnel from the map. Seconded, by Bowman 

and passed 4-0. 

TS Meeting 8, November 21, 2011 

Motion by Feeney to locate the Coastal Trail alignment along the north side of Highway 101 

from Las Varas to El Capitan and put language in the narrative stating that it would be a nice 

idea to provide access through the tunnel, but it is not a priority. 

ACTION: Bowman revised Feeney’s motion as follows, that the TS prioritize the route of the 

Coastal Trail to run along the north side of Highway 101 from the Dos Pueblos interchange west 

to the El Capitan Campground and show the potential alignment on Las Varas Ranch south of 

101 on the PRT map as an alternative along with narrative addressing design issues with 

conflicts with the property owners and Caltrans for potential opportunities to cross under 

Highway to the north. The motion passed 4-0. 

TS Meeting 3, September 1, 2011 

ACTION: Boise-Cossart moved, seconded by McGinnis to direct staff to work with CRAHTAC to 

make revisions to the letter and forward it to Third District Supervisor Farr. 

TS Meeting 2, August 16, 2011 

Boise-Cossart moved, seconded by Bowman, to support public agency coordination for trails 

segments of the Gaviota Coast Plan. Motion approved unanimously. 

20

V. General Policies 

21

[Note: GavPAC direction to remove redundancies, where appropriate] 

1. Design Considerations: The design and maintenance of public access facilities for the Coastal 

Trail should emphasize low impacts and foster sustainability. 

(a) Public access facilities should be provided with the necessary management resources 

such as policing, liability management, trail maintenance, appropriate and necessary 

infrastructure, waste management, signage, and upkeep of parking areas. 

(b) Commercial visitor serving structures (such as stores, restaurants, and motels/hotels) 

should be limited to essential services and should be designed and sited to minimize 

visual and resource impacts. Necessary public visitor serving structures related to public 

access (such as trail signs, kiosks, interpretive exhibits, parking, and restrooms), should 

be encouraged although designed and sited to minimize visual and resource impacts. 

[Note: Will need to be reviewed to be consistent with ARC Overlay commercial visitorserving 

provisions under the CLUP and Article II] 

(c) In areas where local landowners or agencies control the scale, location, and design of 

public access facilities, such facilities should be built to serve the needs of local 

residents. 

(d) Vertical beach access should utilize natural topography as much as possible to avoid 

artificial structures. However, where necessary and appropriate, engineered solutions 

should be sensitive to the viewshed, existing resources, and minimize the need for 

periodic maintenance. 

2. Community Involvement. Models of community involvement for public access to the coast 

should be developed and encouraged with respect to coastal access. 

(a) Community involvement in the maintenance and interpretation of public access areas 

should be actively encouraged. Examples of current volunteer efforts include docent 

programs at Coal Oil Point and the Arroyo Hondo Preserve, the ‘Adopt a Trail Program’, 

trail maintenance by the Los Padres Forest Association and Sierra Club, and beach cleanup 

days by the Surfrider Foundation. [Note: clarify that a trail should not be open until 

an entity assumes control and not rely on volunteers per GavPAC direction] 

(b) Managed access programs have an important role on the Gaviota Coast by regulating 

the type, timing, and extent of public activities on both private and public land. 

Examples include temporary closures during plover nesting season at Coal Oil Point, 

trails that prohibit certain uses, curfews, and designation of areas that require advance 

scheduling and supervision to control the timing of visitation and the number of visitors, 

such as Arroyo Hondo Preserve. 

(c) Private property owners shall be encouraged to voluntarily offer opportunities for public 

access on private lands for scientific, educational, and cultural activities, such as the site 

visits conducted at Hollister Ranch. Such access must be consistent with the rights of 

private landowners to protect them from unwanted intrusion. An information 

clearinghouse should be created to track, and provide information to the public 

22

egarding, those landowners willing to participate in such programs. [Note: Should be 

linked to incentives per GavPAC direction] 

3. All opportunities for public trails within the general corridors indentified on the Parks, 

Recreation and Trails (PRT) map shall be protected, preserved and provided for during review 

and upon approval of development and/or permits requiring discretionary approval [Note: 

Remove or clarify per GavPAC direction]. 

4. Planning for trails on the Gaviota Coast shall consider potential impacts of trails development 

from the landowner perspective. Examples include; trespassing, gates left open between 

ranches, the spread of diseases to agricultural crops and/or livestock, and the spreading of 

invasive species. 

5. Coastal Trail Policy Overlay [Note: add new policy describing the intent of the overlay, including 

the corridor concept, opportunities to work with landowners and agencies, balancing access 

with resources protection, and inviting feasibility studies for potential trail segments][Note: 

Consider removing as redundant] 

Coordination/Action 

1. The county shall adopt a new PRT map for the Gaviota Coast planning area that identifies: 1) 

preferred trail linkages between inland and coastal trails and, 2) appropriate policy options to 

address site specific constraints. 

2. The county shall identify incentives for trail dedications from willing landowners, including 

reducing the existing permit requirement for a trail from a CUP to a CDP/LUP, land swaps, 

additional agricultural uses, and revised development standards for properties affected by trails 

development. 

3. Consider policy to encourage specific plans for trail development on large landholdings and 

identify priority areas to focus future specific planning efforts. 

4. Identify issues and constraints related to Coastal Trail planning, including the proximity of the 

trail to the ocean, the California Coastal Conservancy guidelines for the Coastal Trail and Coastal 

access and identify preferred methods to achieve inter-jurisdictional coordination and planning. 

[Note: Consider and further analyze guidelines limitations] 

5. Consider the use of development standards for desired infrastructure (e.g. parking) associated 

with trails development, including low-impact methods of construction. 

6. Consider CRAHTAC adopted principles for trail development. [Note: Utilize GavPAC truncated 

list] 

23

VI. Incentives 

24

“The county shall identify incentives for trail dedications from willing landowners, including reducing the 

existing permit requirement for a trail from a CUP to a CDP/LUP, land swaps, additional agricultural uses, 

and revised development standards for properties affected by trails development.” 

25

Voluntary Actions on Agricultural Land that Merit Housing Incentive* 

Coastal Habitat, Watershed and 

Viewshed Enhancement 

Conservation and Land Use Energy and Sustainability 

Providing coastal access 

across their property 

Preparation of hydrological 

or watershed plan 

Prepare and implement a 

Resource Conservation Plan 

Map Endangered Species 

Habitat on your parcel 

Create habitat 

Restore previously disturbed 

habitat 

Map archaeological sites 

Protect critical viewshed by 

providing a viewshed 

easement 

Participation in NRCS 

Partners in Restoration 

program 

Provide a conservation 

easement or sell 

development rights to keep 

land in agricultural 

production in perpetuity. 1 

Contribute to fund used to 

purchase development rights 

Contribute to an endowment 

similar to CREF fund (oil 

industry mitigation fund) 

Participation in Farmland 

Security Act contract 

Restoration of building(s) of 

historic significance. 

Place overhead lines 

underground 

26 

LEED for primary residence 

Commit to a Agricultural 

Conservation Easement 

Engage in organic farming 

practices and obtain 

certification. 

*All improvements must be maintained in perpetuity through a bond or other suitable mechanism. 

1 A permanent conservation easement or deed restriction conveyed to the County, upon approval, or to a non-profit farmland 

trust, land trust or conservation organization whose principal purpose is to conserve farmland and open space, or other suitable 

entity.

1 



DRAFT MINUTES MEETING No. 53 

Wednesday, June 20, 2012 

Vista de Las Cruces School Auditorium 

The meeting recording may be accessed along with the materials for this meeting on the GavPAC web page 

using the following link: 

http://longrange.sbcountyplanning.org/planareas/gaviota/GavPAC.php 

These minutes include time markers for key locations in the meeting recording where discussion of an item, 

public comments and GavPAC actions may be heard. 

Meeting Called to Order: By Chair Kim Kimbell at 5:59 p.m. 

1. Roll Call 

GavPAC Members Present: Boise-Cossart, Kimbell, McGinnis, McKenna, McNabb, Tautrim, 

and Van Leer 

GavPAC Members Absent: Bowman, Feeney and Lloyd 

County Staff Present: 

Jeff Hunt, Long Range Planning, Deputy Director 

David Lackie, Long Range Planning, Supervising Planner 

Brian Tetley, Long Range Planning, Senior Planner 

2. Public Comment for Items Not on the Agenda: None 

3. Administrative Briefings: 

(1:35) Tetley reviewed an email submitted by Mr. Andy Mills representing Hollister Ranch, asking 

that the meeting 52 minutes be revised to better reflect points he made during his public 

comments. Tetley reviewed a notice received from Caltrans regarding a project to rehabilitate 

existing structures at the Gaviota Rest Stops and informed attendees that copies of the notice 

are available. Deputy Director Hunt informed the GavPAC that the Board of Supervisors 

approved a County budget that includes one-time funding for the Gaviota Coast Plan from the 

Coastal Resource Enhancement Fund (CREF). He noted there is direction to expedite 

completion of the project due to uncertainty that funding would be available during the 2013-14 

fiscal year. He informed the GavPAC that staff and the Chair would be setting targets. Chair 

Kimbell noted that he would be acting to expedite the process and begin limiting comments to 

three minutes, consistent with other county public hearings. He is asking staff for a framework of 

the plan within the next few weeks. He solicited GavPAC comments on the idea of establishing 

an editing committee for the draft plan. 

The GavPAC discussed various ways in which a review committee could function to gain 

efficiency and be more productive given the lack of budget and time. The GavPAC discussed 

assisting staff in development of the document format and presentation and providing focused, 

clear and concise policy language so they can concentrate on final policy not organizational and 

draft issues during final review. They discussed reviewing the document in sections and having 

an editorial subcommittee include members who worked on those sections previously. Hunt 

reviewed the Goleta PAC editing committee process in response to a question. The GavPAC 

considered having an editing committee for consistency along with a review by the subcommittee 

Chairs for sections worked on by a subcommittee. In response to a question, Tetley informed the 

GavPAC the maximum size of a subcommittee is five members and putting the item on the next

GavPAC Meeting #53 


agenda. The GavPAC discussed concerns about receiving the entire draft plan at once and 

instead stopping the process after review of the agriculture subcommittee recommendations to 

provide staff time to complete drafting of the sections for which direction has already been 

provided. Concerns regarding issue areas not addressed during previous reviews were 

expressed. The GavPAC discussed catching up the drafting of previous sections prior to 

addressing Land Use. Staff and Chair Kimbell agreed to place review of the document outline 

and project schedule on the agenda for the next meeting. 

4. Meeting 52 Minutes Review and Approval 

(18:25) The GavPAC reviewed the draft minutes of Meeting 52 held on June 6, 2012. 

The GavPAC incorporated Andy Mills’ requested revisions and asked that staff provide track change 

versions of the trails policies document prior to voting on the Meeting 52 minutes. 


Susan Petrovich identified recommended revisions to the minutes and Mike Lunsford expressed 

concern that individual comments not be considered actions directing the location of the PRT line on 

the beach. The GavPAC discussed the definition of the PRT line. 

2 

ACTION: The GavPAC identified draft revisions to Meeting 52 minutes and tabled the review 

until the next meeting to allow time for staff to provide a track changes version of the trails 

policy direction provided to staff at Meeting 52. 

5. GavPAC Deliberations and Recommendations 

Agricultural Policy Framework 

a) Statement of Purpose and Intent 

(25:40) Tetley and Van Leer, as Chair of the Agriculture Subcommittee (AS), provided an overview of 

the policy recommendations from the AS and the methodology and process to develop them. Van 

Leer presented the AS Statement of Purpose and Intent and emphasized the collaborative process 

during 26 meetings of the AS. AS worked intently with staff and interested parties on the 

recommendations and modified them in consideration of Coastal Commission requirements for 

implementation in the Coastal Zone. 


Mike Lunsford noted the Statement of Purpose and Intent does not identify a problem or situation 

that requires change and recommends adding language describing why these actions are needed. 

Susan Petrovich suggested that the principle in first sentence of the Statement of Purpose and 

Intent be integrated into the bullet list in the body of the document, as the list directs the County to 

follow certain principles when implementing the plan. 

Deliberation: 

The GavPAC discussed simplifying the Statement of Purpose and Intent into purpose and intent 

paragraphs, clarifying that the principles are actually objectives, and including some of the discussion 

in an introduction section. The GavPAC discussed potentially tabling the discussion on the Statement 

of Purpose and Intent until the end of their review of the AS recommendations, so as to gain a better 

understanding of the issues first. The GavPAC discussed the merits of reviewing the AS 

recommendations prior to having a complete draft Agriculture section prior to conducting their review. 

Lackie expressed that the Statement of Purpose and Intent was not anticipated to be a rote document 

and that the document would be revised through an iterative process with the GavPAC. The GavPAC 

discussed the direction from the GavPAC to the AS, saving agriculture on the Gaviota Coast and 

addressing current agricultural realities in the Plan Area that drove AS review of these issues. 

ACTION: The GavPAC agreed to table discussion of the Statement of Purpose and Intent 

until after reviewing the AS recommendations. 




3 

b) Steep Slopes Standards 

(40:55) Tetley reviewed steep slopes issues identified during previous GavPAC meetings. He 

reviewed GavPAC direction to the AS that they identify ways to address erosion and other issues 

related to agricultural development and avoid the necessity to rezone to the Mountainous (MT) zoning 

district like other plan areas. The GavPAC had previously found the MT zone approach to steep 

slopes as too restrictive. 

Tetley and Van Leer reviewed the AS recommended Steep Slopes Standards for the Gaviota Coast 

developed by the AS based on an avocado cultivation on steep slopes ordinance example from 

Ventura County. Van Leer described how, through implementation, the standards for hillside 

development on slopes 40% or greater would also protect lesser slopes on the same land. 

Deliberation: The GavPAC and staff clarified that the steep slopes regulations would apply only to 

agricultural development and activities and would be implemented through the existing grading permit 

process. This recommendation addresses the GavPAC’s direction by adding a permit requirement to 

the existing zone rather than rezoning land with slopes over 40% to MT. The GavPAC discussed 

clarifying that the permit would not apply to residential development which is reviewed using separate 

standards. The AS members clarified that Steep Slopes Standards address would be new regulations 

that addresses erosion related issues not currently regulated in the Plan Area. The AS expressed that 

the Steep Slopes Standards would be an innovative approach to addressing environmental problems 

created by current farming techniques on steep slopes and avoids the need to rezone. 

The GavPAC considered adding a requirement for restoration of abandoned orchards, their effect on 

the environment and examples from the Plan Area. 


Mike Lunsford asked whether the standards would apply throughout the County. 

Lackie explained that the regulations would be policy applicable only within the Plan Area and be 

implemented during the erosion control permit process through use of a steep slopes guidance 

document that supplements the permit. 

Susan Petrovich suggested working closely with grading staff on the Steep Slopes Standards as the 

current grading ordinance does not allow for a lot of this. She explained that a grading permit for 

anything new triggers the need for a CDP. She stated that an erosion control permit currently would 

not be required. 

Tetley discussed applying the zoning requirements only in areas where these slopes and 

developments occur. He discussed the difference between the MT zoning and approach 

recommended by the AS. Van Leer and Lackie agreed to return the Steep Slopes Standards AS 

when the draft is completed by staff. Tetley asked the GavPAC for direction regarding remediating 

abandoned orchards noting that it may be a new program. He cited similar remediation requirements 

in the state Surface Mining and Reclamation Act. The GavPAC discussed how orchards could appear 

to be abandoned, but may also be planned for conversion or replanting and discussed including a 

time trigger for remediation to avoid impacting on-going agricultural operations. They discussed the 

how the regulations could provide a chilling effect on impractical farming efforts on steep slopes. The 

GavPAC deliberated how time restrictions would be developed and implemented. 

After a break, 

ACTION: Motion by Kimbell to adopt the AS recommendation for agricultural development on 

slopes of 40% or more, adding direction to staff to work out a provision for reclamation 

(research issues such as including enforcement and timing issues) when the agricultural 

operation has been abandoned (to be defined). Staff is also directed to point out to the AS to 

conforming changes to the grading ordinance to implement the agricultural standards for 

slopes over 40%. 

Motion seconded by McKenna and approved unanimously. 

c) Partners in Restoration Program 




(1:18:50) Tetley introduced the Partners in Restoration (PIR) Program that proposes to aggregate the 

various permit requirements of several agencies applicable to 18 common development related and 

permissible practices identified by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) under a 

single permit from the CRCD. The intent of the PIR is to benefit landowners by reducing the time and 

costs associated with applying for separate agency permits for common land development projects 

that are subject to standard mitigation and land management practices. Tetley described the 

collaborative process between interested parties, the AS and the CRCD. 


Anne Coates of the CRCD noted that the PIR has completed environmental review and that the 

GavPAC meeting materials include an early draft version. Changes still need to be incorporated. 

Eva Turenchalk discussed revisions made at the AS that include recommended peer review for 

creek restorations. 

Mike Lunsford described his concern that the owners of avocado orchards are dewatering 

watersheds through the use of catchment basins to divert water from the low-flow channel of streams. 

He expressed his opinion that this practice is a violation of California water law as it is an 

unreasonable take of water that leaves no flow for downstream. He expressed that it would be 

appropriate to add a requirement to the PIR to not allow catchment basins as described in PIR 

practice 5. 

In response to Lunsford, AS members and Coates explained that the catchment basins were actually 

being used to reduce habitat loss, erosion and stabilize banks. Kimbell explained that the PIR 

outlined permitted practices and was not addressing the issue Lunsford cited, which is addressed in 

state water law. 

Brian Trautwein, representing the EDC, explained that the issue of water diversions was addressed 

extensively in the AS meetings in the context of the PIR program. He agreed the PIR practice is not 

the diversion Lunsford is concerned with. He does agree with Lunsford that the County must deal with 

the issue of the diversion of water from creeks, as the state is not dealing with them effectively. He 

noted that the State Division of Water Rights does not have budget for staff, enforcement or 

permitting. They have a backlog exemplified by the Santa Ynez River permit taking 20 years. He 

recommends that the GavPAC recommend that the County require a permit for water diversions. He 

cited knowledge of examples of this issue in the Plan Area 

Mr. Trautwein expressed EDC’s support for the PIR. He expressed EDC’s support for stream 

restoration in the Coastal Zone. He noted that some of the changes not captured in the meeting 

minutes made it into the PIR. He wants to review the final permit language for projects in the Coastal 

Zone prior to final endorsement of the PIR. 

Susan Petrovich expressed disagreement with the need for the County to start County permitting 

process for which the State Water Board, Fish and Game, National Marine Fisheries Service, and 

Fish and Wildlife Service already have authority. She noted the topic area is technical and did not 

recommend the County get involved in the issue. 

Brian Trautwein cited an example of a permit requirement imposed by the County on a project in the 

McCoy Canyon that has not been applied to other watersheds that have experienced damage. He 

reiterated his previous point about the lack of state action on water diversions, and a need for the 

County to regulate such diversions citing impacts to biodiversity on the Gaviota Coast and their 

exceedance of the sustainable capacity of the watersheds. 

Deliberation: 

In response to a question from Van Leer, Tetley explained that the County does require a Land Use 

Permit in Agricultural II zoning the Inland Areas and Minor Conditional Use Permit in the Coastal 

Zone for water diversions from natural stream channels that alter the natural stream channel or use 

other structures. He noted practice 7 for ponds in the PIR and the condition that requires only use of 

rainwater or sheet flow not diversions. 

4 




Lackie explained that County staff has yet to conclude internal discussions on how to proceed with 

the PIR, in response to a question from Van Leer. McGinnis noted that the AS reviewed and reduced 

the number practices identified. 


Anne Coates, representing CRCD, in response to questions from the GavPAC explained the PIR 

permit process as it would apply in the Gaviota Coast Plan Area. She reviewed the history of County 

review of the PIR program, the staff level exemption provided by the County for another version of the 

program in the inland area. She explained that the RCD would issue the permit for the 18 proposed 

practices subject to the agency conditions incorporated into the PIR. 

Brian Trautwein, representing EDC, expressed EDC’s concern with the exempted practices in the 

County exemption that go beyond the 18 practices in the Gaviota Coast PIR and includes 

environmentally harmful projects, such as chaparral clearing. He expressed EDC desire to reduce the 

number of exempt practices in the County exemption. 

5 

ACTION: The GavPAC agreed to table the discussion of the PIR program until the next 

meeting to allow Van Leer and Coates time to incorporate the final AS identified revisions into 

the PIR without a formal motion. 

d) Agricultural Permit Streamlining 

Tetley reviewed the agenda materials describing the Agricultural Permit Streamlining process 

improvement and permit downshifting effort previously approved by the County. The streamlining was 

adopted in the Inland area only and not attempted in the Coastal Zone. The AS is recommending that 

the Agricultural Permit Streamlining be adapted for the Coastal Zone. Van Leer noted that the Visual 

and other policies previously recommended for adoption by the GavPAC would supersede 

Agricultural Permit Streamlining actions. 


Chris Shaeffer, representing Caltrans, reiterated Caltrans concerns, previously expressed to the 

Board of Supervisors about traffic impacts to at grade crossings of Highway 101 from new vehicle 

trips from agricultural employee housing previously permitted through a minor conditional use permit 

process now being permitted through a ministerial process by the Agricultural Permit Streamlining. He 

asked that the GavPAC recommend not change the permit for agricultural employee housing from a 

discretionary to a ministerial permit and disallow comment on such projects. 

Mike Lunsford, asked for clarification and the GavPAC explained that the AS is recommending 

Agriculture Permit Streamlining, as adapted to the Plan Area being applied to the Coastal Zone. 

Deliberation: McGinnis expressed that the Coastal Commission (CC) would likely focus on the 

provisions of the Agricultural Permit Streamlining. She expressed that the CC might not agree with 

the square footage and thresholds being proposed and how that previous CC identified resource 

protections could be integrated during the process. Lackie clarified how staff would provide 

information regarding certain issues that might create sticking points with the CC. In response to a 

question from the GavPAC, Tetley explained how the County verifies appropriate habitation of 

employee dwellings. 

ACTION: Motion by Kimbell to adopt the AS recommendation to make the agriculture permit 

streamlining consistent throughout the plan area, subject to conforming to any changes 

necessary to conform with the permit tiering structure. 

Motion seconded by McNabb and approved unanimously. 

6. Discussion of Long Term Meeting Schedule 

The GavPAC will meet again on Wednesday, July 11, 2012 and on Wednesday July 18, 2012. 

The meeting venue for these two meetings will change to the Planning Commission Hearing Room 

located at 123 East Anapamu Street in Santa Barbara. 




7. Adjournment 

Meeting adjourned by Chair Kimbell at 8:32 p.m. 

Meeting notes prepared by Bret McNulty. 

G:\GROUP\COMP\Planning Areas\GAVIOTA\Gaviota Coast Plan\GavPAC\GavPAC Meetings\Meeting No. 53\Agenda & Minutes\Draft Minutes 

Meeting No. 53.docx 

6 


GAVIOTA COAST DRAFT PLAN TIMELINE 

Final GavPAC Staff Direction 

for Agriculture/Land Use 

GavPAC Mtg. Break 

July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar April May 

Staff Writing Draft Plan & Revisions 

Staff Draft: Trails & Rec, Agriculture 

Subcommittee Review 

for Trails/Agriculture 

Staff Draft: Trans.-Energy-Infrastructure, Visual 

Staff Draft: Land Use-Zoning-Housing 

Staff Draft: Resources Stewardship 

GavPAC Review and 

Final Recommendation 

June 

June 30 deadline for BOS 

initiation of Draft Gaviota 

Coast Plan for Environmental 

Review

PROCEDURES FOR COMPLYING WITH MULTIPLE PERMITS: 

A GUIDE FOR CONSERVATION PLANNERS IMPLEMENTING THE 

SANTA BARBARA COUNTY PERMIT COORDINATION PROGRAM 

July 2010 

Prepared for: 

USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service and 

Cachuma Resource Conservation District 

Santa Maria, CA 

Prepared by: 

Sustainable Conservation 

San Francisco, CA

Blank Page

Compliance Manual Santa Barbara County Permit Coordination Program 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

SECTION PAGE 

1.0 Introduction ………………………………………………………………….. 1 

1.1 Purpose of this Manual ……………………………………………… 1 

1.2 Permit Coordination Background ………………………………….. 1 

1.2.1 The First Permit Coordination Program in Elkhorn Slough …… 1 

1.2.2 Evolution of Permit Coordination ………………………………... 2 

1.3 The Santa Barbara County Permit Coordination Program ………. 3 

1.4 Regulatory Agencies and Programmatic Permits Issued ………… 4 

1.5 Other Program Approvals Issued or Needed ……………………… 4 

2.0. How Landowners Qualify for the Program ………………………………… 7 

2.1 Location and Land Ownership ………………………………………. 7 

2.2 The 18 NRCS Conservation Practices, Size Limits, and 

Special Conditions ………………………………………………… 7 

2.3 Contracts and Agreements ………………………………………….. 21 

2.4 Accountability: Roles and Responsibilities ……………………….. 21 

3.0 Permit Requirements and Environmental Protection Measures ……….. 25 

3.1 Tiered Environmental Protection Measures ……………………….. 25 

3.2 General Approach for all Projects …………………………………… 29 

3.3 Regulatory Permit Conditions and 

Environmental Protection Measures …………………………….. 29 

3.3.1 Planning Tools ……………………………………………………...… 30 

3.3.2 Site Assessment and Pre-construction Surveys ………………….... 30 

3.3.3 Agency Notification and Project Review …………………………… 32 

3.3.4 Training ………………………………………………………………... 33 

3.3.5 Timing ……………………………………………………………..…… 34 

3.3.6 Procedures to Prevent Wildfires …………………………………… 35 

3.3.7 Limits to Site Disturbance ………………………………….……….. 35 

3.3.8 Protections for Water Quality ………………………………………. 38 

3.3.9 Temporary Water Diversion/ Dewatering ………………………… 40 

3.3.10 Dust Control ………………………………………………………….. 42 

3.3.11 Special Conditions for Stream Bank Protection, 

Grade Stabilization Structures, and Stream Crossings …………. 42 

3.3.12 Construction Monitoring ……………………………………………. 44 

3.3.13 Mitigation ……………………………………………………………... 44 

3.3.14 Reporting ……………………………………………………………… 46 

4.0 Planning Requirements ………………………………………………………. 47 

4.1 NRCS Conservation Planning Process ……………………………… 47 

4.2 Incorporating Permit Conditions into the Planning Process ……... 47 

4.3 Contents of the Conservation Plan ………………………………….. 53 

4.4 Communicating with the Landowner ……………………………… 53 

4.5 Project Management …………………………………………………. 54 

5.0 Special Status Species ………………………………………………………… 55 

5.1 Threatened and Endangered Species, Fully Protected Species, 

Proposed Species, and Critical Habitat ………………………….. 55 

i


5.1.1 Biological Opinion for Steelhead …………………………………… 55 

5.2 State and Local Species of Concern …………………………………. 56 

5.3 Federally Listed Species Not Covered by Permits …………………. 56 

5.4 State Listed Species Not Covered by Permits ……………………….. 56 

6.0 Procedures for Complying with Corps of Engineers Regulations ………. 59 

6.1 Nationwide Permits and Regional General Permits ……………….. 59 

6.2 Regional Conditions …………………………………………………... 60 

6.3 Notification Procedures ……………………………………………….. 60 

6.4 Exemptions ……………………………………………………………... 61 

6.5 Memorandum of Agreement …………………………………………. 61 

7.0 Procedures for Non-compliance …………………………………………….. 63 

LIST OF TABLES 

Table 1. Participating Regulatory Agencies, Jurisdictions, and 

Programmatic Permits Issued ……………………………………….. 5 

Table 2. Conservation Practices that may be Considered for Inclusion 

in the Santa Barbara County Permit Coordination Program …….. 7 

Table 3. Summary of Roles and Responsibilities of NRCS/ CRCD 

and Participating Landowners ………………………………………. 23 

Table 4. Overview of How Permit Coordination Builds on the NRCS 

9-Step Planning Process ……………………………………………… 49 

LIST OF FIGURES 

Figure 1. Tiered Impacts Decision Tool …………………………….……………… 27 

APPENDICES 

Appendix A. Agency Permits, Other Approvals, Contact Information, 

and Consultation Request to USFWS ……………………………….. Tab A 

Appendix B. Size Limits of the Conservation Practices …………………………… Tab B 

Appendix C. Planning Documents for Steelhead ………………………………….. Tab C 

Appendix D. A Primer on Stream and River Protection …………………………... Tab D 

Appendix E. California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Mitigation Guidelines …... Tab E 

Appendix F. State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) Agreement …………….. Tab F 

Appendix G. Approved Plant List …………………………………………………… Tab G 

Appendix H. Sample Annual Report ………………………………………………… Tab H 

Appendix I. Cooperator Agreement ………………………………………………... Tab I 

Appendix J. Project Management Checklist ……………………………………….. Tab J 

Appendix K. Species Lists, Distribution Maps, and Biology Manual ……………. Tab K 

Appendix L. Corps of Engineers Documents ………………………………………. Tab L 

ii


1.0 INTRODUCTION 

1.1 Purpose of this Manual 

NRCS and CRCD employees will have primary responsibility for oversight of the Santa 

Barbara County Permit Coordination Program (Program). This manual is designed to 

provide current and future staff with a guide to administering the Program successfully. 

Some current staff were involved with developing the Program, and therefore, are 

familiar with its various elements. However, due to normal staff turnover anticipated 

during the 10-year life of the Program, this manual is also aimed at new employees who 

will be involved with the Program and who may not be familiar with permit 

coordination. As a guidance document, it provides as much information as possible, but 

each individual project will have its own site-specific details and present a unique set of 

challenges. This manual should get people through the basics of how to comply with 

multiple permits but should be considered a “living document.” As a living document it 

can be updated as needed when new information or ways to improve Program 

administration become available. 

1.2 Permit Coordination Background 

The original concept of permit coordination grew out of a partnership between 

Sustainable Conservation, a non-profit organization, and NRCS. While working with 

landowners, they became aware that farmers and ranchers were facing a dilemma: 

while a growing number of landowners were interested in implementing small, 

environmentally beneficial projects on their properties, the time and complexity 

involved in obtaining multiple permits for each separate project, often discouraged them 

from moving forward with needed work (see table, below). From the landowner‟s 

perspective, standard agency review processes intended to protect natural resources 

often acted as disincentives to voluntary practices that would reduce nonpoint source 

pollution and enhance habitat. Consequently, because the challenges of obtaining 

governmental approvals exceeded the perceived benefits, most landowners continued 

with their current land use practices (not doing the work or doing the work without 

permits). 

Sustainable Conservation and NRCS learned that by simplifying the permitting process, 

agricultural landowners were more likely to implement environmentally beneficial 

conservation practices. The permitting process is simplified for the landowner by having 

regulatory agencies issue programmatic permits for a specific set of conservation practices 

and planning tools rather than issuing individual permits on a project-by-project basis. 

This was the beginning of permit coordination. 

1.2.1 The First Permit Coordination Program in Elkhorn Slough 

The pilot permit coordination program was developed in 1998 in response to very high 

erosion rates in the Elkhorn Slough watershed in Monterey County and its detrimental 

effects on water quality and wildlife habitat. Ten conservation practices recommended 

by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and NRCS were conditioned and 

authorized in advance by federal, state, and local agencies through m ultiple watershedbased 

permits issued to the NRCS and the Monterey County RCD. 

1


Agency Mandates That Can Affect One Conservation Project 

Regulatory Mandate Agency Involved 

Section 404 Clean Water Act 

Federal Endangered Species Act 

2 

Environmental Protection Agency 

Army Corps of Engineers 

United States Fish and Wildlife Service 

National Marine Fisheries Service 

National Historic Preservation Act State Historic Preservation Office 

National Environmental Policy Act Federal Agencies 

Section 401 Clean Water Act 

Regional Water Quality Control Board 

Porter Cologne Act 

California Coastal Act 

California Coastal Commission 

Coastal Zone Management Act 

Fish and Game Code Section 1602 

California Department of Fish and Game 

California Endangered Species Act 

California Environmental Quality Act State and local agencies 

Erosion and Grading Ordinances, 

County government 

Development Standards, Environmental 

Protection Ordinances, and Local Coastal 

Plans 

The results of the conservation projects implemented under the Elkhorn program were 

dramatic. Between 1998 and 2006, 50 projects were completed, 50% more than was 

originally projected. More than 60,000 tons of sediment were prevented from entering 

the Elkhorn Slough, its tributaries, and the Monterey Bay National Marine Sanctuary, 

and more than two miles of stream bank and channel were restored or revegetated. In 

addition, the program brought NRCS into cooperation with many farmers who had not 

previously expressed interest in on-farm conservation. The results originally anticipated 

– more conservation projects, a broader range of projects, and better quality projects – 

were met and exceeded. 

1.2.2 Evolution of Permit Coordination 

Following the success of the Elkhorn project, similar permit coordination programs have 

now been established in other areas along California's coast, including the Morro Bay 

watershed, Santa Cruz County, Humboldt County, Alameda County, Marin County, the 

Salinas River watershed, the Navarro River watershed, and the upper Pajaro River 

watershed. The most recent programs established are for Santa Barbara County and San 

Luis Obispo County. 

While all these programs followed the same original blueprint, they all have turned out 

differently. The best outcome for any program is to end up with a complete set of 

programmatic permits from all the regulatory agencies that affect a project. In reality, 

this outcome is a rarity: most of the programs have had difficulties obtaining one or 

more permits from regulatory agencies. Reasons for inconsistencies among programs are 

not well understood, but seem to be related to individual staff preferences rather than a 

given agency‟s policy. Support from local county government is especially important 

because it also reflects support from the Coastal Commission. Most coastal counties 

have adopted Local Coastal Programs for projects implemented in the coastal zone in 

order to comply with the Coastal Act, but the Coastal Commission generally defers to


county recommendations. If a county is supportive of a proposal, the Coastal 

Commission is also generally favorable (and vice versa). 

1.3 The Santa Barbara County Permit Coordination Program 

The Santa Barbara County Program followed the lead of the programs developed 

previously in different California counties, as mentioned above. This has resulted in an 

easier process in some respects, as the Program has benefited from the experience and 

lessons of past efforts. In other respects, it has been more difficult as, over time, the 

approach to permit coordination has changed fundamentally for some regulatory 

agencies as well as for NRCS itself. 

The Santa Barbara County Program is unique in several ways: 

Due to a different approach from the Regional Water Quality Control Board for 

assessing project impacts, this is the first time the “tiered” approach was 

required. The tiered approach (see Section 3 for details) resulted in the “Tiered 

Impacts Decision Tool” which allows placement of a project in one of four Tiers 

based on the level of project impacts. It remains to be seen if this approach will 

benefit on-the-ground project implementation. 

This is the first time the Corps of Engineers did not participate in Program 

development and did not issue a programmatic permit (also true for the San Luis 

Obispo Program). This could result in significant time delays because individual 

projects that require a Corps permit will need to undergo the typical project 

review process. 

NRCS (at the national level) decided to change its position on what constitutes a 

“federal nexus.” A federal nexus is required in order to consult with agencies 

that have jurisdiction over listed species under Section 7 of the Endangered 

Species Act (ESA). This would include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Services (NMFS). For past permit 

coordination programs, NRCS was the federal lead agency for listed species 

consultations for projects that were funded, approved, or carried out by NRCS. 

This allowed RCD projects, not receiving N RCS funding, to be covered under the 

federal Section 7 consultation process for listed species. With the recent policy 

changes, NRCS can only be the lead federal agency for projects that receive 

federal funding. Therefore, the resulting permits will not cover RCD projects. 

This situation will likely result in project delays for RCD projects where listed 

species could be impacted. 

This is the first time support from a County has been lacking. Despite lengthy 

negotiations and assurances, the County failed to issue a programmatic permit. 

This will most likely affect projects implemented in the coastal zone, where 

Coastal Commission approval will also be required for some projects. 

This is the first time that the installation of “new ponds” has been approved as 

one of the conservation practices. Implementation of this practice could assist in 

the recovery of the endangered California tiger salamander in Santa Barbara 

County. 

1.4 Regulatory Agencies and Programmatic Permits Issued 

3


When landowners seek assistance for a project from NRCS or CRCD, and if the project 

meets all the Program requirements, they can take advantage of the programmatic 

permits already in place to move their projects forward more quickly. For the Santa 

Barbara Program, 18 NRCS conservation practices from the Field Office Technical Guide 

(FOTG) have been conditioned and “pre-approved” by some of the regulatory agencies. 

These practices can be used for small, environmentally beneficial projects designed for 

erosion control, stream restoration, and wildlife habitat enhancements. 

Table 1 shows the participating agencies, their regulatory jurisdictions, dates permits 

were issued, and dates permits will expire. Four regulatory agencies participated in 

developing the Program; three of these have issued programmatic permits (NMFS, 

RWQCB, DFG). Although NRCS/ CRCD originally requested 5-year permits from all the 

agencies, NMFS and RWQCB issued a 10-year permit and DFG issued a 5-year 

agreement. CRCD has the option to request an extension to th e Streambed Alteration 

Agreement from DFG for an additional five years, and should do so before the expiration 

date of December 1, 2014. 

Appendix A contains each complete permit issued to date and contact information for 

agency staff. Also included in Appendix A is the Consultation Request (Biological 

Assessment) submitted to the USFWS, which contains useful information on listed 

plants, fish, and wildlife considered in the consultation, their distributions, critical 

habitat, and natural histories (this is not a permit). 

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) both participated fully in the Program, but only NMFS has issued a biological 

opinion (BO) for effects to listed federally endangered species (steelhead trout) for 

NRCS-funded projects. Because in is unclear when the USFWS will begin its review of 

NRCS‟s request for consultation, NRCS cannot count on having this BO in place within 

the near future. This will result in having to avoid all impacts to listed species or 

postponing projects until the BO has been issued. As mentioned above, projects without 

NRCS funding that meet the requirements of the Program will still require a permit 

from NMFS and USFWS when listed federal species are affected (see Section 5.3 for 

more information). 

1.5 Other Program Approvals Issued or Needed 

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 

CRCD is the lead agency for compliance with CEQA. As part of that process, 

CRCD prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MN D) in which short-term, 

temporary impacts resulting from installation of the practices, and proposed 

mitigation measures, were disclosed for public review and comment. A copy of 

the MND is on file with CRCD and should be reviewed by CRCD/ NRCS staff 

involved with the Program. Some of the practice descriptions and environmental 

protection contained in the MND have been modified to some extent by 

regulatory staff in their permits; therefore, the most recent descriptions and permit 

conditions are contained in this manual. 

Table 1. Participating Regulatory Agencies, Jurisdiction, 

and Programmatic Permits Issued 

Agency Jurisdiction Approval 

Mechanism 

4 

Date 

Issued 

Expires


National Marine 

Fisheries Service 

(NMFS) 

U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service 

(USFWS) 

Central Coast 

Regional Water 

Quality Control 

Board (RWQCB) 

California 

Department of 

Fish and Game 

(DFG) 

Projects that could affect 

federally listed steelhead 

trout or critical habitat 

Projects that could affect 

federally listed plants, fish, 

and wildlife or critical 

habitat 

Projects subject to the 

Corps of Engineers‟ 404 

permit requirements 

Projects in a stream bed, 

channel, or bank including 

associated riparian habitat 

County Planning and Development Department 

Biological Opinion 

for projects with 

NRCS funding 

Biological Opinion 

for projects with 

NRCS funding 

401 Water Quality 

Certification 

Streambed 

Alteration 

Agreement 

5 

May 7, 

2010 

Not issued; 

Pending 

date not 

known 

April 27, 

2009 

April 10, 

2010 

May 7, 

2020 

April 27, 

2019 

Dec 1, 

2014 

The Santa Barbara County Planning and Development Department (P&D) 

participated during much of the planning phases for the Program and were set to 

issue a Master permit; however, P&D decided to not issue a Master permit. 

Not related to permit coordination, NRCS has an existing exemption from the 

County for projects that are funded by NRCS and that meet specific planning 

requirements under NEPA. This exemption can also be used for permit 

coordination projects. In order to increase the effectiveness of this exemption, the 

County issued an amendment to include projects not funded by NRCS but which 

follow all the procedures set forth under the original exemption. Under the 

amended exemption, many of the Program practices would be exempt from 

County grading and land use requirements, but it remains unclear which types 

of projects would be exempt in the coastal zone and which would require a 

coastal development permit. Such a determination will be made on a case-bycase 

basis by NRCS/ CRCD. A copy of the original exemption and the 

amendment can be found in Appendix A. 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 

A project conducted in a stream that results in placement of “fill” in Waters of 

the U.S. or wetlands will require a 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers (Corps). A draft Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was developed 

with the Corps late in the process to expedite project review for Program 

practices; however, due to recent staff changes at the Corps, the MOA may or 

may not be approved. Until a decision is reached, permits from the Corps will 

need to be obtained on a project-by-project basis. More information on the Corps 

application process and related information can be found in Section 6 and 

Appendix L. 

California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Permit 

A California endangered species permit pursuant to CESA is required if state 

listed threatened or endangered species will be impacted by a project (see Section 

5.4 for more details).


Note: 

1. The Biological Opinions from NMFS and 

USFWS will only cover projects with 

NRCS funding. 

2. The Exemption issued by the County 

covers projects with and without NRCS 

funding but may not cover all practices, 

especially in the coastal zone. 

3. The Corps did not issue a permit for the 

Program, so permits for each project will 

be needed before working in stream areas 

regulated by the Corps. 

6


2.0 HOW LANDOWNERS QUALIFY FOR THE PROGRAM 

Landowners may qualify to use the programmatic permits if their projects fit the 

parameters established for the Program and if projects are overseen by the NRCS or 

CRCD. The basic categories to check first to determine if a project fits the Program 

requirements are: 

location of the project and land ownership; 

type of conservation practices to be installed; and 

size of the installed practices (linear feet, area, volume of soil disturbed) 

2.1 Location and Land Ownership 

Projects may be implemented on land zoned for agriculture along waterways and 

adjacent uplands within the four major river basins and their associated tributaries 

throughout Santa Barbara County (Santa Maria, Santa Ynez, San Antonio, and South 

Coast watersheds). Areas within the jurisdictions of NRCS (Santa Maria office) or CRCD 

that fall outside of Santa Barbara County are not included in this Program (they may be 

eligible for the permit coordination program established for San Luis Obispo County). 

The Program does not include projects in any of the following areas or habitats: 

coastal estuaries/ sloughs 

dunes and coastal strand 

vernal pools 

the Channel Islands 

federal, State, and local public lands; most significantly: 

the U.S. Forest Service (Los Padres National Forest) and 

the Department of Defense (Vandenberg Air Force Base) 

2.2 The 18 NRCS Conservation Practices, Size Limits, and Special 

Conditions 

Only the following 18 NRCS conservation practices are eligible for the Program. The 

first column contains practices typically installed in upland situations; the second 

column contains practices typically installed in streams: 

Upland Practices Stream Practices 

Access Road Improvements Channel Stabilization 

Diversion Grade Stabilization Structure 

Filter Strip Limited Vegetation Removal to Minimize 

Erosion (Clearing and Snagging) 

Grassed Waterway Critical Area Planting 

Irrigation System and Tailwater Restoration and Management of Sensitive 

Recovery 

Habitats 

Pipeline Stream Bank Protection 

Ponds Stream Habitat Improvement and 

Management 

Sediment Basin Stream Crossing 

Underground Outlet Structure for Water Control 

Table 2 describes these 18 conservation practices in detail. The “Additional Conditions” 

and “Size Limitations” for each practice may be different than what usually applies for 

7


these practices. However, because of these additional limitations, the practices were in 

essence “pre-approved” by the permitting agencies. It is the responsibility of the 

NRCS/ CRCD project manager for each project to know what the eligible practices are, 

the special conditions for each practice, and the size limits for each practice. A separate 

table of practice size limits is provided in Appendix B. 

Column 1 in Table 2 references the FOTG practice standard number that may be used to 

implement a particular practice. For some of the practices, more than one NRCS 

standard may be used; this is to ensure any cost-shared contracts will be covered. 

Not all of the practices described in Table 2 require permits from every agency or in 

every land use setting. As a general rule, all of the practices that take place in streams (or 

on the banks of streams) will require several permits. Many of the practices installed in 

uplands will not require a permit unless listed species are present in the project area. 

Note: 

1) Only the practices described or referenced in 

Table 2 may be considered for the Program, and 

each practice cannot exceed any of the maximum 

dimensions indicated. 

2) Not all of the practices in Table 2 require permits 

from every agency or in every land use setting. 

3) Practices installed in the coastal zone may 

require a coastal development permit from the 

County. 

4) If projects exceed the size criteria, landowners 

may be willing to decrease the scope of their 

projects in order to qualify for the Program. 

8

Practice Name 

(FOTG #) 


Table 2. Conservation Practices that may be Considered for Inclusion in the 

Santa Barbara County Permit Coordination Program 

Practice Description, Additional Conditions, and 

Size Limits of the Practice Installed 

Practices 1-9 primarily address excessive surface erosion from cultivated or grazed land, w ith the goal 

of preventing sediment and other pollutants from entering w aterw ays. 

1. Access Road 

Improvements 

(560) 

Improvements to an existing access road used for moving livestock, produce, 

and/ or equipment for proper property management while controlling runoff to 

prevent erosion and maintain or improve water quality. 

Access road improvements typically involve multiple installations spread out over 

a long reach of road. 

This practice involves minor regrading of previously disturbed soil and might 

include outsloping or the addition of a rolling dip to a road so that water is less 

erosive as it travels across the road. 

Additional Conditions: 

This practice is used only on existing access roads, with the following 

exception: an existing road may be relocated away from a natural 

watercourse in order to plant riparian vegetation as part of a stream 

corridor restoration plan; the preferred location of a new road is, in 

decreasing order of preference: 1) outside of a 100 foot setback; or 2) as far 

back as possible from the watercourse within the 100 foot setback. New 

roads outside or within a 100-foot setback will not be placed on slopes 

greater that 20%. 

Access road improvements will be performed only on private roads that do 

not serve as the primary access to habitable structures, unless the private 

road is the only access to the farm/ ranch. 

This practice does not include addition of asphalt or concrete to existing 

roads. 

This practice does not include widening roads or increasing their weightbearing 

capacity. 

This practice does not include construction of all-weather roads, fire break 

roads, or logging roads. 

Road improvements are modeled on the “Handbook for Forest and Ranch 

Roads: A Guide for planning, designing, constructing, reconstructing, 

maintaining and closing wildland roads,” by Weaver and Hagens. This 

manual contains descriptions of methods and designs to improve and 

maintain rural roads to correct problems associated with poor road 

placement and excessive runoff and erosion. 

Improvements carried out under this practice will not be done for the 

purpose of accommodating future development or as a precursor to 

intensification of land use. 

Landowners are encouraged to consult with the NRCS on any future 

agriculture development as a result of improvements to existing roads. 

Size Limitations 

Length: Ave: 1 mile; Max: 4 miles 

Area: Ave: 2 acres; Max: 6 acres 

9


2. Diversion (362) 

Soil disturbance: Ave: 1500 cy; Max: 3000 cy 

Construction of an earthen channel across a slope (much like a terrace) planted 

with grasses, from the Approved Plant List, to slow and redirect excess surface 

flow. 

This is an upland practice primarily performed on cultivated land as part of a 

resource management system to break up concentrations of water on long slopes, 

reduce damage from runoff, and divert water away from active gullies or critically 

eroding areas. 

This practice is often used to deliver water to a sediment basin or a flat, vegetated 

area where flow velocities are slowed before discharging into a stream channel. 


This practice does not involve the diversion of water from a waterway or 

redirection of flow to a different waterway. 

This practice does not result in a change in volume of flow or flow 

reduction to surface waters. 

Diversion of upland water will not prevent entry into a wetland or convert 

a wetland by changing the hydrology. 

Each diversion must have a safe and stable outlet that conveys runoff to a 

point where outflow will not cause damage to a natural watercourse. 

Vegetative outlets or sediment basins, when required, will be installed and 

established prior to installation of a diversion. 

Size Limitations per property: 

Length (farmland): Ave: 5000 ft; Max: 10,000 ft; 

Area (farmland): Ave: 1.5 acres; Max: 2.5 acres 

Soil disturbance (farmland): Ave: 1500 cy; Max: 3000 cy 

Width: 10 ft; Depth: 2.5 ft 

Length (rangeland): Ave: 1000 ft: Max: 2500 ft 

Area (rangeland): Ave: 0.5 acre: Max: 1.25 acres 

Soil disturbance (rangeland): Ave: 300 cy; Max: 750 cy 

Width: 10 ft; Depth: 2.5 ft 

3. Filter Strip (393) A strip of herbaceous vegetation, planted between cropland, grazing land, or 

disturbed land and watercourses. 

This practice applies when planned as part of a conservation management system 

and is used at the lower edges of fields to remove sediment, organic matter, and 

other pollutants from runoff prior to entering streams. 

Filter strips are also used to provide permanent herbaceous vegetation to enhance 

habitat for wildlife and beneficial insects, and/ or to maintain or enhance 

watershed function. 


Filter strips may be installed within a 100 foot setback; however, existing 

riparian vegetation will not be removed in order to install a filter strip. 

Vegetation planted for a filter strip will be non -invasive species chosen 

from the Approved Plant List. 

Filter strips may contain non-native plant species within a 100 foot setback 

only under the following conditions: 1) existing cultivated or range land is 

already within the setback or at the immediate edge of the setback; 2) the 

filter strip will be installed outside the edge of existing riparian vegetation. 

10

4. Grassed 

Waterw ay 

(412) 


5. Irrigation 

System and 

Tailw ater 

Recovery (447) 

Native plants shall be preferred and any non-native vegetation shall come 


Size Limitations: 

Length: Ave: 1 mile: Max: 2 miles 

Area: Ave: 2 acres: Max: 3.5 acres 

Soil disturbance: Max: Less than 50 cy 

A natural or constructed earthen channel or swale established with suitable 

vegetation for the stable movement of excessive runoff. 

This practice is used to convey runoff from diversions, terraces, or other 

concentrated water sources, to reduce gully erosion, reduce sediment delivered to 

receiving waters, and improve water quality downstream. 

Grassed waterways are usually installed on cultivated land and field ditches 

adjacent to cultivated land. 

Additional Conditions : 

Grassed waterways will not divert water out of the natural sub-watershed. 

Rarely, grassed waterways may be installed within a 100 foot setback, 

however, existing riparian vegetation, if present, will not be removed in 

order to install a grassed waterway. 

Vegetation planted for a grassed waterway will be non -invasive species 

chosen from the Approved Plant List. 

Grassed waterways may contain non-native, non-invasive plant species 

within a 100 foot setback only under the following conditions: 1) existing 

cultivated or range land is already within the setback or at the immediate 

edge of the setback; 2) the grassed waterway will be installed outside the 

edge of existing riparian vegetation. 




Length (farmland): Ave: 2500 ft; Max: 4000 ft 

Area (farmland): Ave: 2 acres; Max: 5 acres 

Soil disturbance (farmland): Ave: 3200 cy; Max: 8000 cy 

Width: 30 ft Depth: Ave: 1 ft; Max: 3 ft 

Length (in field ditches): Ave: 2500 ft; Max: 1 mile 

Area (in field ditches): Ave: 0.5 acre; Max: 1.5 acres 

Soil disturbance (in field ditches): Ave: 800 cy; Max: 2400 cy 

Width: Ave: 8 ft; Max: 12 ft 

Depth: Ave: 1 foot; Max: 3 feet 

A practice designed to capture excess irrigation water, provide temporary water 

storage, and redistribute water back to the system for reuse. 

This practice may be applied as part of a conservation management system to 

conserve irrigation water and improve offsite water quality. 


Nutrient management measures, pest management measures, and 

irrigation system management are essential components of this practice, 

11


and will be planned and implemented to limit chemical-laden tailwater as 

much as practical. 

This practice may include pump house structures; when required, these 

will not exceed 120 ft 2 . 

Basins and pump houses may be placed within a 100 foot setback, but only 

when the farmable or grazing area is already within a 100 foot setback; 

existing riparian vegetation will not be removed in order to install a 

tailwater recovery basin or pump house. 

All pump intakes will be screened. 

Storage basins will be sized to provide adequate retention time for the 

breakdown of chemicals contained in runoff. 

Seepage of chemical-laden water from a storage facility will be controlled 

to the extent possible by using natural soil liners, commercial liners or 

other approved methods. 


Length: N/A 

Area of temporary storage basin: Max: 0.5 acre 

Soil disturbance: Max: 6500 cy 

6. Pipeline (516) A pipeline is used for conveying water from a source of supply to points of use to 

shift livestock to constructed water sources away from streams. 

Generally, buried pipelines are installed in upland areas. Occasionally, a pipeline 

may cross a stream; when this is necessary, pipelines will be buried to an 

appropriate depth to maintain channel and bank stability, and will minimize 

impacts to riparian habitat. In areas where channels are deeply incised and the 

substrate does not allow burying pipe easily (boulder/ cobble), pipelines may be 

suspended across a channel and attached to posts on the banks; posts will be 

placed to avoid impacts to riparian vegetation. 


This practice will not provide water for human consumption, recreation, or 

construction activities. 

This practice will rely on an existing source of water supply. 

Drafting of creek surface water is not allowed; pumping of underground 

water must be from a well or wells within the maximum permitted rate 

under a landowner‟s valid water rights permit. 

If booster pumps are required, pumps will not be located within a 100 foot 

setback, except for pumps associated with existing wells; any new pump 

house will not be greater than 12 feet high and will be constructed of non - 

reflective material. 

If installed in a stream, this practice will not include installation of grouted 

rock, headwalls or the like. 

Pipelines will discharge in upland area(s) which are the most ecologically 

degraded suitable sites, whenever feasible. 

Water conveyed through pipelines shall be directed to encourage cattle 

grazing out of sensitive riparian areas or other important habitats. 


Length (on rangeland): Ave: 2 miles; Max: 5 miles 

Area (on rangeland): Ave: 0.5 acre; Max: 1 acre 

12

7. Ponds (378) 


Soil disturbance (on rangeland): Ave: 800 cy; Max: 2000 cy 

Width: 4 ft; Depth: 1 ft; Pipe Diameter: Max: 2 inches 

Length (instream/ riparian zone): Ave: 100 ft; Max: 200 ft 

Area (instream/ riparian zone): Ave: 100 ft 2 ; Max: 200 ft 2 

Soil disturbance (instream/ riparian zone): Ave: 15 cy; Max: 30 cy 

Width: 4 ft; Depth: 1 ft; Pipe Diameter: Max: 2 inches 

A water impoundment made by constructing an embankment or by excavating a 

pit or dugout. 

This practice will be used to install new ponds and to restore existing ponds; 

ponds serve as part of a grazing management system to provide alternative water 

sources for livestock away from sensitive riparian areas and to create habitat for 

targeted species such as California tiger salamanders, California red -legged frogs, 

and other protected/ rare species. 

Pond restoration primarily involves removing sediment and repairing spillways 

and embankments; occasionally this may include complete replacement of 

embankments. These activities do not include any increase in the original storage 

capacity of a pond or increases in other dimensions such as height of existing 

embankments. Without appropriate pond maintenance, ponds no longer serve 

their intended purposes, do not provide wildlife habitat and, when embankments 

eventually fail, large amounts of sediment are delivered to downstream receiving 

waters. 


New ponds will be installed offstream on rangeland located in upland 

areas; water will be supplied only from rainwater or sheet flow (no 

groundwater pumping); and NRCS assumes liability for proper 

functioning of engineered embankments and follows the NRCS review and 

certification process. 

This practice will not provide water for irrigation, human consumption, 

recreation, or construction activities. 

If excavated material is spread on adjacent uplands it will not exceed 1 foot 

in height. 

Pond construction and restoration will require a landowner have a valid 

water rights permit. If a landowner does not have a valid water rights 

permit, this practice will not be allowed u nder the Project. 

DFG and FWS will condition activities to avoid and minimize potential 

impacts to listed species; landowners assume responsibility for creating 

new habitat for listed species. 

Pond restoration will occur when the pond is dry or when stream flow is at 

its lowest level. 

During pond restoration, the maximum feasible amount and a percentage 

of the native vegetated shoreline of the pond will be left intact, based on 

how much native habitat is currently present. 

Pond embankments will be vegetated with native plants appropriate to site 

conditions if in a stream; non-invasive plants from the Approved Plant List 

may be used in upland areas. 

During pond regrading, a shallow bench/ terrace around the pond will be 

left intact or installed if none exists. 

13


8. Sediment Basin 

(350) 

The minimum grade of finished slopes for ponds will be 2:1. 



Size limitations (new ponds): 

Length: N/A 

Area : Ave: 0.25 acre; Max: 0.5 acre 

Soil disturbance : Ave: 3000 cy; Max: 6000 cy 

Size limitations (pond restoration): 

Length: N/A 

Area : Ave: 1 acre; Max: 1.5 acre 

Soil disturbance: Ave: 10,000 cy; Max: 15,000 cy 

A basin constructed to collect and store debris or sediment. 

This practice applies where physical conditions or land ownership preclude 

treating the sediment source by installing erosion control measures to keep soil in 

place. 

Sediment basins will trap sediment, sediment associated pollutants, and other 

debris and prevent undesirable deposition on bottomlands and in streams. Basins 

are generally located at the base of agricultural lands adjacent to a natural 

drainage. 


Sediment basins will not be constructed in a stream channel or other 

permanent water body. 

Basins near watercourses shall be located at least 100 feet from the top of 

creek bank or the edge of riparian habitat, whichever is further, to the 

maximum extent feasible. 

Basins may be placed within a 100 foot setback, but only when the 

farmable area or grazed area is already within a 100 foot setback; existing 

riparian vegetation will not be removed in order to install a sediment 

basin. 

Basins are usually partially below grade and embankments are planted 

with appropriate vegetation. 

Basins are designed to release water at a natural flow rate (often by 

installing an Underground Outlet, see below). 

When a basin outlets directly to a natural watercourse, appropriate energy 

dissipaters are installed to slow velocities and prevent scour These 

structures will not include grouted rock, headwalls and the like installed 

below the ordinary high water mark. 




Length: N/A 

14


9. Underground 

Outlet (620) 

Area: Ave: 0.3 acre; Max: 0.5 acre 


Embankment Height: Ave: 4 ft; Max: 8 ft 

A conduit installed underground to collect excess surface water and carry it to a 

suitable outlet. 

This practice applies where a system is needed to dispose of excess water 

generated by farmland on steep slopes without causing erosion or flooding. 

Underground outlets are often installed as part of a water management system 

with upland diversions, terraces, or sediment basins to collect excess runoff and 

prevent erosive surface flow. 


Underground Outlets may be used with Diversions, Grassed Waterways, 

and/ or Sediment Basins to address surface erosion; see descriptions and 

maximum dimensions associated with those practices. 

When a pipe outlets directly to a natural watercourse, appropriate energy 

dissipaters are installed to slow velocities and prevent scour These 

structures will not include grouted rock, headwalls and the like installed 

below the ordinary high water mark. 

Underground outlets will only be installed in upland settings and will not 

be used to dewater springs, seeps or wetlands. 

Underground outlets shall only be used when vegetative solutions to 

erosion are not feasible or are not effective. 


Length: Ave: 600 ft; Max: 1500 ft 



Width: 5 ft; Depth: 5 ft. 

Practices 10-18 primarily address excessive stream erosion and deposition, w ith the goal of 

maintaining or restoring natural stream corridor stability and enhancing native plant communities 

and fish and w ildlife populations. 

10. Channel 

Stabilization (584, 

410) 

This practice applies to stream channels undergoing damaging aggradation or 

degradation that cannot be reasonably controlled by upland Practices alone 

(establishment of vegetation, installation of bank protection, or installation of 

upstream water control devices). 

Measures that may be used to stabilize the bed or bottom of a channel include 

installation of instream structures such as grade stabilization structures (see Grade 

Stabilization Structure practice) to control large gullies caused by headcutting, 

limited removal of sand or sediment that have caused the channel to become 

plugged due to a large storm event or bank failure; and channel reshaping as 

needed under the Stream Habitat Improvement and Management practice. 


Allowable structures include loose rock checks, rock buried at grade 

(keyways), timbers, and willow layering. 

Concrete, grouted rock, and gabions are not allowed. 

Planting native vegetation on the banks is incorporated with this practice. 

Removal of accumulated sand or sediment that has caused the channel to 

15


11. Grade 

Stabilization 

Structure (410) 

become plugged will be permitted one time only at any given location 

when it is causing bank erosion or threatening infrastructure. Routine 

maintenance involving dredging of a waterway is not permitted. 

Minor repairs to installations that have failed, are allowed. 

This practice shall only be implemented when creeks are dry (i.e. no 

surface water present), if feasible. 


If channel stabilization is achieved w ith grade stabilization structures – 

(see Grade Stabilization Structure practice for dimensions) 

If channel stabilization is achieved w ith sediment removal – 

Length: Ave: 300 ft; Max: 500 



A structure used to control the grade and prevent or stop headcutting. 

This practice applies where the concentration and flow velocity of water require 

structures to stabilize the grade in channels or to control gully erosion. Special 

attention is given to maintaining or improving stream function and wildlife 

habitat. 


This practice falls into Tier IV of the Environmental Protection Measures. 

Structures installed above grade will not be installed in steelhead 

streams. Keyways (rock buried at grade) are allowed in steelhead streams. 

Structures installed above grade will not be installed in the coastal zone. 

Keyways (rock buried at grade) are allowed in the coastal zone. 

Structures will not impede wildlife movement. 

Structures will be installed only when other channel stabilization measures 

are not feasible. 

Structures may include loose rock checks, timbers, and willow layering. 

Concrete, grouted rock, and gabions are not allowed. 

This practice incorporates planting native vegetation on channel banks. 


Loose rock checks are the largest structures that will be installed (see 

dimensions, below); dimensions for wood or plant material would be 

smaller: 

Length: Ave: 3 structures per 500 ft of channel or gully; 

Max: 10 structures per 1000 ft of channel or gully 


Soil disturbance: Ave: 900 cy (300 cy per structure*) 

Max: 3000 cy (300 cy per structure*) 

* Grading dimensions are for actual structure (max 50 cy) and temporary work 

in channel (250 cy) 

Drop height (from top of structure to downstream toe): 

Max: 4 ft (for 3 structures in 500 ft of channel) 

Max: 2 ft (for 10 structures in 1000 ft of channel) 

16


12. Limited 

Vegetation 

Removal to 

Minimize Erosion 

(Clearing and 

Snagging) 

(326, 500) 

13. Critical Area 

Planting (342) 

The practice (using NRCS standard #326) will be used to remove dead, uprooted 

vegetation from a channel which may accumulate in large amounts after a storm, 

plugging a channel or deflecting water towards banks or infrastructure; to remove 

fallen trees and other obstructions from a channel if these are causing detrimental 

bed or bank erosion; and to remove a limited amount of channel vegetation to 

prevent failure of a structure such as a culvert. 


Hand tools will be used whenever possible to remove debris or perform 

selective trimming. Heavy equipment in a channel will only be used to 

remove large objects (e.g. cars, appliances, concrete, using NRCS standard 

#500) when access with a crane is not possible from the top of the bank; 

approval by DFG of use of heavy equipment in the channel shall be 

required on a project-specific basis. 

Trimming willows, if required, will be accomplished in a way that retains a 

shaded tunnel-like effect. 

Whenever possible, willows will be limbed up into single trunk trees to 

reduce channel obstruction. 

Removed willow and cottonwood cuttings will be used on-site for erosion 

protection and to interplant open areas to provide shade and cover. 

Habitat forming elements that provide cover, food, pools, and water 

turbulence, when present, will be retained when not causing bank or bed 

erosion, or replaced in a nearby stream location where they will not cause 

bed or bank erosion. 


Removing native or non-native vegetation to protect eroding bank or 

infrastructure: 

Length: Ave: 50 ft; Max: 100 ft 

Area: Ave: 500 ft 2 Max: 0.05 acre 

Soil disturbance: N/ A (no grading required) 

This practice is used to stabilize the soil, reduce damage from sediment and runoff 

to downstream areas, and improve wildlife habitat and visual resources. 

Typically this practice is used after installation of other practices (e.g., Stream Bank 

Protection) or to restore degraded sites such as gullies or deep rills or land 

disturbed by past oil development. 


Native plants characteristic of the local habitat type will be used for this 

practice within the stream corridor, with the following exceptions: non - 

persistent, non-invasive grass species such as barley grass and others from 

the Approved Plant List may be used as nurse crops or for temporary 

erosion control benefits until natives are established. Non-native plants 

from the Approved Plant List may be installed in upland areas to repair 

degraded sites. 

When installing or maintaining this practice above the ordinary high water 

mark, a filter fabric fence, fiber rolls and/ or rice or straw bales will be used, 

if needed, to keep sediment from flowing into the adjacent water body; 

when vegetation is sufficiently mature to provide erosion control, it may be 

appropriate to remove these structures. 


17


14. Restoration 

and Management 

of Sensitive 

Habitats (643, 382, 

614) 

15. Stream Bank 

Protection (580) 


The use of biodegradable materials and removal of non -biodegradable 

materials at the conclusion of the project is required. 


Stream bank – Length: Ave: 1500 ft; Max: 2500 ft 

Area: Ave: 0.5 acre; Max: 1 acre 

Soil disturbance: N/A 

(Planting on stream banks is usually preceded by stabilizing the bank first; 

see Stream Bank Protection practice for soil disturbance limits) 

Upland gullies - Length: N/A 

Area: Ave: 3 acres; Max: 5 acres 


This practice is used to control invasive plant species, manage rangeland to 

enhance native grasslands and prevent livestock impacts to riparian and wetland 

habitats. 

Specifically, this practice includes 1) removing invasive plant species from creeks 

(using NRCS practice standard #643); and 2) installing cross-fencing (using NRCS 

practice standard #382) and stockwater systems (using NRCS practice standard 

#614), as part of a grazing management system designed to protect riparian habitat 

and native grasslands. 


Removal of invasive plant species will be done by hand; any use of 

herbicides will follow approved manufacturer protocols and limitations by 

regulatory agencies (see Environmental Protection Measures). 

Removal of exotic plant species to enhance native grasslands is covered as 

part of a grazing management system designed to protect native grasslands 

and therefore shall be allowed . 

Fencing for active management of cattle rotation to enhance native 

grasslands (i.e. increase native species diversity or percent cover) shall be 

considered. 


Instream invasive plant removal – 

Length: Ave: 500 ft: Max: 2000 ft 

Area: Ave: 0.5 acre: Max: 2.5 acres 


Cross fencing -- Length: Ave: 2 miles: Max: 5 miles 

Area : N/A 


Top wire: not higher than 4 ft; Bottom wire: 15” from 

ground 

Treatments used to stabilize and protect banks of streams. This practice is used to 

prevent excessive loss of land where stream banks are eroding, to reduce the 

offsite or downstream effects of sediment resulting from bank erosion, and to 

18


16. Stream 

Habitat 

Improvement and 

Management (395, 

396, 410, 587, 342, 

391) 

improve or enhance the stream corridor for fish and wildlife. All treatments are 

designed to consider the changes that may occur in the watershed hydrology and 

sedimentation over the design life of the treatments. 


All bank protection projects are carefully analyzed for cause. Banks will be 

stabilized only if they are the source of excessive erosion and sediment 

yields to streams or to protect infrastructure such as roads, culverts, or 

residences. 

Stabilizing banks using vegetation and bioen gineering methods are the 

preferred options (may include toe rock as specified in Corps Regional 

General Permit 70); using rock above the toe may be needed in certain 

circumstances but will require additional agency review (see 

Environmental Protection Measures, Tier IV). 

Grouted rock and concrete are not permitted. 

If rock is used above the toe, native riparian vegetation grown from plants 

in the watershed vicinity and appropriate to the site conditions will be 

incorporated within and above the rock. 


Bioengineered – Length: Ave: 1000 ft; Max: 2000 ft 

Area: Ave: 1 acre; Max: 2.3 acres 


Ungrouted rock – Length: Ave: 300 ft; Max: 500 ft 

Max: up to 150 feet in length without peer review, up to 250 feet in length with 

peer review, and if over 250 feet, not allowed under the practice. 

Area: Ave: 0.1 acre; Max: 0.2 acres 


Maintain, improve, or restore the physical, chemical, and biological functions of a 

stream. 

This practice applies to streams where habitat deficiencies limit survival, growth, 

reproduction, and/ or diversity of aquatic species in relation to the potential of the 

stream. 

This practice may include the use of component practices to 1) remove structures 

that are barriers to fish passage (using NRCS standard #396); 2) add habitat 

features for steelhead such as rock weirs, boulder clusters, or root wads (using 

NRCS standard #410 or #587); or 3) plant native riparian vegetation on stream 

banks (using NRCS standard #342 or #391). 


Barrier removal or modification will be designed and implemented in 

accordance with the California Salmonid Stream Habitat Restoration Manual 

and in coordination with NMFS. 


This practice is limited to a maximum stream length of 3000 ft; within that 

length, the following activities may occur: barrier removal, placement of 

habitat structures, and planting riparian vegetation. 

19

17. Stream 

Crossing 

(578) 


Barrier removal - Length: Ave: 50 ft; Max: 100 ft 



Install rock weirs – Length: Max: 3 structures per 500 ft of stream 

Area: Max: 0.2 acre; 

Soil disturbance: Max: 900 cy (300 cy per structure*) 

Drop height: Max: 2 ft (measured from weir to 

downstream toe) 

Jump height: Max: 1 ft (fish jump height to get 

upstream of structure during high flows) 

* Reflects actual size of structure (50 cy per structure) and temporary work area 

in the channel (250 cy per structure) 

Planting riparian vegetation - Length: Ave: 1500 ft; Max: 2500 ft 

Area: Ave: 0.5 acre; Max: 1 acre 


(Soil disturbance reflects the need to reconfigure banks before planting) 

A stable area or structure constructed across a stream to provide access for people, 

livestock, equipment, or vehicles. 

This practice is used to improve water quality by reducing sediment, nutrient, 

organic, and inorganic inputs to the stream; reduce stream bank and streambed 

erosion; and provide access to another land unit. 

This practice will be used to replace or modify existing crossings only, not to 

construct a new stream crossing where none currently exists. Typically, this 

practice is used to install fish-friendly crossings and is preceded by removal of a 

fish passage barrier (Stream Habitat Improvement and Management, see above). 

Fish-friendly crossings are typically replacements of undersized or perched 

culverts or replacement of a ford or culvert with a bridge. 


This practice falls into Tier IV of the Environmental Protection Measures. 

In steelhead streams, bridges, bottomless arch culverts, embedded culverts, 

or other fish-friendly designs are required. 

New or replacement culverts in resident and anadromous Steelhead habitat shall 

incorporate “fish friendly” design pursuant to DFG or FWS (e.g., bottomless arch 

design, etc) 

Bridges will not be replaced with fords or culverts. 

The maximum grading limits for this practice (1000 cy), includes all 

placement of fill associated with bridge or culvert construction, including, 

but not limited to, bridge abutments/ piles, wing walls, bridge deck, rock 

slope protection, and minor road realignments. Actual project size for 

excavation and grading may be larger than 1000 cy based on the size of the 

barrier that requires removal prior to installing a culvert or bridge and/ or 

potential need for instream re-grading and/ or placement of keyways (atgrade 

structures for channel stabilization) up - or downstream of the 

crossing (see Stream Habitat Improvement and Management and Channel 

Stabilization practices). 

Culvert and bridge projects will require prior review and approval by the 

following County and City departments: Flood Control District, Building 

and Safety, appropriate Fire Departments. Any additional conditions 

20


18. Structure for 

Water Control 

(587) 

required by these departments will be incorporated into the project design. 

No unformed or unset concrete shall be used in structures. 

Size Limitations (bridge installment): 

Length: Max: 100 ft 

Area: Ave:: 0.1 acre (finished crossing footprint); 

Max: 0.25 acre (includes temporary work area) 

Soil disturbance: Max: 1000 cy 

A structure in an irrigation, drainage, or other water management system, that 

conveys water, controls the direction or rate of flow, or maintains a desired surface 

elevation. 

This practice will be used to replace, modify, or install new culverts in nonsteelhead 

streams and drainages such as under existing access roads. 

This practice also includes water control structures such as pipe drop inlets, stand 

pipes, and pump boxes. 


New culverts will not be installed in perennial streams. 

New culverts will only be installed in drainages that have runoff rates of 

80 cubic feet per second (cfs) or less for a 10 year, 24 hour storm event. If 

runoff rates exceed that amount, new culverts will require individual 

permits. 

Replacement of existing culverts may occur in perennial streams and may 

include replacing undersized, eroding culverts with properly sized 

culverts. 

Other water control structures: Pump boxes are installed within existing 

irrigation systems; for example, to pump water from a tailwater recovery 

basin back into the irrigation system. 


New or modified culvert - Length: Ave: 50 ft; Max: 100 ft 



New culvert – 80 cfs or less for a 10 year, 24 hour storm 

2.3 Contracts and Agreements 

Landowners whose projects qualify for the Program must sign a Cooperator Agreement. 

This agreement acknowledges their responsibility for complying with all of the permit 

conditions and NRCS design and installation standards and specifications for the 

practices. The project manager is responsible for ensuring the landowner understands 

fully all the conditions in the Cooperator Agreement prior to obtaining signatures (see 

Section 4.4). If a landowner receives NRCS funding, an EQIP contract or other contract 

as appropriate is also required. 

2.4 Accountability: Roles and Responsibilities 

The permits and agreements that are issued by the regulatory agencies authorize 

activities that fall within the parameters established for the Program. While this 

21


coordination makes the permit process much simpler for the landowner, it places 

additional responsibilities on NRCS and CRCD staff to include regulatory conditions in 

project planning and notification, designs and specifications, monitoring for compliance, 

and reporting results of installed projects to the agencies, among others. 

Compliance with programmatic permits will take place at two levels, one with 

individual landowners (or organizations), who will be implementing projects on their 

property, and the other with CRCD as the Program sponsor. CRCD will be responsible 

for administering the Program with NRCS technical assistance, while NRCS will be 

responsible for administering actions involving federal funds. However, individual 

landowners will be ultimately responsible for complying with conditions of the programmatic 

permits. 

22


Blank Page 

23


Table 3. Summary of Roles and Responsibilities of 

NRCS/CRCD and Participating Landowners 

NRCS/CRCD Landowner (Organization) 

Before Construction 

Planning CRCD decides which projects are 

eligible for the Program with 

technical input from NRCS; NRCS 

and CRCD oversee planning and 

design 

Contracts Cost-share contract (if applicable) Cooperator Agreement 

Training Mandatory for all staff involved 

with the Program 

Notification Prepares and submits preconstruction 

notifications to 

regulatory agencies 

During 

Construction 

Monitoring Monitors project implementation to 

ensure compliance with standards 

and design specifications and 

permit conditions (other m onitors 

are required for listed species 

protection as specified in biological 

opinions and/ or DFG) 

After Construction 

Maintenance 

and Monitoring 

Inspects installed projects as needed 

during the rainy season; performs 

formal status reviews of projects 

annually for 5 years (includes status 

of any required revegetation) 

Reporting CRCD (with technical input and 

support from NRCS) prepares and 

submits annual reports to regulatory 

agencies 

24 

Mandatory for all landowners, 

managers, contractors, subcontractors, 

and organizations involved with the 

Program 

Responsible for compliance with plan 

standards and design specifications 

and all permit conditions 

Performs maintenance when required 

by the practice standard to ensure 

proper functioning of the practice, 

including any required revegetation


Blank Page 

25


3.0 PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION MEASURES 

3.1 Tiered Environmental Protection Measures 

The Environmental Protection Measures have been placed into tiers based on level of 

impact a project may have on resources during construction. Figure 1, the Tiered 

Impacts Decision Tool, shows how to decide which projects fall within which tier. Using 

this tool, projects are placed into one of four tiers, as follows: 

Tier I – Projects occurring in upland areas (generally on cultivated or grazed land), 

where work in streams/ riparian habitat does not occur and where no listed threatened 

or endangered species or critical habitat occur. 

Tier II -- Projects occurring in a stream and/ or riparian habitat, but with no listed 

threatened or endangered species or critical habitat; use of rock bank protection, g rade 

stabilization structures, or stream crossings are not permitted in this tier. 

Tier III – Projects occurring in a stream and/ or riparian habitat or in upland situations 

where listed threatened or endangered species or critical habitat occur; use of rock bank 

protection, grade stabilization structures, or stream crossings are not permitted in this 

tier. 

Tier IV – Stream projects that use rock bank protection, grade stabilization structures, or 

stream crossings and where listed threatened or endangered species or critical habitat 

may or may not occur. 

Note: 

Projects in higher tiers must incorporate 

protection measures contained in lower tiers, as 

applicable. 

26


Blank Page 

27


Project affects stream 

bed, channel, or bank, 

and/ or riparian habitat 

Project uses rock 

stream bank 

protection, grade 

stabilization structures, 

or replaces a barrier 

with fish-friendly 

crossing 

Listed species or 

critical habitat present 

Figure 1. Tiered Impacts Decision Tool 

YES 

YES 

NO 

28 

YES 

YES 

NO 

NO 

YES 

NO 

NO 

NO 

TIER IV TIER III TIER II TIER I 

Note: 

Any project that has listed species onsite or could 

impact listed species adjacent to the site, is 

automatically placed in Tier III or IV.


Blank Page 

29


In addition to the Environmental Protection Measures, compliance with the regulatory 

permit conditions will be key to successful implementation of the Program. While some 

of the permit conditions are the same or very similar to the Environmental Protection 

Measures, others are in addition to the protection measures. 

For purposes of this handbook, the permit conditions required by the regulatory 

agencies have been included alongside the Program‟s Environmental Protection 

Measures, but have been identified in bold with the regulatory agency name in 

parentheses. The complete permits or approvals from each regulatory agency are 

provided in Appendix A. 

3.2 General Approach for All Projects 

The regulatory agencies have different jurisdictions and mandates for protecting natural 

and cultural resources; however, they all share a common approach mandated by their 

empowering legislation. This approach is based on the following strategy for resource 

protection, and should be incorporated into the planning process for projects 

implemented under the Program: 

Avoid Impacts. Always try to avoid an impact whenever possible. For example, 

use existing access and staging areas, and site and design projects to avoid 

impacts as much as possible to native vegetation, wetlands, and/ or protected 

species. This may result in a longer fence or pipeline, but will probably save time 

and money in the long run by keeping the project in Tier I and avoiding the need 

for specialists to conduct surveys and monitoring. 

Minimize Impacts. If sensitive resources cannot be avoided completely, site and 

design projects to minimize the impacts to those resources. For example, disturb 

the least amount of riparian vegetation possible and restrict use of “hard” 

structures such as rock on stream banks. 

Mitigate for Unavoidable Impacts. The projects implemented under the 

Program are generally considered to be “self-mitigating” because they will result 

in net environmental benefits to water quality, habitat, and/ or protected species. 

However, the regulatory agencies require mitigation even for short-term, 

temporary impacts (usually this will consist of revegetating areas that were 

disturbed during construction). The more a project design can avoid and 

minimize temporary disturbances, the less the operator w ill need to restore 

through revegetation and monitoring (saving time and money). 

If a project results in permanent impacts, more mitigation will be required. 

Complete loss of habitat, where revegetation is not possible, is usually 

considered a permanent impact (e.g., rock bank protection above the toe; concrete 

piers as part of a bridge project). 

3.3 Regulatory Permit Conditions and Environmental Protection Measures 

This section describes in detail the Environmental Protection Measures and permit 

conditions for each Tier. It is divided into a number of project components that take into 

account requirements before ground disturbance begins, during construction, and after 

construction is completed. Since Tier I projects will generally result in the fewest impacts 

to biological and cultural resources, fewer protection measures are required. As Tier 

level increases, more protection measures and permit conditions are also required. 

30


3.3.1 Planning Tools 

Tier I 

Project design, implementation, m onitoring, and maintenance shall follow the mandated 

9-step NRCS planning process (see Section 4). 

Tier II 

No additional restrictions. 

Tier III 

If work is to be performed in steelhead habitat, NRCS/ CRCD shall use other 

appropriate planning tools such as the California Salmonid Stream Habitat Restoration 

Manual (DFG), Culvert Criteria for Fish Passage (DFG, April 2003), and Guidelines for 

Salmonid Passage at Stream Crossings (NMFS, September 2001). See Appendix C. 

Tier IV 

Evaluating stream bank protection incorporating rock, grade stabilization structures 

using rock, and stream crossing replacement or modification, shall include the “ Primer 

on Stream and River Protection” (RWQCB, San Francisco Bay Region, 2003) as an 

assessment tool. This evaluation includes potential effects up- and downstream, flow 

conditions that could result in increased erosion, deposition, or flooding, and creation of 

stable channel conditions appropriate to the site, among others (see Appendix D). 

3.3.2 Site Assessment and Pre-construction Surveys 


Biological Resources 

Initial site assessments shall be carried out by a certified conservation planner. The 

conservation planner shall evaluate whether characteristic habitat for special status 

species occurs in proposed work areas. 

If habitat or potential habitat for listed species is found in the project area or listed 

species are known to occur in the project area, conditions described in Tier III shall be 

implemented. 

If rare plant species or species of state or local concern are found in the project area, they 

shall be subject to protection measures outlined by DFG and/ or California Native Plant 

Society (CNPS) Mitigation Guidelines (see Appendix E) to avoid and/ or minimize 

potential impacts. 

Cultural Resources 

Trained NRCS staff (with certification to conduct initial evaluations) shall follow the 

protocols approved by the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to protect cultural 

resources (see Appendix F). 


Breeding Bird Surveys 

If vegetation must be removed between March 1 st and August 15 th , a qualified 

biologist shall conduct surveys for nesting birds (DFG). If any active nests are found, a 

300-foot exclusion zone (500 feet for raptors) shall be established and maintained to 

protect the nest until the qualified individual verifies that birds have fledged or the nest 

is abandoned. NRCS/ CRCD may request exceptions to size requirements for exclusion 

31


zones from DFG on a case-by-case basis. Take of active nests is prohibited. If a listed 

bird species is found, see Tier III survey requirements (DFG). 

Wetlands 

If potential wetlands are identified in the project area, wetland delineations may need to 

be performed during the site evaluation stage to assist in avoiding impacts to wetlands. 

This information is also used later when reporting to the Corps of Engineers and other 

regulatory agencies on the impact of project activities. 

The methodology for conducting delineations, when required, will be determined with 

the Corps. The Corps‟ method requires more field data collection than the USDA Food 

Securities Act Wetland Determination method and also requires a larger scale mapping 

convention. NRCS/ CRCD employees performing delineations for the permit 

coordination program must have Reg IV training. NRCS also requires that employees 

doing determinations/ delineations have Food Security Act Wetland Training. For all 

wetland delineations, the landowner must sign the Request for Certified Wetland 

Delineation (form NRCS - CPA – 38) prior to conducting the delineation. 


If habitat for listed species is found in the project area, a qualified individual (preapproved 

by the USFWS, NMFS, and/ or DFG) shall complete a pre-construction survey 

to determine if species or habitat will be disturbed by planned activities. This individual 

shall use approved USFWS protocols to conduct the surveys of each site identified 

during the initial assessment as containing potential habitat OR assume presence of the 

species if representative habitat is present (in lieu of conducting protocol-level surveys). 

CRCD certifies by signing the Streambed Alteration Agreement that surveys for 

listed rare, threatened or endangered species shall be conducted as required by the 

USFWS, NMFS, and/or DFG. All measures described in the biological opinions 

issued by the USFWS and NMFS and conditions required by DFG shall be 

implemented to avoid and minimize impacts to rare, threatened and endangered 

species. If it is determined later that rare, threatened or endangered species occur 

within the proposed work area, or could be impacted by the work proposed, CRCD 

shall comply with the biological opinions or cease immediately, all activities and 

consult with DFG and obtain any required state and/or federal permits, and/or submit 

plans to avoid any impacts (DFG). 

All measures to avoid and minimize take of any listed species shall be implemented as 

described in the Biological Opinions issued by NMFS and the USFWS (see Appendix A). 



3.3.3 Agency Notification and Project Review 

All Tiers 

All agencies with jurisdiction over project activities shall be notified prior to construction 

when required. All notifications shall reference the programmatic permit number and 

name of the program. Notification procedures for the Corps of Engineers can be found in 

Appendix L. 


NRCS/ CRCD shall provide electronic pre-construction notification (PCN) for each 

project to regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over project activities. The PCN shall 

include the following information: 

32


Project location 

Tier the project falls under and why 

Project description and purpose/ need (including environmental benefits expected) 

Existing condition of the project site 

Pre-construction color photos of the project site and adjacent areas. “Before” and 

“after” pictures of site conditions will be used in reports to the agencies to 

document the success of the conservation projects. Choose a camera angle that 

reveals the current problems at the site and provides an overview of the planned 

work area. Take a moment to describe the photos in the files you keep. This will 

help in preparing the annual report. 

As part of the NRCS/ RCD planning process you must also document existing 

conditions in technical field notes or through the use of a Checklist of Resource 

Concerns. Retain these documents in the cooperator file. 

Environmental setting (surrounding habitat, adjacent land uses) 

Approved practices to be installed and project dimensions (length, width, volume of 

soil disturbance, height, etc.) 

Copy of signed Cooperator Agreement 

Summary of any survey results. 

Work may begin 10 working days after electronic notifications have been sent, unless 

NRCS is unsure whether or not a listed species may be impacted by the project (and 

therefore, the project should be placed in Tier III). If this is the case, notifications shall be 

sent to the USFWS, NMFS, and/ or DFG for a determination on tier placement. 

Jurisdictional agencies with questions or wishing to arrange a site visit prior to ground 

disturbance may coordinate with NRCS/ CRCD within the 10-day review period. 


NRCS/ CRCD shall circulate to jurisdictional agencies a written preliminary PCN. These 

agencies shall provide comments or recommended revisions within 21 working days. A 

site visit, if desired, shall be coordinated through NRCS/ CRCD within the 21-day 

review period. NRCS/ CRCD shall incorporate agency recommendations into the project 

description and prepare and circulate a final PCN. Work may begin immediately after 

the final PCN is sent. 

PCNs shall include a description of proposed water diversions or silt controls if working 

in a perennial stream and flows will be isolated from the workspace. 

PCNs shall include specific mitigation measures proposed to mitigate effects of 

temporary and/or permanent impacts, and shall be implemented as proposed unless 

directed differently by DFG (DFG). Only plants on the Approved Plant List shall be 

used for revegetation (see Appendix G). 

If a revegetation plan is required, a plant palette shall be prepared by a biologist or 

restoration ecologist familiar with restoration of native plants and be included as part 

of the PCN (DFG). 

The applicant shall notify DFG, in writing, at least five days prior to initiation of 

construction activities and at least five days prior to completion of construction 

activities. Notification shall be sent to the South Coast Region office at: 

4949 Viewridge Avenue, San Diego, CA 92123, Attn: Streambed SAA#1600-2009-0010- 

R5 (DFG). 

33


In the event that the project scope, nature, or environmental impact is altered by 

subsequent permit conditions by a local, state or federal regulatory authority, the 

applicant shall either submit an amendment request or re-notify DFG of any project 

modification which conflicts with current conditions or project description (DFG). 


Details shall be provided in the PCN on listed species/ habitat present in relation to the 

work area, potential impacts to listed species/ habitat, avoidance/ minimization 

measures planned, including terms and conditions in the biological opinions issued by 

the USFWS or NMFS to be implemented in order to avoid and minimize “take.” The 

names, resumes, and references of proposed qualified individuals (for monitoring) shall 

also be provided. 


Early consultation with agencies and additional time to review preliminary PCNs shall 

be required, as described below. 

Preliminary PCNs shall include alternatives considered, planning tools used for the 

assessment, and justification for using rock for stream bank protection or grade 

stabilization structures. 

Projects for stream bank protection requiring rock above the toe and projects requiring 

rock grade stabilization structures shall require review and approval on a case-by-case 

basis by DFG and RWQCB. All time limitations for review and approval for final PCNs 

for Tier II apply. 

3.3.4 Training 


All workers and persons associated with a project, including participating landowners, 

managers, contractors, and sub-contractors, shall attend a training session p rior to any 

ground-disturbing activities. Conditions of permits and agreements, roles and 

responsibilities of the parties, and procedures and consequences for non -compliance 

shall be emphasized. 


The applicant shall provide a copy of the Streambed Alteration Agreement to all 

contractors, subcontractors, and the applicant’s project supervisors. Copies of the 

Agreement shall be readily available at work sites at all times during periods of active 

work and must be presented to any DFG personnel, or personnel from another 

agency, upon demand. All contractors shall be familiar with its content (DFG). 


The training shall be conducted by a qualified individual with knowledge of special 

status species, and shall include information about listed and other protected species 

that could be encountered. At a minimum, the training shall include: 

The natural history of any state or federally listed or proposed species and other 

special status species that may occur onsite; how to recognize these species and 

their habitats; protection afforded listed species by the federal and state 

Endangered Species Acts; measures to be followed during construction and 

maintenance to protect these species and habitats; the necessity of strict 

adherence to all the conditions and requirements contained in the programmatic 

34


permits and the Cooperator Agreement, and penalties for non-compliance with 

the ESA. 



3.3.5 Timing 


The general construction season shall be May 15 th to October 31 st . All earthmoving 

activities shall be completed by October 31 st (except for restoration, see below). 


CRCD/NRCS activities within the stream course shall be limited to the dry period of 

the year, from May 1 to December 1, and when the stream is not actively flowing, or 

at its lowest flow, and no measurable rain is forecasted within 72 hours. If 

measurable rain is predicted within 72 hours during construction, all activities shall 

cease for the season, or until storm flows have returned to pre-storm conditions, and 

protective measures to prevent siltation/erosion are implemented/maintained (DFG). 

All earthmoving activities shall be completed by October 31 st ; except revegetation, 

which may continue during the rainy season as specified by DFG, below. 

All planting (for restoration) shall be done between October 1 and April 30 to take 

advantage of the winter rainy season (DFG). 

The applicant shall not allow any vegetation removal within the site from March 1 st 

to August 15 th , the recognized breeding, nesting and fledging season for most bird 

species. If vegetation must be removed within these dates, a qualified biologist shall 

conduct surveys for nesting birds (see Survey requirements, above). If timing is 

critical in order to complete the project, an earlier start date (August 1) may be 

approved by DFG on a case-by-case basis (DFG). 

No concrete shall be poured after December 1 st , unless the structure is outside the 50foot 

buffer zone of the creek (DFG). 


Where listed species could be impacted by construction activities, work shall only be 

implemented during time intervals specified by the USFWS, NMFS, and/ or DFG for 

these species. 

If listed bird species such as least Bell’s vireo are found (or assumed to be present), 

the applicant shall not allow any activity within the site from March 1 st to September 

1 st (DFG). 

If working in a steelhead stream, all work shall be completed by December 1 st and 

shall not resume until May 1 st (DFG). 




3.3.6 Procedures to Prevent Wildfires 

35


Due to the rural location of most agriculturally zoned properties, it is likely that work 

undertaken under the Program will occur in high fire hazard areas and construction 

activities could spark fires in adjacent vegetation. The following precautions shall be 

taken (this is a CEQA requirement): 

Vehicles equipped with catalytic converters shall not be parked in areas that are 

susceptible to fire, such as tall grass. 

Welding or similar types of activities shall not be used at project sites unless 

appropriate fire suppression equipment/ water supply is available onsite or is 

brought into the site. 

Tiers II-IV 

No additional requirements. 

3.3.7 Limits to Site Disturbance 


Site disturbance shall not exceed the maximum size limitations for each practice as 

specified in Table 2. 

The total project footprint (including staging and access) shall be limited to the 

minimum area necessary to achieve the project goals. 

Project activities shall utilize existing staging areas and access roads whenever possible. 

If no ramps are available in the immediate area, the operator may construct a ramp in 

the footprint of the project. Any ramp shall be removed upon completion of the 

project (DFG). 

Total staging and access area shall not exceed 0.25 acre. Staging/ storage shall avoid tree 

dripline to the maximum extent feasible, and shall be located outside of the 

stream/lake (DFG). 

All equipment shall be washed and free of weed seeds prior to delivery to the site 

(DFG). 

Native Habitat 

Native vegetation shall not be trampled, damaged or removed to locate the staging area. 

Native grasses that are part of a native grassland shall be avoided; patches of native 

grasses that are clearly isolated and not a part of a native grassland shall be avoided to 

the maximum extent possible; if patches of native grasses cannot be avoided completely, 

no more than 0.24 acre shall be disturbed for a project. 

Projects may be sited in oak woodlands but shall not result in habitat fragmentation, loss 

of canopy cover, changes in hydrology, or impairment of wildlife movement. 

Removal of oak trees is not permitted. Impacts to individual oak trees shall be avoided 

to the maximum extent possible. Where the root zone of oak trees cannot be avoided 

completely, no more than 20% of the root zone shall be affected by project installation. 

Projects shall avoid direct and indirect impacts to vernal pools, vernal pool complexes, 

seasonal wetlands, and other isolated wetlands. No project shall result in d ecreased 

water flow, topographic changes, or restricted wildlife access/ movement to or within 

these habitats. 

36


Rare plant species and species of state or local concern occurring within the project site 

(identified during the initial site assessment) shall be subject to protection measures 

defined by DFG and/ or the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Mitigation 

Guidelines. 

Miscellaneous 

All trash generated at project sites shall be contained, removed, and disposed of 

properly at the end of each workday. 

Pets shall not be allowed at project sites. 


Finished grades shall not be steeper than 2:1 side slopes unless pre-construction 

condition is so steep that site conditions prohibit a 2:1 slope on the final grade. 

Disturbance or removal of native riparian vegetation in the bed, channel, or bank shall 

be avoided to the maximum extent possible, and shall not exceed the limits approved 

by DFG. The disturbed portions of any stream channel within the high water mark of 

the stream shall be restored to its original condition under the direction of DFG 

(DFG). 

The work area shall be flagged or marked to identify its limits within the stream and 

pond; vegetation shall not be removed or intentionally damaged beyond these limits 

(DFG). 

If native trees with a 3” dbh (or greater) need to be removed, a tree inventory by 

species and dbh shall be submitted to DFG prior to activities (DFG). 

When necessary to install practices, disturbance or removal of vegetation may occur as 

follows: 

A maximum of 0.10 acre of native riparian habitat may be removed for any given 

project. Where the area contains a 50/ 50 mix of native and invasive species, up to 

0.25 acre may be removed. If the area is >90% non-native invasive species, up to 2.5 

acres of vegetation may be removed. 

Native trees (except willows) 3” dbh or less may be trimmed or removed; willows 

less than 4” dbh may be trimmed or removed; exceptions may be authorized on a 

case-by-case basis by DFG. 

In areas of temporary disturbance, where vegetation must be removed, native trees 

and shrubs with dbh’s of 2-3”, depending on the species, shall be cut to ground 

level with hand operated power tools rather than by grading (DFG), unless 

otherwise authorized by DFG on a case-by-case basis. 

Non-native trees that provide habitat for special status species shall not be removed. 

Diseased or dead trees (native and non-native) may only be removed if causing bed 

or bank erosion. 

Only handheld equipment (loppers, weed whackers, chainsaws) shall be used to trim 

or remove vegetation within the channel or on the bank. 

Vehicles shall not be driven or equipment operated in water covered portions of a 

stream or lake, or where wetland vegetation, riparian vegetation, or aquatic 

organisms may be destroyed, except as otherwise provided for in the Streambed 

Alteration Agreement and as necessary to complete authorized work (DFG). 

37


If heavy equipment is required, it shall be operated from the top of creek banks or on 

terraces above the creek bed whenever possible. If access to the work site requires 

heavy equipment to travel across a stream once or twice, a rubber tired loader/ 

backhoe is the preferred vehicle; tracked vehicles may be used as a last resort (DFG). 

No equipment shall be operated within the dripline of oaks; protective fencing or 

flagging shall be placed around the dripline of oaks to prevent compaction of the 

root zone (DFG). 

Vegetation removed from the stream shall not be stockpiled in the streambed or on 

its bank. The sites selected on which to push this material out of the stream should 

be selected in compliance with the other provisions of the Streambed Alteration 

Agreement (DFG). 

Permanent spoil storage sites shall not be located within a stream/lake where spoil 

can be washed back into a stream/lake or where it will cover aquatic or riparian 

vegetation (DFG). 

Tiers III-IV 


3.3.8 Protections for Water Quality 


Erosion control and sediment detention devices shall be incorporated into the project 

design and installed to prevent sediment input to streams. Sediment collected in these 

devices shall be disposed of away from the collection site and outside riparian areas or 

flood hazard areas. These devices shall be inspected before and after rain events to 

ensure they are functioning properly. 

All contaminated spoil, rubbish, creosote-treated wood, raw cement/ concrete or 

washings thereof, asphalt, paint or other coating material, oil or other petroleum 

products, or any other substances which could be hazardous to aquatic or terrestrial life, 

resulting from project related activities, shall be prevented from contaminating the soil 

and/ or entering waterbodies. 

Hand removal of invasive plants, rather than pesticides, shall be used whenever 

possible. Removal of non-natives shall employ standard Integrated Pest Management 

techniques, including the use of alternatives to traditional pesticides (i.e., glyphosate) 

when feasible. 

Herbicides/ fungicides/ pesticides shall be applied sparingly when needed for invasive 

plant removal and in such a way as to be protective of water quality, and in accordance 

with any local agency or manufacturer usage restrictions. Application shall be spot 

applied directly to vegetation and far enough away from waterbodies to prevent 

discharge or migration to them. Only herbicides that do not contain surfactants shall be 

used where there is any potential for migration into waters of the state. Herbicides shall 

not be applied when winds exceed 5 miles per hour or within 96 hours of forecasted 

rain. 

For upland practices that require plant establishment (e.g., Diversions and Filter Strips, 

see Table 2), fertilizers may be used only where poor soil structure would prevent 

establishment of new plantings. 

Erosion control measures shall be applied to all disturbed earth surfaces (RWQCB). 

38


Seeding of entire slope with an approved grass seed mixture and placement of 

erosion control blankets over seeded areas shall be implemented for slope 

stabilization (RWQCB). 

Any material stockpiled during construction shall be covered with plastic (RWQCB). 

All construction vehicles and equipment used on site must be well maintained and 

checked daily for fuel and hydraulic fluid leaks or other problems that could result in 

spills of toxic materials (RWQCB). 

The contractor must be required to have oil absorbent pads on site in case a spill 

occurs (RWQCB). 

CRCD must designate a staging area for equipment/ vehicle fueling and storage at 

least 100 feet away from waterways, in a location where fluid will not flow into 

waterways; all vehicle fueling must occur at least 100 feet away from waterways and 

in the designated staging area (RWQCB). 

CRCD must comply with all requirements of State Water Resources Control Board 

Order No. 99-08-DWQ National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) 

General Permit No. CAS 000002 Waste Discharge Requirements for Discharges of 

Storm Water Runoff Associated with Construction Activity, for all projects which 

disturb an acre or more of ground or which are part of a larger plan of development 

(RWQCB). 

No work shall be conducted in vernal pools or alkali sinks (RWQCB). 

Water Board staff must be notified if mitigations as described in the 401 Water 

Quality Certification application for this Project are altered by the imposition of 

subsequent permit conditions by any local, state, or federal regulatory authority. 

CRCD must inform Water Board staff of any modifications that interfere with 

compliance with the 401 certification (RWQCB). 


Except as noted below, no soil amendments shall be used in the stream bed or bank to 

hasten or improve the growth of critical area plantings. Soil amendments shall only be 

used when the establishment of new plants is prohibited by poor soil conditions. In most 

circumstances, organic amendments shall be used to ensure successful establishment of 

revegetation. In situations where organic amendments will not guarantee adequate 

establishment of vegetation, application rates for non -organic soil amendments shall be 

based on soil nutrient testing and shall utilize slow release or sp lit applications to 

minimize leaching or runoff into water bodies. 

No project shall be initiated that results in a net loss in the quality, quantity, and 

permanence of streambed, riparian, and wetland acreage unless it is determined by 

NRCS/CRCD that the placement of fill is necessary for the enhancement of resources 

at the site (RWQCB). 

Areas of disturbed soils with slopes toward a stream or lake shall be stabilized to 

reduce erosion potential. Planting, seeding, and mulching are conditionally 

acceptable. Where suitable vegetation cannot be reasonably be expected to become 

established, non-erodable materials, such as coconut fiber matting, shall be used for 

such stabilization. Any installation of non-erodable materials not described in the 

original project description shall be coordinated with DFG. Coordination may 

include the negotiation of additional Agreement provisions for this activity (DFG). 

39


No debris, soil, silt, sand, bark, slash, sawdust, rubbish, construction waste, cement or 

concrete (wet or dry) or washings thereof, asphalt, paint, oil or other petroleum 

products or any other substances which could be hazardous to aquatic life, or toehr 

organic or earthen material from any logging, construction, or other associated project 

related activity shall be allowed to contaminate the soil and/or inter into or laced 

where it may be washed by rainfall or runoff into, waters of the State. Any of these 

materials, placed within or where they may enter a stream or lake, by the Operator or 

any party working under contract, or with the permission of the Applicant, shall be 

removed immediately. When operations are completed, any excess materials or debris 

shall be removed from the work area. No rubbish shall be deposited within 150 feet 

of the high water mark of any stream or lake (DFG). 

If vacuum trucks or pumps are used to clean up any contamination, or for any other 

use, the vacuum hose shall be placed in a 3 to 4 square foot area, protected on all sides 

by exclusionary fencing to lower velocities and to prevent the uptake of any aquatic 

life (DFG). 

Stationary equipment such as motors, pumps, generators, and welders, located within 

or adjacent to the stream/lake shall be positioned over drip pans. If welders are used, 

fire suppression equipment shall be on site at all times the welder is being used 

(DFG). 

The cleanup of all spills shall begin immediately. DFG shall be notified immediately 

by the Operator of any spills and shall be consulted regarding cleanup procedures 

(DFG). 

No equipment shall be operated within the flowing water (DFG). 

Preparation shall be made so that runoff from steep, erodable surfaces will be 

diverted into stable areas with little erosion potential, such as the grassy swales. 

Frequent water checks shall be placed on dirt roads, or steep orchards to control 

erosion (DFG). 

Water containing mud, silt, or other pollutants from equipment washing or other 

activities, shall not be allowed to enter a lake or flowing stream or placed in locations 

that may be subjected to high storm flows (DFG). 

If a stream’s low flow channel, bed or banks/lake bed or banks have been altered, 

these shall be returned as nearly as possible to their original configuration and width, 

without creating future erosion problems (DFG). 

Rock, gravel, and/or other materials shall not be imported to, taken from or moved 

within the bed or banks of the stream, except as otherwise addressed in this 

Agreement (DFG). 



3.3.9 Temporary Water Diversion/Dewatering 


Not applicable: w ork in streams is not allowed for Tier I projects. 


If temporary or intermittent flows exist onsite, construction shall occur when the stream 

is dry. If groundwater seeps into the work area, the site shall be dewatered. 

40


If perennial flows exist onsite, the work area shall be isolated from flowing water by 

temporarily diverting water around the work site in a manner that maintains 

downstream flows during construction and minimizes siltation. Passive diversion is 

preferred over pumping. If pumping is used, additional requirements shall apply, as 

specified by DFG in the Streambed Alteration Agreement. Excavating a channel for the 

purpose of isolating the workspace from flowing water is not allowed. 

Stream diversion dams shall be constructed of sand bags wrapped in heavy plastic 

sheeting; sand bags shall be filled with clean gravel (RWQCB). 

When work in a flowing stream is unavoidable, the entire stream flow shall be 

diverted around the work area by a barrier, temporary culvert, new channel, or other 

means approved by DFG. If temporary water diversion is required, a water diversion 

plan shall be part of the pre-construction notification and is subject to DFG approval 

at that time. Construction of the barrier and/or the new channel shall normally begin 

in the downstream area and continue in an upstream direction, and the flow shall be 

diverted only when construction of the diversion is completed. Channel bank or 

barrier construction shall be adequate to prevent seepage into or from the work area. 

Diversion berms shall be constructed of onsite alluvium of low silt content, 

inflatable, dams, sand bags, or other approved materials. Channel banks or barriers 

shall not be made of earth or other substances subject to erosion unless first enclosed 

by sheet piling, rock riprap, or other protective material. The enclosure and the 

supportive material shall be removed when the work is completed and removal shall 

normally proceed from the downstream in an upstream direction (DFG). 

Flow diversions shall be done in a manner that shall prevent pollution and/or 

siltation and which shall provide flows to downstream reaches. Flows to downstream 

reaches shall be provided during all times that the natural flow would have 

supported aquatic life. Said flows shall be sufficient quality and quantity, and of 

appropriate temperature to support fish and other aquatic life below the diversion; 

flows shall meet or exceed baseline conditions. Baseline conditions shall be 

established prior to construction and monitored upstream of any w ork area. Normal 

flows shall be restored to the affected stream immediately upon completion of work 

at that location (DFG). 

Silty/turbid water from dewatering or other activities shall not be discharged into the 

stream. Such water shall be settled, filtered, or otherwise treated prior to discharge. 

The Operator’s ability to minimize turbidity/siltation shall be the subject of preconstruction 

planning and feature implementation (DFG). 

When operations require moving or equipment across a flowing stream, such 

operations shall be conducted without increasing stream turbidity. For repeated 

crossings, the Operator shall install a bridge, culvert, or rock-fill crossing as specified 

in comments above, and approved by DFG prior to placement (DFG). 

Any temporary dam or other artificial obstruction shall only be built from materials 

such as clean gravel/rock/boulders or sandbags which will cause little or no siltation, 

and shall be approved by DFG prior to construction (DFG). 

Any materials placed in seasonally dry portions of a stream or lake that could be 

washed downstream or could be deleterious to aquatic life shall be removed from the 

project site prior to inundation by high flows (DFG). 


Additional restrictions: See additional survey and monitoring requirements for listed 

species, below. 

41




3.3.10 Dust Control 


One or more of the following protection measures shall be implemented if applicable: 

During clearing, grading, earth moving, excavation, or transportation of cut or fill 

materials, water trucks shall be used to prevent dust from leaving the site. 

Soil stockpiled for more than two days shall be covered, left moist, or treated with soil 

binders to prevent dust generation. 

On-site vehicle speeds shall be limited to 15 miles per hour or less. 

Gravel pads or similar devices shall be installed at all access points to prevent tracking 

of mud on to public roads. 

Trucks transporting fill material to and from the site shall be tarped from the point of 

origin. 

Tiers II-IV 


3.3.11 Special Conditions for Stream Bank Protection, Grade Stabilization 

Structures, and Stream Crossings 


Not applicable: work in streams is not allowed for Tier I projects. 


Bank protection methods shall be selected in the following order of decreasing preference: 

1) vegetation only 

2) bioengineering methods in which vegetation is incorporated with natural type 

structural components such as woody branches, natural rock, logs, natural fibers and 

geotextiles, and biodegradable temporary geotextiles 

3) bioengineering methods with incorporation of toe rock as described in the Corps‟ 

Regional General Permit 70 (see Appendix L). 

Placement of rock above the toe is not allowed. 

Grade stabilization structures are not allowed. 

Replacement or modification of stream crossings is not allowed. 


In addition to the general Environmental Protection Measures, all terms and conditions 

in the biological opinions issued by the USFWS and NMFS and conditions related to 

state-listed species in the Streambed Alteration Agreement issued by DFG shall be 

implemented (see Appendix A). 


Stream bank protection may incorporate rock above the toe if site conditions indicate it 

is required. If rock is required, the minimum amount needed to achieve the project goals 

42


shall be used. Use of rock shall conform to the description and limits contained in the 

Stream Bank Protection practice (Table 2). 

Rock rip-rap may be placed in areas where other methods of bank protection are not 

possible. Voids between the rocks shall be filled with soil to allow vegetation to 

grow. Revegetation shall be required within the rip-rap. The use of grouted rock or 

concrete bank stabilization is not authorized (DFG). 

Channel stabilization may require grade stabilization structures for repair of large 

gullies. If rock is required, the minimum amount needed to achieve the project goals 

shall be used. Use of rock shall conform to the description and limits contained in the 

Grade Stabilization Structure practice (Table 2). 

Replacement or modification of stream crossings is allowed and shall conform to the 

description and limits contained in the Stream Crossing practice (Table 2). 

Installation of bridges, culverts, or other structures shall be such that water flow 

(velocity and low flow channel width) is not impaired. Culverts and low flow 

crossings shall not be placed in channels that contain steelhead trout. Bottoms of 

temporary culverts in trout-free creeks shall be placed at or below stream channel 

grade. Bottoms of permanent culverts shall be placed below stream channel grade 

deep enough so that sediments accumulate at the bottom to mimic a natural bottom 

(DFG). 

No unformed or unset concrete or concrete sacks any cement product may be used in 

structures at any time under the Streambed Alteration Agreement, with the following 

exception: 

If any structure is cast in place, the area poured shall be completely bermed 

and isolated to contain all and any wet cement, even if water is not present. 

The pH of hot concrete may be as high as 13, which is toxic to wildlife. If a 

concrete structure is needed, such as a headwall, CRCD shall prevent any 

concrete or concrete water from entering creek water. Any concrete being 

poured after October 1 st shall contain a quick dry ingredient to ensure a dry 

time of less than 7 days (see Timing requirements, above) (DFG).. 

Any structure/culvert placed within a stream where fish do/may occur, shall be 

designed, constructed and maintained such that it does not constitute a barrier to 

upstream or downstream movement of aquatic life, or cause an avoidance reaction by 

fish that impedes their upstream or downstream movement. This includes but is not 

limited to the supply of water at an appropriate depth, temperature, and velocity to 

facilitate upstream and downstream fish migration (DFG). 

Ilf any aspect of the proposed project results in a long term reduction in fish 

movement, the operator shall be responsible for all future activities and expenditures 

necessary (as determined by the DFG) to secure passage of fish across the structure 

(DFG). 

Storm drain lines/culverts shall be adequately sized to carry peak storm flows for the 

drainage to one outfall structure. The storm drain lines/culverts and the outfall 

structure shall be properly aligned within the stream and otherwise engineered, 

installed and maintained, to assure resistance to washout (facing downstream) and to 

erosion of the stream bed, stream banks, and/or fill. Water velocity shall be dissipated 

at the outfall to reduce erosion (DFG). 

Methods pursuant to DFG shall be used to divert and dewater even if water is not 

present. 

43


3.3.12 Construction Monitoring 


A qualified individual shall be onsite during construction activities to ensure compliance 

with permit conditions. The qualified individual shall be authorized to halt work if 

necessary to ensure compliance and protect resources. 

Prior to ground disturbance, a qualified individual shall walk through the construction 

area each day so that wildlife present in the work area can move out of harm‟s way. 

Any non-compliance shall be addressed through the Procedures for Non -Compliance as 

detailed in Section 7 of this document. 


A qualified biological monitor, having the appropriate permits, shall be on site at 

least twice a week during operations and shall survey for species prior to 

construction. If any species are found in the path of construction, the monitor shall 

relocate the species to a safe location. Relocation areas shall be identified prior to the 

start of construction, and are subject to DFG approval. Exclusionary fencing shall be 

erected to prevent the migration into or the return of species into the work site, unless 

DFG is in agreement to exclude the fencing on a case-by-case basis. Exclusionary 

fencing (e.g., silt fencing) shall be placed across the creek from top of bank to top of 

bank if the project involves working in a stream. Field notes shall be kept (by the 

monitor) and submitted to DFG after the first week of operations and upon 

completion of the project (DFG). 

A qualified individual shall be onsite during any activities related to temporary water 

diversion, and shall inspect the diversion system daily to ensure proper functioning and 

protection of water quality and biological resources. 

A qualified individual shall monitor the effectiveness of breeding bird exclusion zones 

daily if staking and flagging is used for the exclusion, or weekly if temporary fencing is 

used for the exclusion. 


For federally and state listed species, a qualified individual shall ensure that all terms 

and conditions of the biological opinions issued by the USFWS and NMFS and the 

Streambed Alteration Agreement issued by DFG are implemented. The qualified 

individual shall have authority to halt work if necessary to ensure compliance and 

protect listed species during construction. 



3.3.13 Mitigation 


Restoration shall include the revegetation/reseeding of stripped or exposed work 

areas with vegetation native to the area and/or with species on the Approved Plant 

List (DFG). (See Appendix G) 


44


NRCS/ CRCD shall design and implement revegetation plans when required to 

permanently restore sites to their pre-construction condition or better, with the goal of 

achieving a more natural state. 

CRCD/NRCS shall mitigate for permanent impacts to any creek channel, wetland 

habitats or any jurisdictional area by restoring/creating the same habitat at a 5:1 ratio 

(DFG). (A 5:1 ratio = restore 5 acres of habitat for every acre of habitat permanently 

removed). A permanent impact is one that cannot be revegetated; for example, from 

placement of rock riprap on a stream bank). 

For areas of temporary disturbance, the applicant shall mitigate with enhancement, 

restoration or creation of the same habitat types at a ratio of 3:1. Mitigation may 

include a combination of revegetation, onsite sediment control, removal of non-native 

invasive plants, and installation of bioswales. The location and type of the mitigation 

shall be approved by DFG on a case-by-case basis (DFG). 

Any oaks, California black walnuts, alders, and sycamores (>2” dbh), which are 

damaged or removed during construction, shall be replaced in kind at a 10:1 ratio. 

Valley oaks shall be replaced in kind at a 15:1 ratio. Elderberry and cottonwood (>3” 

dbh) shall be replaced at 5:1, willows at 3:1 (DFG). 

All planting shall have a minimum of 80% survival the first year and 100% survival 

thereafter and/or shall attain 75% cover after 3 years, or 5 years if planting oaks (DFG). 

If the survival, cover and/or other requirements described in the Streambed 

Alteration Agreement and in the submitted documents have not been met, the 

applicant is responsible for replacement planting to achieve these requirements. 

Replacement plants shall be monitored with the same survival and growth 

requirements for 3 years or 5 years if planting oaks (DFG). 

The applicant shall provide irrigation when natural moisture conditions are 

inadequate to ensure survival of plants. Irrigation shall be provided for at least 2 

years from planting. Irrigation shall be phased out during the fall/winter of the 

second year unless unusually severe conditions threaten survival of plantings (DFG). 

Prior to the mitigation sites being determined successful, they shall be entirely 

without supplemental irrigation for a minimum of 2 years, no single species shall 

constitute more than 50% of the vegetative cover, no woody invasive species shall be 

present, and herbaceous invasive species shall not exceed 5% cover (DFG). 

The follow ing requirement contradicts the above statement, but is in the Streambed 

Alteration Agreement: All plants must survive and grow for at least 3 years without 

supplemental water for the restoration phase of the project to be eligible for 

acceptance by DFG (DFG). 

Native plants characteristic of the local habitat type shall be the preferred alternative for 

revegetation. Non-native, non-persistent grass mixes (e.g., barley grass) may be used as 

fast establishing temporary cover for erosion control while natives are establishing. 

Plants chosen for revegetation shall be from the Approved Plant List (Appendix G). 

Any replacement tree stock which cannot be grown from cuttings or seeds, shall be 

obtained from a native plant nursery, be ant free and shall not be inoculated to 

prevent heart rot. The applicant shall provide a list of all materials which must be 

obtained from other than onsite sources (DFG). 



45


3.3.14 Reporting 

All Tiers - see Appendix H for a sample annual report. 


NRCS/ CRCD shall report the status of all projects to permitting agencies in the form of 

an annual post-construction report. The annual report shall be due by January 31 of each 

year during the term of the permit. The report shall include the following information: 

A list of participating landowners/ organizations; currently active projects, description 

of each project purpose, area affected, environmental enhancements accomplished, 

amounts/ volumes of cut/ fill, finish slopes, etc. It shall also list conservation benefits 

and any net gains in wetlands and riparian areas, describe actions taken to avoid 

adverse effects to habitat, and provide photo-documentation of before and after site 

conditions. 

The report shall also include any project that is dropped from the Program, following 

the Procedures for Non-Compliance described in Section 7 of this document. 


Reports shall include a revegetation plan (when required), and results of revegetation 

efforts. The report shall also include a review of the status of all previous habitat 

restoration efforts that are being monitored. 


The report shall include listed species survey results; species encountered during the 

project, if any; measures implemented for protection; any take (relocation of individuals 

and/ or mortality); other relevant information contained in the monitor‟s report, and the 

monitor‟s field notes. 



46


4.0 PLANNING REQUIREMENTS 

4.1 NRCS Conservation Planning Process 

In addition to specifying the practices and conditions on their use, the agreements with 

the permitting agencies for the Program include a requirement that practices will be 

selected and designed using the NRCS Planning Process. Therefore, NRCS and CRCD 

must follow the NRCS Conservation Planning Process described below for all projects 

carried out under the Program. NRCS will maintain oversight of all projects that receive 

NRCS funding and serve as a technical resource to the CRCD. The NRCS 9-step 

Conservation Planning Process is used to customize a management plan unique to the 

conditions of a local property and its manager. 

4.2 Incorporating Permit Conditions into the Planning Process 

The NRCS planning steps and a sum mary of additional requirements of the Permit 

Coordination Program are listed below in Table 4. Not all of the planning documents 

(shown in parentheses in the first column) are generated anew for each property, but 

rather they are based on templates, which exist for each major land use or cropping 

system in California. Modifications to the templates and the resulting conservation plan 

are based on the assessment of site-specific conditions. 

47


Blank Page 

48


NRCS PLANNING 

STEP (and key 

documents used) 

Step 1. Identify 

Problems and 

Opportunities 

(Field Notes) 

Step 2. Determine 

objectives 

Step 3. Inventory 

the resources 

Required Forms to 

Complete: 

(Checklist of 

Resource Problems 

or Conditions) 

Step 4. Analyze 

resource data 

(Quality Criteria) 

Step 5. Formulate 

alternative 

solutions 

Optional Forms to 

Complete: 

Table 4. Overview of How Permit Coordination Builds on 

the NRCS 9-Step Planning Process 

ACTIVITIES 

Identify resource problems with the client (land operator) and 

other specialists. 

Identify, agree on, and document the client's objectives. 

The checklist prompts the inventory team to provide 

quantitative or qualitative data in several resource categories: 

Soils, Water, Air, Plants, Animals, and Human (social, 

economic, and cultural). 

Specific Tasks: 

3.a. A Certified Conservation Planner conducts a site 

assessment for special status species‟ habitat in the project area. 

Special status species include federal and state threatened and 

endangered (T/ E) listed species, species of state and local 

concern, and rare plants on the 1B list of the California Native 

Plant Society (CNPS). Rare habitat types include riparian 

woodlands, vernal pools, oak woodlands, sloughs/ estuaries, 

native grasslands, etc. 

3.b. If the Certified Conservation Planner is unsure about 

whether special status species habitat is present, the area 

biologist (or other agency-approved individual) will be 

contacted to perform site surveys. 

3.c. Conduct wetland assessment to determine if a potential 

wetland exists. Conduct wetland delineation if required by the 

Corps. 

3.d. Based on site assessments and/ or surveys, the planner 

decides which Tier the project falls under and documents 

reasons for that decision. 

3.e. NRCS conducts a preliminary cultural resources site 

assessment as described in the protocols approved by the State 

Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) (see Appendix F). 

All resource problems or concerns are identified. Consult 

quality criteria to determine if resource is significantly 

impaired. 

All significantly impaired resources are itemized in a matrix. 

Practices that could be used to treat each impaired resource 

concern are evaluated for anticipated negative or positive 

effects in the matrix using a three-point scale. 

49


NRCS PLANNING 

STEP (and key 


(Site Specific 

Practices Effect 

Worksheet) 

Step 6. Evaluate 

alternative 

solutions 

Optional Forms to 

Complete: 

(Resource 

Management System 

Guidesheet) 

Step 7. Client 

determines course 

of action 

Required Forms to 

Complete: 

(Conservation Plan 

and Project 

Specifications and 

Environmental 

Assessment (EA) 

Worksheet) 

Step 8. Client 

implements plan 

(Standards, 

Specifications, 

Practice 

Requirement 

ACTIVITIES 

Groups of practices („resource management systems‟) that result 

in a significant positive improvement in all resource problem 

categories are identified as alternative systems in the guide 

sheet. Other groups of practices are also listed as additional 

alternatives as long as they do not result in a negative effect on 

resource problems. This process is also known as an 

"alternatives analysis.” 

Assist client in selecting a system of conservation practices to 

maximize resource protection and enhancement. NRCS or 

CRCD prepares a conservation plan and specifications and 

project Environmental Assessment Worksheet. 

Once the appropriate practices have been identified in the 

conservation plan, NRCS or CRCD prepares the project design 

(and engineering if an engineered project) according to NRCS 

recommended design, standards, and specifications. 


7.a. Develop Conservation Plan with the Cooperator. 

7.b. Develop project designs incorporating regulatory permit 

conditions and environmental protection measures, as 

appropriate. 

7.c. Complete EA worksheet 

7.d. Complete and obtain signatures for the Cooperator 

Agreement. 

7.e. Send preliminary Pre-construction Notification to agencies. 

7.f. Meet with agency staff in the field for those sites they 

request to see. Incorporate agreed -upon changes into the 

project descriptions. 

7.g. Send revised project descriptions (final Pre-construction 

Notification) to the agencies if required. 

7.h. Deliver Project Plans and Specifications to the Cooperator. 

Install practices according to NRCS recommended design, 

standards, and specifications and with NRCS on-site technical 

support, as needed. 


8.a. A qualified individual approved by USFWS, NMFS and/ or 

DFG performs pre-construction surveys for listed species 

50


NRCS PLANNING ACTIVITIES 

STEP (and key 


Worksheet) (and/ or breeding riparian birds) when required. 

Step 9. Evaluation 

of results of plan 

8.b. NRCS and CRCD provide construction monitoring during 

critical project points to ensure practices are being installed as 

outlined in the Conservation Plan and project specifications. 

8.c. An onsite biological monitor may also be required during 

any activities with the potential to impact listed species or 

habitat. 

Evaluate effectiveness of plan and make adjustments as needed. 


9.a. Once the project is installed, NRCS or CRCD conducts postconstruction 

inspections to verify that the project was installed 

as described in the Project Plans and Specifications and is 

functioning as planned. 

9.b. Submit post-construction annual report to regulatory 

agencies by January 31. 

51


Blank Page 

52


4.3 Contents of the Conservation Plan 

It is understood by the agencies that plans created or approved by the NRCS to 

implement the conservation practices covered under the Program will include the 

following: 

1) A site plan that shows an overview of the project site. NRCS plans must 

be drawn to scale upon substantial reproducible material and must be of 

sufficient clarity to indicate the nature and extent of the work. The site 

plan includes: 

Location of the project with relevant structures, streams, and 

roads 

Location and coverage of the project (project footprint, including 

access and staging areas) 

Property lines and assessor parcel numbers (APNs) 

Locations of any easements or other restrictions applicable to the 

project area 

2) A conservation plan that includes: 

A design report that summarizes the project 

An environmental assessment worksheet (NEPA requirement) 

Conservation practice standards 

Conservation practice requirements and specifications as 

described in previous sections 

Environmental protection measures and species protection 

measures 

Maintenance schedule and requirements 

3) If engineering is involved, an “engineering docket” is to be created. This 

includes: 

Utility check sheet: Are there utilities underground or overhead? 

A soil map and description 

A topographical map 

Hydrology calculations 

Design computations 

Cost estimate 

Inspection plan 

Construction drawings including cross sections and design details 

4.4 Communicating with the Landowner 

The customer must sign a Cooperator Agreement before work can begin on the project. 

This agreement describes in clear terms the permits the customer is operating under and 

their obligations under those permits to carry out the work according to the terms of 

NRCS standards and specifications. The Cooperator Agreement is provided in 

Appendix I. 

53


Before meeting with the landowner, the conservation planner reviews the Cooperator 

Agreement and checks off the boxes that apply to the project. For example, if work will 

occur along a steelhead stream to install a stream bank protection practice, multiple 

permit coverage is triggered. At a minimum, the permit boxes for NMFS, DFG, the 

Corps, and RWQCB need to be checked. If work is conducted in the coastal zone, 

additional permits from the County may be required. 

Review of the Cooperator Agreement with the customer includes the p ermits/ 

agreements that pertain to his/ her project (the boxes checked in the previous step), the 

landowner‟s obligations under the Program (compliance with NRCS standards, 

specification, environmental protection measures and permit conditions), and the 

procedures established for non-compliance. The project conditions are attached as a 

supplement to the Cooperator Agreement and the Cooperator‟s initials are obtained to 

confirm understanding of the conditions. 

It should also be made clear to the customer that the project status will be reported to the 

participating agencies on an annual basis in an annual report. This is a release of cooperator 

information and requires their approval as indicated by their signature on the 

Cooperator Agreement. 

4.5 Project Management 

NRCS/ CRCD may find it useful to develop a Project Management Checklist to help 

track the various components of a project related to compliance. Appendix J contains the 

checklist being used by the Santa Cruz County RCD, which can be used as a template. 

54


5.0 SPECIAL STATUS SPECIES 

This section describes the types of permits and conditions that apply to special status 

species. These conditions, some of which will be formalized in permits/ approvals, must 

also be considered and built into all stages of the NRCS planning process. NRCS is 

preparing a more detailed guide on protections for biological resources (Biology 

Manual), which will be included in Appendix K when it is completed. 

5.1 Threatened and Endangered Species, Fully Protected Species, Proposed 

Species, and Critical Habitat 

Threatened and endangered species are species of plants, fish, and wildlife that have 

been formally listed by the USFWS, NMFS, or DFG. These agencies all have provisions 

in their permits for how much “take” is legally permitted under the Program. “Take” 

means accidental death from any Program activity or handling of individuals (not 

resulting in death) if a permit calls for moving individuals out of harm‟s way. DFG also 

lists species that are fully protected. There are no “take” provisions for state fully 

protected species, meaning these species must be completely avoided during the course 

of project activities. The USFWS and NMFS may also list species that are being 

considered for listing, called proposed species. Generally, proposed species are afforded 

the same level of protection as listed species. The USFWS and NMFS also designate 

critical habitat for many of the federally listed species. This is a formal (legal) 

designation, not to be confused with habitat that is critical for a given species‟ survival 

in the general sense. Critical habitat, when designated, also needs to be considered 

during the planning process. 

Currently listed threatened, endangered, and fully protected species are provided in 

Appendix K. Maps showing the general locations of these species are also provided in 

Appendix K. Also see the Biological Assessment submitted to the USFWS for more 

details on which species are likely to be affected during project implementation 

(Appendix A). 

5.1.1 Biological Opinion for Steelhead 

NMFS issued a Biological Opinion (BO) pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA to NRCS for 

federally funded Program activities that could adversely affect endangered steelhead 

trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and its critical habitat. As part of the consultation, the BO 

contains an Incidental Take Statement, which provides for the legal “taking” of a 

specified number of steelhead during the course of Program activities (see page 31 of the 

BO, Appendix A). If the take limits are exceeded, NRCS m ust reinitiate consultation. 

To avoid and minimize take as much as possible, NMFS describes Reasonable and 

Prudent Measures and Terms and Conditions (see pages 31-34 of the BO). The Terms 

and Conditions must be implemented and integrated within all phases of the Program. 

The BO also contains useful information on steelhead distribution, life history, potential 

Program effects, NRCS responsibilities under Section 7, and related issues. 

5.2 State and Local Species of Concern 

Other protected species that need to be considered during the planning process are state 

species of concern, local species of concern considered to be locally rare by the County, 

55


and certain rare plants listed by the California Native Plant Society (CNPS list 1B). Any 

of these species could be encountered during site assessments. DFG has included species 

of concern in their Streambed Alteration Agreement issued for the Program, which can 

serve to alert project managers during project review. However, this list also contains 

state listed threatened and endangered species; presumably, the other species are species 

of concern. 

Since these lists are rather lengthy, it will be challenging to keep track of where 

protected species may occur relative to project sites. The following resources may be 

useful: 

DFG maintains lists of state species of concern, and descriptions of preferred 

habitat, natural history, and range distributions; this information can be found at: 

http:/ / nrm.dfg.ca.gov/ taxaquery/ Default.aspx 

CNPS has an interactive website that allows users to determine whether a rare 

plant could occur in a project area. It can be accessed at the address below. If a 

rare plant (on list 1B) could be in the project area, follow the protection measures 

for Tier I (and higher) for surveys by a qualified individual and the CNPS 

Mitigation Guidelines (provided in Appendix E) to avoid impacts to these plants. 

http:/ / cnps.web.aplus.net/ cgibin/ inv/ inventory.cgi 

The County (Planning and Development) may have a list of locally important 

species that are considered protected. 

Current lists of state and local species of concern and CNPS list 1B plants are provided 

in Appendix K. However, as these are constantly subject to change, they should not be 

considered definitive or complete lists. If in doubt, project managers should contact the 

agency responsible for the listing (the CNPS website should be adequate for 1B p lants). 

5.3 Federally Listed Species Not Covered by Permits 

Only NRCS funded projects are covered by the BOs from NMFS and the USFWS; 

therefore, RCD projects are not covered. In such instances, CRCD, a third party (e.g., a 

participating non-profit organization), or the landowner, would need to consult with 

these agencies under Section 10 of the Endangered Species Act. Permits issued under 

Section 10 are more commonly known as Habitat Conservation Plans or HCPs, and they 

typically require a year or two to com plete. Therefore, early coordination with the 

appropriate agency is essential to get this process started as soon as possible in the 

planning stages. The Ventura Office of the USFWS should be contacted regarding the 

Section 10 process. 

5.4 State Listed Species Not Covered by Permits 

There are two possible ways to comply with requirements by the state for impacts to 

listed species pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). One can either 

obtain an actual permit from DFG pursuant to CESA or obtain a Consistency 

Determination. A Consistency Determination from DFG will cover state listed species 

that are also listed by the USFWS (and which will be covered in the BO). The Consistency 

Determination essentially allows the protection measures in th e BO to serve as 

protection measures for state listed species. Neither a permit nor a Consistency 

Determination has been obtained from DFG for the Program; application for a 

Consistency Determination cannot be started until the USFWS issues its BO. 

56


For state listed species that are not also federally listed, all impacts must be avoided 

unless a permit is obtained. Getting a Consistency Determination for these species is not 

an option. 

More information of the CESA process can be found at: 

http:/ / www.dfg.ca.gov/ habcon/ cesa/ 

57


Blank Page 

58


6.0 PROCEDURES FOR COMPLYING WITH CORPS OF ENGINEERS REGULATIONS 

As mentioned earlier, the Corps did not issue a permit for the Program. However, many 

of the projects that will affect a stream bed will require a Corps permit to comply with 

Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The Corps asserts jurisdiction over projects that 

result in dredged or fill material placed in Waters of the U.S. and wetlands. Waters of 

the U.S. are generally defined as that portion of a stream below the “ordinary high water 

mark” (OHWM). The OHWM is typically determined by a visible line on rocks or banks 

or a wrack line of debris from previous flow and is on the order of a 1.5 to 2 year flood 

event. For regulatory purposes, the term wetlands means "those areas that are inundated 

or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to 

support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation 

typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include 

swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas." 

More information concerning determination of the OHWM, wetland delineations, Corps 

jurisdiction, and the permitting process can be found at the Corps‟ Los Angeles District 

website at: http:/ / www.spl.usace.army.mil/ regulatory/ 

6.1 Nationwide Permits and Regional General Permits 

The Corps has a Nationwide Permit program (NWP) and a Regional General Permit 

program (RGP) that apply to projects that generally result in minimally adverse 

environmental impacts. 

Nationwide Permits 

NWPs are issued nationally for specific kinds of projects. The Santa Barbara permit 

coordination program was designed to fit within the Corps‟ NWP program (and RGP 

program) because most of the practices will have only temporary impacts during 

construction and will result in environmental benefits in the long run. 

There are a total of 50 NWPs; of these, the NWPs likely to be used for projects 

implemented under the Program are: 

NWP 7 – Outfall Structures 

NWP 13 – Bank Stabilization 

NWP 27 – Stream and Wetland Restoration 

NWP 33 – Temporary Construction, Access, and Dewatering 

In order to qualify for the NWP program, projects must comply with the conditions in 

the NWP itself as well as 28 General Conditions. Appendix L contains a complete list 

and description of all NWPs and General Conditions. Also provided are two summary 

tables. One table (compiled by the Corps) includes size limits, notification requirements, 

and other requirements; a second table provides a guide to which conservation practices 

might apply to which NWP and other related information. 

Regional General Permits 

Another way to comply with Corps requirements is to use a Regional General Permit 

(RGP). RGPs are issued by Corps districts. RGPs may be used separately or together 

with NWPs. Two RGPs that could apply to some of the Program practices are RGP 70 

(Bioengineered Bank Stabilization Activities) and RGP 41 (Removal of Invasive, Exotic 

Plants). These are provided in Appendix L. 

6.2 Regional Conditions 

59


Local Corps district offices may add additional conditions to NWPs and RGPs to 

address specific circumstances in their particular geographic region. The Corps (Los 

Angeles District) has issued 10 Regional Conditions. For Santa Barbara County, Regional 

Conditions 1, 3, and 9 apply. Below is a summary of those conditions, and the complete 

set of Regional Conditions is provided in Appendix L: 

Regional Condition 1 - For coastal watersheds, all road crossings must employ a 

bridge crossing design that ensures passage and/ or spawning of steelhead 

(Oncorhynchus mykiss) is not hindered in any way. In these areas, bridge designs 

that span the stream or river, including designs for pier- or pile-supported spans, 

or designs based on use of a bottomless arch culvert simulating the natural stream 

bed (i.e., substrate and streamflow conditions in the culvert are similar to 

undisturbed stream bed channel cond itions) shall be employed unless it can be 

demonstrated the stream or river does not support resources conducive to the 

recovery of federally listed anadromous salmonids, including migration of adults 

and smolts, or rearing and spawning. 

Regional Condition 3 - For all projects proposed for authorization by nationwide or 

regional general permits where prior notification to the district engineer is 

required, applicants must provide color photographs or color photocopies of the 

project area taken from representative points documented on a site map. Preproject 

photographs and the site map would be provided with the permit 

application. Photographs should represent conditions typical or indicative of 

the resources before impacts. 

Regional Condition 9 - Individual permits shall be required in Gaviota Creek, 

Mission Creek, and Carpinteria Creek in Santa Barbara County for bank 

stabilization projects and grade control structures (cannot use NWPs or RGPs). 

6.3 Notification Procedures 

Some NWPs require notification to the Corps under certain conditions and others do 

not. Notification “thresholds” are usually based on the size of disturbance to Corps 

jurisdictional resources. Each NWP describes when a notification is required. In 

addition, General Condition 27 d escribes notification procedures and what information 

should be included in a notification (see Appendix L). RGPs require notification; 

information to include in pre-construction notifications for RGPs can be found within 

each RGP (see Appendix L). 

The Corps will not begin processing a permit application (notification) until it is deemed 

“complete.” Therefore, the Corps encourages applicants to schedule a pre-notification 

review of projects in the field before notifications are prepared. Once you are ready to 

begin the PCN, a useful guide that can help you prepare one is provided in Appendix L. 

Also provided are the Corps‟ standards for site map drawings. Attention to all these 

details could mean the difference between a “complete” application and an 

“incomplete” application. Incomplete applications will be subject to requests for 

additional information, which may result in project delays. 

6.4 Exemptions 

The Corps‟ regulatory program is subject to exemptions from the permitting 

requirements of Section 404 for certain agricultural activities. Some of the conservation 

practices (maintenance of installed practices, stock tank development, and new ponds) 

60


could be exempt from permit requirements. A list of exemptions is provided in 

Appendix L. 

6.5 Memorandum of Agreement 

Late in the process, Sustainable Conservation and the Corps negotiated a draft 

Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) that acknowledges the benefits of the Program and 

promises an expedited review process. As of July 2010, it is not clear whether or not the 

MOA will be approved; a copy of the draft MOA is included in Appendix L. 

Note: 

Some NWPs do not require notification to the Corps 

if certain project parameters (such as size limits of 

impacts to waters/wetlands) are not triggered. For 

example, a stream bank protection project 500 linear 

feet or less in length does not require an approval 

from the Corps as long as the operator complies with 

the conditions for Nationwide Permit 13 and the 

General Conditions for nationwide permits. 

Using RGP 70 for a “bio-engineered” stream bank 

project may be a better choice than NWP 13 because 

it authorizes temporary access and dewatering, 

limited amounts of rock riprap, and does not require 

compensatory mitigation for use of riprap. 

Project managers should carefully consider all the 

options available to meet Corps requirements. 

Always consider asking first if there is an existing 

exemption for practices in an agricultural setting, 

and document responses for the file. 

61


Blank Page 

62


7.0 PROCEDURES FOR N ON-COMPLIANCE 

We believe that landowners will be conscientious in complying with all of the 

requirements of the Program and that non-compliances will be few; however, if a 

landowner does not carry out work consistent with NRCS design standards and 

specifications, including the previously agreed upon permit conditions and 

environmental protection measures, the following procedures shall be followed in the 

order given (this procedure is also specified in the Cooperator Agreement and should be 

explained to the landowner): 

NRCS or CRCD will notify the landowner in writing about the problem and 

work directly with the landowner/ manager to try to resolve it; 

In the event the landowner still fails to conform, NRCS or CRCD will notify the 

landowner that their contract is cancelled; if a contract is cancelled, the 

landowner‟s actions are no longer covered by the Program 's permits and 

agreements; 

No later than five days after canceling a contract with a landowner, NRCS or 

CRCD will notify the regulatory agencies that the contract has been cancelled 

and will provide the agencies with the landowner‟s contact information; reason 

for contract cancellation shall not be provided to the agencies; 

The permitting agencies may follow up with the landowner directly to ascertain 

the reason for the cancellation and pursue any enforcement actions at their 

discretion. Contracts may be cancelled for reasons other than non-compliance; 

e.g., if a landowner changes his/ her mind about beginning a project, often due to 

unanticipated costs. 

63

Gaviota Coast Plan – Draft GavPAC Policy Review - Agriculture 

GavPAC Recommended 

Issue Areas 

Inland and Coastal Zone Revisions for GavPAC Consideration Issues and Considerations 

I. AGRICULTURE & SUBORDINATE USES 

TIERED PERMIT PROCESSING 

The purpose and intent of the Gaviota Agricultural permit tiers is to allow increased flexibility to support and encourage regional agriculture operations by identifying 

appropriate permitting requirements for various scales of specific activities. The scale of the included activities is intended to support or be compatible with agricultural 

activities on the Gaviota Coast. 

This list of activities is not the sole list of allowed uses; all currently exempt and allowed uses shall remain. This list of activities was developed from the guiding principle of 

what is appropriate for the Gaviota Coast taking into account; resources, being subordinate to existing operations, as well as the proposed visual policies. These activities 

currently have no exemptions, or have onerous permitting processes that deter permit applications for small-scale operations. 

AGRICULTURAL CULTIVATION AND GRAZING 

Cultivated Agriculture, 

Orchard, Vineyard 

Inland: No recommended changes 

Coastal: No recommended changes 

Grazing Inland: No recommended changes 


Bee Keeping Inland: No recommended changes 


Small Animal Keeping Inland: No recommended changes 


. 

Agriculuture-1 

January 12, 2012



Issue Areas 

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION 

Greenhouses 

Tiered Permitting 


Inland: 35.21, 35.42.140 Definition 35.110 

Exempt tier: 

1) Total greenhouse or similar structure square footage for indoor growing up to 3,000 square feet, 2) 

Generates no more than 10 additional vehicle roundtrips, 3) Does not interfere with agricultural 

production, resources, or operations on or adjacent to the lot on which it is located 

Tier I (LUP/CDP) 

1) Construction of new structure over 3,000 square feet, 2) Does not interfere with agricultural 


Tier II (CUP) 

Development on a scale greater than Tier I 

Coastal: 35-69.4.2, 35-81.6, 35-89.5, 35-90.4 Definition 35-58 

Exempt tier: 

1) Total greenhouse or similar structure square footage for indoor growing up to 3,000 square feet, 2) 

Generates no more than 10 additional vehicle roundtrips, 3) Does not interfere with agricultural 



1) Construction of new structure over 3,000 square feet, 2) Does not interfere with agricultural 




. 

Potential conflicts with 

existing primary 

agricultural use of the 

land, the Plan’s proposed 

visual resources policies 

and existing greenhouse 

development patterns in 

the plan area and region 

were considered. 

Potential impacts to 

agricultural land and 

traffic were also 

considered. 


January 12, 2012



Issue Areas 

Product Preparation 




Exempt Tier: 

1) Products grown within Santa Barbara County, 2) Generates no more that 10 additional vehicle 

roundtrips, 3) No new structures that would require a planning permit, 4) Does not interfere with 

agricultural production, resources, or operations on or adjacent to the lot on which it is located 

Tier I (LUP/CDP): 

1) Incremental impacts to noise & lighting, 2) 800 - 3,000 sq.ft. new structure(s), 3) Products grown 

within the Tri Counties, 4) Processing beyond the raw state, 5) Does not interfere with agricultural 






1) Products grown within Santa Barbara County, 2) Generates no more that 10 additional vehicle 

roundtrips, 3) No new structures that would require a planning permit, 4) Does not interfere with 



1) Incremental impacts to noise & lighting, 2) 800 - 3,000 sq.ft. new structure(s), 3) Products grown 

within the Tri Counties, 4) Processing beyond the raw state, 5) Does not interfere with agricultural 



. 




land, and support for 

agricultural viability were 

considered. 


agricultural land use, 

conflicts with proposed 

visual resource policies, 

traffic, air quality, noise & 

lighting were considered. 


January 12, 2012



Issue Areas 

Aquaculture/Aquaponics 

Tiered Permitting/Added Uses 





1) No new structure(s) that would require planning permits, 2) Cumulative total of no more than 10 

roundtrips per day, 3) A closed system, 4) Does not interfere with agricultural production, resources, or 

operations on or adjacent to the lot on which it is located 


None 


Development on a scale greater than Exempt tier 



1) No new structure(s) that would require planning permits, 2) Cumulative total of no more than 10 

roundtrips per day, 3) A closed system, 4) Does not interfere with agricultural production, resources, or 



None 



. 

Agricultural viability and 

potential impacts to 


traffic, and air & water 

resources and water 

quality were considered. 


January 12, 2012



Issue Areas 

AGRICULTURAL PROCESSING 

Composting Facility 

Tiered Permitting/Added Uses 


Inland: 35.42.100, 35.21, 35.42.070 Definition 35.110 

Exempt tier: 

1) Material originates within Santa Barbara County, 2) Cumulative total of no more than 10 roundtrips 

per day, 3) No new structure(s) that would require a planning permit, 4) 2,500 cubic yards or less of 

composting material, 5) Compost pile cannot be over 12 feet in height, 6) Does not interfere with 

agricultural production, resources, or operations on or adjacent to the lot on which it is located. 


None 




Exempt tier: 

1) Material originates within Santa Barbara County, 2) Cumulative total of no more than 10 roundtrips 

per day, 3) No new structure(s) that would require a planning permit, 4) 2,500 cubic yards or less of 

composting material, 5) Compost pile cannot be over 12 feet in height, 6) Does not interfere with 



None 



. 




land, agricultural support, 

and potential conflicts 

with the visual resources 

policies in the plan area 


Potential air and water 

resources and water 

quality impacts were also 

considered. 

Compliance with the 

County odor 


January 12, 2012



Issue Areas 

Drying, Freezing, 

Pre-cooling & Packaging 

Tiered Permitting/Added 

Uses 


Inland: 35.21 Definition 35.110 


1) Material originates within the Gaviota Region, 2) Cumulative total of no more than 10 roundtrips per 

day, 3) No new structure(s) that would require a planning permit, 4) Does not interfere with 



1) Activity is incidental to agricultural operations, 2) If new structure is proposed, it must be less than 

600 sq.ft., 3) Does not interfere with agricultural production, resources, or operations on or adjacent to 

the lot on which it is located, 4) Cumulative total of 20 roundtrips per day 






day, 3) No new structure(s) that would require a planning permit, 4) Does not interfere with 




600 sq.ft., 3) Does not interfere with agricultural production, resources, or operations on or adjacent to 

the lot on which it is located, 4) Cumulative total of 20 roundtrips per day 


. 






considered. 








January 12, 2012



Issue Areas 

Milling of Flour, Feed & 

Grain 


Uses 






day, 3) Does not interfere with agricultural production, resources, or operations on or adjacent to the 

lot on which it is located, 4) Structure less than 3,000 sq. ft. 


None 






day, 3) Does not interfere with agricultural production, resources, or operations on or adjacent to the 

lot on which it is located, 4) Structure less than 3,000 sq. ft. 


None 



. 






considered. 








January 12, 2012



Issue Areas 

Tree Nut Hulling & 

Shelling 


Uses 



Exempt Tier 


day, 3) No new structure(s) that would require a planning permit 


None 


Development on a scale greater than exempt tier 




day, 3) No new structure(s) that would require a planning permit 


None 



. 






considered. 








January 12, 2012



Issue Areas 

Small Scale Processing 

(Beyond the Raw State) 


Uses 



Exempt tier 

1) Material originates within the TriCounties, 2) Cumulative total of no more than 10 roundtrips per 

day, 3) No new structure(s) that would require a planning permit, 4) Required to follow appropriate 

Health and Safety regulations, 5) Does not interfere with agricultural production, resources, or 



1) Structure less than 3,000 square feet, 2) Does not interfere with agricultural production, resources, 

or operations on or adjacent to the lot on which it is located 




Exempt tier 


day, 3) No new structure(s) that would require a planning permit, 4) Required to follow appropriate 

Health and Safety regulations, 5) Does not interfere with agricultural production, resources, or 



1) Structure less than 3,000 square feet, 2) Does not interfere with agricultural production, resources, 



. 






considered. 








January 12, 2012



Issue Areas 

Lumber Processing & 

Milling 


Uses 






day, 3) New structure(s) less than 800 square feet, 4) Must follow Agricultural Commissioner Guidelines 

for import and export of plant materials, 5) Does not interfere with agricultural production, resources, 



None 






day, 3) New structure(s) less than 800 square feet, 4) Must follow Agricultural Commissioner Guidelines 

for import and export of plant materials, 5) Does not interfere with agricultural production, resources, 



None 


. 






considered. 





tree removal, traffic, air 

quality, noise & lighting 



January 12, 2012



Issue Areas 

Slaughtering Facility 

(Mobile & Stationary) 


Uses 





Mobile units exempted. No exemptions from permit requirements for stationary facilities. 


1) Requires a Gaviota Agricultural Processing Overlay, 2) Material originates from the Gaviota Region, 

3) New structures less than 3,000 square feet, 4) Does not interfere with agricultural production, 

resources, or operations on or adjacent to the lot on which it is located 





Mobile units exempted. No exemptions from permit requirements for stationary facilities. 


1) Requires a Gaviota Agricultural Processing Overlay, 2) Material originates from the Gaviota Region, 

3) New structures less than 3,000 square feet, 4) Does not interfere with agricultural production, 




. 

Consistency with state 

regulations, potential 

conflicts with existing 

primary agricultural use of 

the land, and support for 


considered. 








January 12, 2012



Issue Areas 

AGRICULTURAL SALES 

Plant Nursery (where 

plants are exported from 

the property) 



Inland: 35.21 - Definition 35.110 


1) Does not interfere with agricultural production, resources, or operations on or adjacent to the lot on 

which it is located, 2) No plants on the Agricultural Commissioner's list of noxious or invasive species 

shall be cultivated or sold 


1) Cumulative total of no more than 20 roundtrips per day, 2) Shade structure less than 3,000 square 

feet uses permeable, dark, non-reflective covering, 3) Does not interfere with agricultural production, 

resources, or operations on or adjacent to the lot on which it is located, 4) No plants on the Agricultural 

Commissioner's list of noxious or invasive species shall be cultivated or sold 






which it is located, 2) No plants on the Agricultural Commissioner's list of noxious or invasive species 

shall be cultivated or sold 


. 






considered. 





traffic, air quality, and 

invasive species impacts 



January 12, 2012



Issue Areas 

Farm Stands 



1) Cumulative total of no more than 20 roundtrips per day, 2) Shade structure less than 3,000 square 

feet uses permeable, dark, non-reflective covering, 3) Does not interfere with agricultural production, 

resources, or operations on or adjacent to the lot on which it is located, 4) No plants on the Agricultural 

Commissioner's list of noxious or invasive species shall be cultivated or sold 





1) Material originates within the TriCounties, 2) New or existing structure(s), or portion of existing 

structure(s) are less than 800 square feet, 3) Incorporate new State Farm Standards Regulations per AB 

2168 which will allow for sales of bottled water, sodas, and other nonhazardous products produced 

offsite (limited to a maximum 50 square foot area), 4) Ingress and egress to agricultural sales area shall 

be clearly visible, and turning movements into the premises from adjacent road rights-of-way shall not 

create congestion or cause unnecessary slowing at access points, 5) Accessory sales of artisanal crafts 

created within a close proximity are allowed, but must be subordinate to farm stands sales as 

determined by percent sales floor area, 6) The public has access to a maximum 10,000 square foot 

area, not including parking areas, 7) Does not interfere with agricultural production, resources, or 



None 

Tier II (CUP/DP) 


. 


January 12, 2012



Issue Areas 

Firewood Processing and 

Sales 


Uses 


Coastal: 35-69.4.2, 35-81.6, 35-89.5, 35-90.4, 35-131 Definition 35-58 


1) Material originates within the TriCounties, 2) New or existing structure(s), or portion of existing 

structure(s) are less than 800 square feet, 3) Incorporate new State Farm Standards Regulations per AB 

2168 which will allow for sales of bottled water, sodas, and other nonhazardous products produced 

offsite (limited to a maximum 50 square foot area), 4) Ingress and egress to agricultural sales area shall 

be clearly visible, and turning movements into the premises from adjacent road rights-of-way shall not 

create congestion or cause unnecessary slowing at access points, 5) Accessory sales of artisanal crafts 

created within a close proximity are allowed, but must be subordinate to farm stands sales as 

determined by percent sales floor area, 6) The public has access to a maximum 10,000 square foot 

area, not including parking areas, 7) Does not interfere with agricultural production, resources, or 



None 

Tier II (CUP/DP) 




1) Material originates within the TriCounties, 2) Production limited to limbing of healthy trees and 

downed or diseased trees, 3) Cumulative total of no more than 10 roundtrips per day, 4) No new 

structure(s) that would require a planning permit, 5) Must follow Agricultural Commissioner Guidelines 

for import and export of plant materials, 6) Must be consistent with oak tree ordinance requirements, 


. 


January 12, 2012



Issue Areas 


which it is located 


None 





1) Material originates within the TriCounties, 2) Production limited to limbing of healthy trees and 

downed or diseased trees, 3) Cumulative total of no more than 10 roundtrips per day, 4) No new 

structure(s) that would require a planning permit, 5) Must follow Agricultural Commissioner Guidelines 

for import and export of plant materials, 6) Must be consistent with oak tree ordinance requirements, 


which it is located 


None 


Development on a scale greater than exempt tier. 

. 


January 12, 2012



Issue Areas 

EDUCATIONAL EXPERIENCES 

Educational Experiences 

Tiered Permitting/ 

Added Uses 




1) Activity is incidental to agricultural operations, 2) No new structure(s) that would require a planning 

permit, 3) Cumulative total of no more than 10 roundtrips per day, 4) Does not include commercial 

facilities open to the general public, 5) Does not require an expansion of urban services, 6) Less than 30 

people is not an event and unlimited, 31-75 people constitutes an event and limited to 20 events per 

year 1 , 7) Does not interfere with agricultural production, resources, or operations on or adjacent to the 

lot on which it is located, 8) A log of all events must be kept and presented to the county upon request 


None 






permit, 3) Cumulative total of no more than 10 roundtrips per day, 4) Does not include commercial 

facilities open to the general public, 5) Does not require an expansion of urban services, 6) Less than 30 

people is not an event and unlimited, 31-75 people constitutes an event and limited to 20 events per 

year 1 , 7) Does not interfere with agricultural production, resources, or operations on or adjacent to the 

. 

1 Any events exceeding 

these limits would be 

considered a special 

event, see LUDC Section 

35.42.260. This does not 

include activities in the 

Outdoor Recreation 

category. 


January 12, 2012



Issue Areas 

RECREATION 

Campgrounds 1 



lot on which it is located, 8) A log of all events must be kept and presented to the county upon request 


None 



Inland: 35.21, 35.42.240 Definition 35.110, 35.30.140 


1) Educational Camping Experiences, 2) Does not interfere with agricultural production, resources, or 




permit, 3) No new grading that would require a permit, 4) No new infrastructure, 5) No electricity 

(power), 6) No waste discharge on-site, 7) Located outside of the proposed Gaviota Critical Viewshed 

Corridor, 8) 15 or fewer campsites, with a maximum of 2 vehicles per site, 9) No new impervious 

surfaces, 10) Maximum stay of 14 days per person per year, 11) Incremental increases to noise and 

lighting, 12) No visitor serving services (i.e., laundry, showers, general store). A farm stand selling local 

produce is an acceptable visitor serving use, 13) Does not interfere with agricultural production, 




. 

1 Tent, trailer, and 

recreational vehicle 

camping allowed if in 

compliance with all 

standards for each 

respective permit tier. 


January 12, 2012



Issue Areas 

Fishing 4 

Tiered Permitting/Added Use 


Coastal: 35-69.4.2, 35-81.6, 35-89.5, 35-90.4 Definition 35-58, 35-62 


1) Educational Camping Experiences, 2) Does not interfere with agricultural production, resources, or 




permit, 3) No new grading that would require a permit, 4) No new infrastructure, 5) No electricity 

(power), 6) No waste discharge on-site, 7) Located outside of the proposed Gaviota Critical Viewshed 

Corridor, 8) 15 or fewer campsites, with a maximum of 2 vehicles per site, 9) No new impervious 

surfaces, 10) Maximum stay of 14 days per person per year, 11) Incremental increases to noise and 

lighting, 12) No visitor serving services (i.e., laundry, showers, general store). A farm stand selling local 

produce is an acceptable visitor serving use, 13) Does not interfere with agricultural production, 







permit, 3) Legally permitted or existing offstream reservoirs, 4) Cumulative total of 10 roundtrips per 

day. 



600 square feet, 3) Does not interfere with agricultural production, resources, or operations on or 

. 

4 Activities will also need 

to follow all appropriate 

State & Federal 

Regulations (i.e., CA DFG, 

US FWS, RWQCB, etc) 


January 12, 2012



Issue Areas 

Horseback Riding 5 



adjacent to the lot on which it is located and does not adversely impact environmental resources, 4) 

Cumulative total of 20 roundtrips per day. 






permit, 3) Legally permitted or existing offstream reservoirs, 4) Cumulative total of 10 roundtrips per 

day. 



600 square feet, 3) Does not interfere with agricultural production, resources, or operations on or 

adjacent to the lot on which it is located and does not adversely impact environmental resources, 4) 

Cumulative total of 20 roundtrips per day. 






permit, 3) Cumulative total of 10 roundtrips per day, 4) Does not interfere with agricultural production, 

resources, or operations on or adjacent to the lot on which it is located. 

. 

5 Subject to Agricultural 

Commissioner's guidance 

for invasive species 

management. 


January 12, 2012



Issue Areas 




600 square feet, 3) Cumulative total of 20 roundtrips per day, 4) Does not interfere with agricultural 

production, resources, or operations on or adjacent to the lot on which it is located. 


Development on a scale greater than Tier I. 




permit, 3) Cumulative total of 10 roundtrips per day, 4) Does not interfere with agricultural production, 




600 square feet, 3) Cumulative total of 20 roundtrips per day, 4) Does not interfere with agricultural 

production, resources, or operations on or adjacent to the lot on which it is located. 



. 


January 12, 2012



Issue Areas 

ACCOMMODATIONS/LODGING 

Small Scale Guest Ranch 





None 


A single guest ranch may be included as part of an agricultural operation on contracted land if located 

on a parcel of 40 acres or greater in size within the AG-II zone district, provided all of the requirements 

set forth below are met. Bed and breakfasts, farmstays, and homestays are included within this 

category of guest ranches as long as they meet the requirements established below: 

1) The guest ranch must be housed in a single existing legally permitted and habitable residential 

structure at least five years old and shall be counted toward the maximum area allowance of the 

development envelope, 2) The maximum number of guests accommodated shall be 15 per night and 

must be accommodated in six or fewer bedrooms, 3) The guest ranch shall be located on a single 

premise and be consistent with the compatibility guidelines set forth in section two of the Uniform 

Rules, 4) Food service shall only be available to registered guests. The cost of any food service shall be 

included in the total price for accommodation and not charged separately, 5) The guest ranch shall be 

located on, and be part of, a farm or ranch operation that produces agricultural products, and the 

guest ranch shall not constitute the principal land use of the premises, 6) Does not interfere with 




. 


January 12, 2012



Issue Areas 




None 


A single guest ranch may be included as part of an agricultural operation on contracted land if located 

on a parcel of 40 acres or greater in size within the AG-II zone district, provided all of the requirements 

set forth below are met. Bed and breakfasts, farmstays, and homestays are included within this 

category of guest ranches as long as they meet the requirements established below: 

1) The guest ranch must be housed in a single existing legally permitted and habitable residential 

structure at least five years old and shall be counted toward the maximum area allowance of the 

development envelope, 2) The maximum number of guests accommodated shall be 15 per night and 

must be accommodated in six or fewer bedrooms, 3) The guest ranch shall be located on a single 

premise and be consistent with the compatibility guidelines set forth in section two of the Uniform 

Rules, 4) Food service shall only be available to registered guests. The cost of any food service shall be 

included in the total price for accommodation and not charged separately, 5) The guest ranch shall be 

located on, and be part of, a farm or ranch operation that produces agricultural products, and the 

guest ranch shall not constitute the principal land use of the premises, 6) Does not interfere with 

agricultural production, resources, or operations on or adjacent to the lot on which it is located. 



. 


January 12, 2012



Issue Areas 

ENTERTAINMENT 

Special Events / 

Temporary Uses 1 

Tiered Permitting/ 

Added Use 


Inland: 35.42.260 Definition 35.110 


1) The use, event and such uses and events when considered cumulatively shall be subordinate to and 

located on, and be a part of, a farm or ranch operation that produces agricultural products, 2) No 

adverse impacts to existing or potential future agricultural operations, 3) Maximum attendance of 300 

people, 4) Maximum of 3 event days in a row, and a total of 10 event days allowed per year, 5) Setup 

and cleanup days do not count as event days, 6) Does not interfere with agricultural production, 



None 



Coastal: 35-137 Definition 35.110 Definition 35-58 


1) The use, event and such uses and events when considered cumulatively shall be subordinate to and 

located on, and be a part of, a farm or ranch operation that produces agricultural products, 2) No 

adverse impacts to existing or potential future agricultural operations, 3) Maximum attendance of 300 

people, 4) Maximum of 3 event days in a row, and a total of 10 event days allowed per year, 5) Setup 

and cleanup days do not count as event days, 6) Does not interfere with agricultural production, 

. 

1 A "festival permit" from 

the Santa Barbara County 

Fire Department, as well 

as approval from the 

Department of Public 

Health, may be required. 


January 12, 2012



Issue Areas 

AGRICULTURAL 

HOUSING 




None 



II. AGRICULTURAL HOUSING 

Voluntary Actions that Merit an Opportunity to Either Apply for One Residential Second Unit or Convert 

an Existing Guest House to a Residential Second Unit (RSU). Tie the maximum size of the RSU allowed 

in agricultural zones to the size of the parcel using the following tiers: 

Parcel Size Maximum RSU (Square Feet) 

10-40 Acres 1,200 

40–100 Acres 1,600 

>100 Acres 2,000 

Potential for remote location for RSU: LUP process for clustered unit, CUP process for remote unit. 

Develop a method to weight the value of different landowner actions, including the following: 

Coastal Habitat, Watershed and Viewshed Enhancement 

• Providing coastal access across their property 

• Preparation of hydrological or watershed plan 

. 

1 A permanent 

conservation easement or 

deed restriction conveyed 

to the County, upon 

approval, or to a nonprofit 

farmland trust, land 

trust or conservation 

organization whose 

principal purpose is to 

conserve farmland and 

open space, or other 

suitable entity. 

2 Farmland owners are not 

required to sell the part of 


January 12, 2012



Issue Areas 


• Habitat conservation plan 

• Identify areas to reintroduce endangered species habitat (safe harbor consideration) 

• Restore watershed 

• Protect critical viewshed 

Conservation and Land Use 

• Provide a conservation easement to keep land in agricultural production in perpetuity 1 

• Contribute to fund used to purchase development rights 2 

• Participation in NRCS Partners in Restoration program 

• Contribute to an endowment similar to CREF fund (oil industry mitigation fund) 

• Participation in Williamson Act contract 

• Purchase of development rights at reduced price to reduce the future tax burden on the property 

owner 

• Restoration of building(s) of historic significance 

Energy and Sustainability 

• Off-grid buildings 

• LEED Certified Gold Building 

• Commit to organic farming practices and CCOF certification in perpetuity 

• Prepare a Farm Plan 

• Multi-generational unit agreement to keep property in agricultural production in perpetuity 

Judgment required in valuing potential landowner actions and determinations at the staff level those 

actions that would clearly warrant the right to apply for an RSU. The provision of coastal access, and 

participation in an easement contract, and habitat preservation and restoration 3 on the short list of 

actions that merit an RSU. Landowner actions required as part of conditions of approval or mitigation 

. 

their property that is to 

become permanent 

agricultural open space, 

provided that they convey 

the development rights of 

that open space in a 

conservation easement 

prohibiting future 

development of this 

property. 

3 Only when coupled with 

maintenance provisions. 


January 12, 2012



Issue Areas 

AGRICULTURAL PERMIT 

STREAMLINING 


for a larger project cannot county toward the RSU incentive. As such, an action must go beyond 

mitigating project impacts and standard conditions of project approval. 

III. AGRICULTURAL PERMIT STREAMLINING 

Desire to include recently adopted inland agricultural permit streamlined processes in the coastal area 

Inland: No recommended changes 

Coastal: Incorporate the Agricultural Permit Streamlining Ordinance Amendment adopted for the 

inland area on 06/01/10 into the Article II Zoning Ordinance for the coastal zone 

Develop a method to weight the value of different landowner actions, including the following: 

Agricultural Accessory Structures (AG-II Zone Only) 

• The amendment downshifts the permit requirement from a Land Use Permit (LUP) to a Zoning 

Clearance (ZC) for small agricultural structures that comply with all of the following standards: 

a. The gross floor area is less than 5,000 sq. ft. 

b. The Director determines the use of the structure is accessory to the overall agricultural 

use of the property and it would not impact the viability of the on-site agricultural 

production. 

c. Utilities are limited to electricity and water. 

d. The structure is not located within 1,000 feet of a public road or public use area (e.g., 

public park or hiking trail) unless it can be demonstrated that the structure would not 

be visible from a public road or area. 

e. The project must be consistent with development standards that address 

protection of biological resources and visual compatibility. 

• If a structure does not comply with these criteria, it may still be permitted with a LUP. 

Entrance Gates & Livestock Loading Ramps (AG-II Zone Only) 

. 


January 12, 2012



Issue Areas 


• The amendment exempts from a permit (1) all livestock loading ramps and (2) entrance gates that 

comply with all of the following standards: 

a. Height is limited to 18 feet, footprint of each gate post above 8 feet does not exceed two 

feet in width, and the cross member does not exceed two feet in height and thickness. 

b. Ornamentation allowed if appurtenant to gate. 

c. Signs allowed if compatible with the size and style and of the entrance gate. 

d. The project must be consistent with development standards that address protection of 

biological resources and visual compatibility. 

• If the entrance gate does not comply with these criteria, it may be permitted with a LUP. 

Housing for up to Four Agricultural Employees and Their Families (AG-I & AG-II Zones) 

• This amendment downshifts the permit requirement from a MCUP to a LUP for projects housing 

up to a maximum of four agricultural employees (including families) subject to the following 

standards: 

a. Employees must work full-time in agriculture. In the AG-I zone they must work full-time 

on the lot where the dwelling is located; in AG-II zone they must work a majority of the 

time on the lot where the dwelling is located. 

b. Documentation of employment & recordation of a Notice to Property Owners required. 

c. Structure must be sited to minimize impacts to productive agricultural land, prime soils, 

and adjacent agricultural operations. 



• If the proposed farm employee housing does not comply with these criteria, the project may be 

permitted with a MCUP. 

Detached Residential Second Units (AG-I-5, -10 & -20 Zones only) 

• The amendment shifts the permit requirement for a detached RSU from a MCUP to a LUP subject 

to the following standards: 

. 


January 12, 2012



Issue Areas 


a. Floor area is limited to 1,200 sq. ft. size and height is limited to 16 feet. 

b. Structure must be sited to minimize impacts to productive agricultural land, prime soils, 

and adjacent agricultural operations. 

c. The project must be consistent with development standards that address protection of 


• If the proposed DRSU cannot comply with these criteria, the project may be permitted with a 

MCUP. 

Change to Development Plan Requirement (AG-II Zone only) 

• The amendment changes the existing the 20,000 sq. ft. threshold for all lots to one that is related 

to lot size. The following shows the Development Plan thresholds for agricultural structural 

development on AG-II zoned properties based on lot size: 

Lot Size (acres) Threshold (sq. ft.) 

Less than 40 20,000 

40 to less than 100 25,000 

100 to less than 200 30,000 

200 to less than 320 40,000 

320 or more 50,000 

• The ordinance also includes the following provisions: 

a. The floor area of exempt structures (e.g., pole barns less than 500 sq. ft., buildings less 

than 120 sq. ft., structures valued at less than $2,000) and up to 10,000 sq. ft. of 

agricultural structures having three or fewer walls (at least one long side of the 

structure shall be open) with no individual building exceeding 3,000 sq. ft. is not 

included for the purpose of determining compliance with the threshold. 

b. A Development Plan is required if non-agricultural structural development area exceeds a 

gross floor area of 15,000 sq. ft. 

. 


January 12, 2012



Issue Areas 


c. Single agricultural buildings exceeding 15,000 sq. ft. would require a Development Plan; 

any subsequent agricultural building exceeding 10,000 sq. ft. would also require a 

Development Plan. 



IV. AGRICULTURAL CLUSTERING 

Agricultural clustering has been examined as a potential tool to reduce potential impacts from the 

existing zoning development potential to agricultural land uses. By clustering structural development 

to an optimal location, maximum use of the agricultural potential of the land and minimum road and 

infrastructure development impacts may be realized. The general purpose of clustered development is 

to minimize impacts to agriculture from development and the subdivision of property while realizing 

financial benefits to the property owner through reduced infrastructure costs. 

The AS determined that the intended goal of agricultural clustering to maximize agricultural use of the 

land and minimize impacts merits consideration, however implementation issues identified during their 

discussions remain unresolved. 

Transfer of Development Rights and Development Agreements 

The AS reviewed transfer of development rights (TDR) and development agreements (DA) as potential 

mechanisms to facilitate cluster concepts and provided the following recommendation. The AS 

identified a need to identify potential receiver sites where additional density may be appropriate. 

In the absence of consensus regarding clustering, the AS is recommending direction to staff to develop 

a tool that would allow transfer development of development rights from one parcel to another to 

. 

The AS identified issues of 

potential growth inducing 

and visual impacts, 

inconsistent and minimum 

parcel sizes, ownership 

considerations, and 

unintended agricultural 

impacts, that would need 

to be addressed by the 

GavPAC before an 

agricultural clustering tool 

could be a viable option in 

the Plan Area. 

The potential for TDR to 

provide incentives for 

multigenerational farm 


January 12, 2012



Issue Areas 


provide another primary housing unit available for generational housing without changing the zoning 

or creating a new for sale residential unit. 

IV. PARTNERS IN RESTORATION 

PERMIT COORDINATION PROGRAM 

In response to direction from the GavPAC the AS and representatives from the Cachuma Resource 

Conservation District (CRCD) and the Environmental Defense Center addressed issues identified during 

GavPAC meetings on the Partners in Restoration (PIR) permit coordination program. 

The AS is recommending the revised PIR permit program as having addressed previously identified issues 

and to address any further revisions during a future meeting of the GavPAC. 

Under the PIR permit coordination program, regulatory agencies conditioned the practices and entered, or 

are in process of entering, into programmatic agreements with the NRCS and RCDs that pre-approved the 

18 conservation practices. The environmental protection measures and conditions associated with 

implementation and maintenance of any of these practices, as negotiated with permitting agencies, are 

specific to the resource concerns present in each county and project area. The program is designed to 

include follow up and monitoring by the NRCS and the RCD for each conservation project, thus resulting in 

high quality projects, and ensuring agency mandates for resource protection are met. 

The PIR programs’ pre-approved 18 conservation practices include: 

1. Access Road Improvements - Road drainage or location improvements to reduce erosion and runoff 

2. Channel Stabilization - Stabilizes the bed of a channel 

3. Planting - Planted vegetation (trees, shrubs, grasses) on eroding or exposed areas 

4. Debris Removal & Vegetation Management/Clearing & Snagging - Removes unwanted materials to 

. 

housing, and the merits of 

creating agricultural land 

with no residential 

development potential 


The PIR program 

addresses habitat 

conservation and 

restoration and water 

quality practices on 

agricultural land in the 

Plan Area. 

Additional issues related 

to stream erosion control 

installations may be 

identified and require 

additional GavPAC review. 


January 12, 2012



Issue Areas 


minimize flow and fish blockages in streams or waterways 

5. Diversion - Slope structures to slow and redirect excessive surface flows 

6. Filter Strip - Vegetated strip between cropland, grazing land or other disturbed land and environmentally 

sensitive areas 

7. Grade Stabilization Structure - Structure to control erosion and prevent headcutting in channels 

8. Grassed Waterway - Vegetated channel for conveying surface water flow 

9. Irrigation System, Tailwater Recovery - Collects surface and sub-surface irrigation water for re-use or 

sediment capture 

Pipeline - Water systems in sensitive areas to improve livestock water management 

11. Ponds - Off-channel water impoundments for alternative water sources for livestock, away from sensitive 

riparian areas 

12. Restoration and Management of Rare or Declining Habitats - Restores stream or upland habitats which 

support rare natural areas 

13. Sediment Basins - Installed basin for capture of debris, sediment or high flows 

14. Stream Crossing - Improves existing crossings to prevent soil erosion, reduce pollution from entering 

waterway and allow fish passage 

15. Stream Habitat Improvement and Management - Restores streambank and stream channel habitat and 

function 

16. Streambank Protection - Planted vegetation or natural structures to stabilize and protect streambanks 

17. Structure for Water Control - Water control structure or system, usually a culvert or pipe, to improve 

drainage or flow 

18. Underground Outlets - Sub-surface drainage pipeline and outlet to collect surface flow and prevent 

erosion 

. 


January 12, 2012



Issue Areas 


V. STANDARDS FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION SITES ON 

SLOPES 40% OR GREATER 

The issue of steep slopes standards for agricultural production sites arose during deliberations of the 

full GavPAC who directed the AS to develop standards for steep slopes to avoid a need to rezone land, 

except on public land where a rezone to Mountainous (MT) is being considered. 

The Draft Standards for Agricultural Production Sites on slopes 40% or Greater 

The draft agricultural production site standards for slopes 40% or greater are currently being 

developed by staff and the AS and are based on Ventura County standards for avocado orchards on 

steep slopes adapted to Gaviota. 

The standards include preparation of an erosion control plan that will require NRCS or RCD and County 

review and sign off. The erosion control plan must include site specific field verifiable best 

management practices to ensure slope stabilization, soil conservation, and water quality control and 

identify preferred land clearing methods. The standards will be included in the Article II and LUDC 

amendments accompanying the Draft Plan for GavPAC consideration prior to initiation of the 

environmental phase. 

G:\GROUP\COMP\Planning Areas\GAVIOTA\Gaviota Coast Plan\GavPAC\Subcommittee Meetings\Agriculture\Meeting No. 26 1-17-12\Draft GCP Policy Worksheet-Agriculture.docx- 

. 

The merits of including 

steep slope agricultural 

site standards would 

avoid the need for 

multiple zoning 

regulations on agricultural 

lands in the Plan Area and 

address issues related to 

the potential loss of 

important soils, erosion 

and water quality issues. 

Coordination with NRCS 

and RCD regarding the 

feasibility of permit 

review will be conducted 

The GavPAC will conduct 

further review of the 40% 

slopes standards. 


January 12, 2012

Meeting/ 

Workshop Type 







***COMPLETED*** 











0BGaviota Coast Plan GavPAC Meeting Schedule 

Meeting Dates and Discussion Topics 

[Meeting dates, times, and locations are subject to change] 

Date and 

Time 

Wednesday, 

August 29 

2012 

6:00 p.m. 

Wednesday, 

August 15 

2012 

6:00 p.m. 

Wednesday, 

August 1 

2012 

6:00 p.m. 

Wednesday, July 

18 

2012 

6:00 p.m. 

Wednesday, July 

11 

2012 

6:00 p.m. 

Wednesday, June 

20 

2012 

6:00 p.m. 

Wednesday, June 

6 

2012 

6:00 p.m. 

Thursday, May 24 

2012 

6:00 p.m. 

Wednesday, May 

9 

2012 

6:00 p.m. 

Wednesday, April 

25 

2012 

6:00 p.m. 

Wednesday, April 

11 

2012 

July 2, 2012 

Location Discussion Topics 

Vista de Las Cruces 

School Auditorium 





Santa Barbara County 

Planning Commission 

Hearing Room 



Hearing Room 





Hearing Room 









Hearing Room 

TBD 

TBD 

TBD 

Agricultural Subcommittee Report III 

Agricultural Subcommittee Report II 

Agricultural Subcommittee Report I 

Trails Policy Review II 

Trails Policy Review I 

Trails Subcommittee Report VIII 

Trails Subcommittee Report VII 

Trails Subcommittee Report VI

Draft - Scalability 

Proposed Permit Scalability for Activities on Gaviota Coast Agricultural Zoned Land 

Agricultural 

Cultivation and 

Grazing 

Activity 1,2 

Cultivated Agriculture, 

Orchard, Vineyard 

Grazing 

Existing Permit Requirements 

Exempt - (E) 

per Sec. 35.21.030 

Agricultural Zones of the LUDC 

 

Exempt - (E) 

per Sec. 35.21.030 


 

Gaviota Coast Plan 

Proposed Permit Requirements 

Exempt - (E) Tier I - (LUP/CDP ) 

N/A - Activity to remain exempt N/A - Activity to remain exempt 


Bee Keeping p g 

Exempt - (E) 

per p Sec. 35.42.060 - Animal Keeping p g, , Table 4-1 of 

the LUDC 

N/A / - Activity y to remain exempt p N/A / - Activity y to remain exempt p 

Small Animal Keeping 

(i.e. chickens, rabbits, 

etc) 

Exempt - (E) 

per Sec. 35.42.060 - Animal Keeping , Table 4-1 of 

the LUDC 


rev. 10/6/11 AS 

Page 1


Commercial Outdoor 

Recreation 

Activity 1,2 

Campgrounds 3 

Fishing 4 

Horseback 

Riding/Boarding 5 

Footnotes 


CUP 

per Sec. 35.42.240 

Rural Recreation of the LUDC 

Exempt - (E) 


the LUDC 

Exempt - (E) 


the LUDC 



1) Educational Camping Experiences 

2) Does not interfere with agricultural 

production, resources, or operations on or 

adjacent to the lot on which it is located 

1) Activity is incidental to agricultural operations 

2) No new structure(s) that would require a 

planning permit 

3) Legally permitted or existing offstream 

reservoirs 

4) Cumulative total of 10 roundtrips per day 

1) Activity is incidental to agricultural 

operations 









2) If new structure is proposed, it must be less than 600 square feet 

3) Does not interfere with agricultural production, resources, or operations on or adjacent to 

the lot on which it is located and does not adversely impact environmental resources 



2) If new structure is proposed, it must be less than 600 square feet 



the lot on which it is located 

1) In regards to outdoor recreation activities, motorized vehicle (i.e., trucks, ATVs, OHVs, etc) usage shall be conducted on existing ranch roads. Motorized vehicle usage shall only result in incremental increases to noise and lighting 

2) Activities will also need to follow the appropriate Santa Barbara County Fire Codes and receive Fire Department approval, as necessary. 

3) Tent, trailer, and recreational vehicle camping allowed if in compliance with all standards for each respective permit tier. 

4) Activities will also need to follow all appropriate State & Federal Regulations (i.e., CA DFG, US FWS, RWQCB, etc) 

5) Subject to Agricultural Commissioner's guidance for invasive species management. 


2) No new structure(s) that would require a planning permit 

3) No new grading that would require a permit 

4) No new infrastructure 

5) No electricity (power) 

6) No waste discharge on-site 

7) Located outside of the proposed Gaviota Critical Viewshed Corridor 

8) 15 or fewer campsites, with a maximum of 2 vehicles per site 

9) No new impervious surfaces 

10) Maximum stay of 14 days per person per year 

11) Incremental increases to noise and lighting 

12) No visitor serving services (i.e., laundry, showers, general store). A farm stand selling 

local produce is an acceptable visitor serving use 

13) Cumulative total of no more than 30 roundtrips per day 

143) Does not interfere with agricultural production, resources, or operations on or 


Draft - Scalability rev. 10/6/11 AS Page 2



Accommodations/ 

Lodging 

Activity 

Small Scale Guest 

Ranch/Farmstay 

/B&B 


CUP 

per Sec. 35.21.030 - Agricultural Zones Allowable 

Land Use, Table 2-1, of the LUDC. 

Use is currently termed "Lodging - Guest 

Ranch" and is in the land use category of 

"Services" 


Exempt - (E) Tier I - (LUP/CDP ) Tier II - (CUP) 

No exemptions from permit requirements. 

rev. 10/6/11 AS 


A single guest ranch may be included as part of an agricultural operation on contracted 

land if located on a parcel of 40 acres or greater in size within the AG-II zone district, 

provided all of the requirements set forth below are met. Bed and breakfasts, farmstays, 

and homestays are included within this category of guest ranches as long as they meet the 

requirements established below: 

1) The guest ranch must be housed in a single existing legally permitted and habitable 

residential structure at least five years old and shall be counted toward the maximum area 

allowance of the development envelope 

2) The maximum number of guests accommodated shall be 15 per night and must be 

accommodated in six or fewer bedrooms 

3) The guest ranch shall be located on a single premise and be consistent with the 

compatibility guidelines set forth in section two of the Uniform Rules 

4) Food service shall only be available to registered guests. The cost of any food service 

shall be included in the total price for accommodation and not charged separately 

5) The guest ranch shall be located on, and be part of, a farm or ranch operation that 

produces agricultural products, and the guest ranch shall not constitute the principal land 

use of the premises 

6) Does not interfere with agricultural production, resources, or operations on or adjacent 

to the lot on which it is located 

CUP 

per Sec. 35.21.030 - Agricultural 

Zones Allowable Land Use, 

Table 2-1, of the LUDC. 

Use is currently termed 

"Lodging - Guest Ranch" and is 

in the land use category of 

"Services" 

Page 3


Entertainment 

Activity 

Special Events / 

Temporary Uses 1 

Footnotes 


MCUP 

per Sec. 35.42.260.F.9 - Temporary Uses and 

Trailers, Table 4-10, of the LUDC. 

An event that would receive remuneration is 

currently termed a "Reception and similar 

gathering facilities (commercial)" and is in the 

land use category of "Temporary Events". 

Note: per Sec. 35.42.260.F.4, "Charitable and 

other noncommercial functions" are Exempt 

from permit requirements on a lot five gross 

acres or more in area when the number of 

persons present at the event at any one time 

does not exceed 300. A LUP/CDP is required 

when the number of persons present at the 

event at any one time exceeds 300. 




1) The use, event and such uses and events when considered cumulatively shall be 

subordinate to and located on, and be a part of, a farm or ranch operation that 

produces agricultural products. 

2) No adverse impacts to existing or potential future agricultural operations 

3) Maximum attendance of 300 people 

4) Maximum of 3 event days in a row, and a total of 10 event days allowed per year 

5) Setup and cleanup days do not count as event days 

6) Does not interfere with agricultural production, resources, or operations on or 

adjacent to the lot on which it is located 7) 

No new structures that would require a planning permit 

1 A "festival permit" from the Santa Barbara County Fire Department, as well as approval from the Department of Public Health, may be required. 

Draft - Scalability rev. 10/6/11 AS Page 4 

None



Agricultural Production 

Activity 

Greenhouses 

(excludes seasonal or temporary 

shade houses and hoop structure, 

includes mushroom farming) 

Product 

Preparation 

(incidental cleaning, 

grading, packing, polishing, 

sizing or similar preparation 

of crops) 

Aquaculture/ 

Aquaponics 


LUP/CDP 

per Sec. 35.42.140 - Greenhouses and Sec. 

35.21.030, of the LUDC. 

Exempt - (E) 

per Sec. 35.21.030 


 

Exempt - (E) 


the LUDC 



1) Total greenhouse or similar structure square 

footage for indoor growing up to 3,000 square 

feet 

21) Generates no more than 10 additional 

vehicle roundtrips 




43) A total of 2,000 square feet of greenhouse or 

similar structure may be located inside the 

critical viewshed, or up to 4,000 square feet 

outside the critical viewshed 

4) Subject to visual viewshed policy 

1) Generates no more that 10 additional vehicle 

roundtrips 

2) No new structures that would require a 






1) No new structure(s) that would require 

planning permits 

2) Cumulative total of no more than 10 

roundtrips per day 

3) A closed system 





rev. 10/6/11 AS 


1) Construction of new structure over 4,000 square feet (no more than 4,000 square feet 

within the critical viewshed) 




3) No more than 4,000 square feet per parcel of new structures in the critical viewshed 

1) Incremental impacts to noise & lighting 

2) 800 - 3,000 sqft new structures 

3) Processing beyond the raw state 




No Tier I 

Page 5


Agricultural Sales 

Activity 

Plant Nursery 

(where plants are exported 

from the property) 

Farm Stands 

Firewood Processing 

and Sales 


Exempt 

per Sec. 35.42.050 - Agricultural Product Sales. 

Sales of plants grown in containers, including 

imported from off-site, incidental sale of garden 

and landscape materials and equipment, 

including retail sales direct to the public 

provided the area to which the public has 

access is limited to 10,000 square feet. 

Including seasonal sale of imported vegetative 

holiday products (e.g., pumpkins, Christmas 

trees). Public access to areas greater than 10,000 

square feet triggers approval of a discretionary 

Development Plan 

Exempt - (E) 

per Sec. 35.21.030 


 

Exempt - (E) 


the LUDC 



1) New or existing structure(s), or portion of existing structure(s) are 

less than 800 square feet 

21) Does not interfere with agricultural production, resources, or 


32) No plants on the Agricultural Commissioner's list of noxious or 

invasive species shall be cultivated or sold 

1) Material originates within the TriCounties 

2) New or existing structure(s), or portion of existing structure(s) are 

less than 800 square feet 

3) Incorporate new State Farm Standards Regulations per AB 2168 

into the LUDC which will allow for sales of bottled water, sodas, 

and in a limited area, potentially other nonhazardous products 

produced offsite (limited to a maximum 50 square foot area). 

4) Ingress and egress to agricultural sales area shall be clearly 

visible, and turning movements into the premises from adjacent 

road rights-of-way shall not create congestion or cause unnecessary 

slowing at access points 

5) Accessory sales of artisanal crafts created within a close proximity 

are allowed, but must be subordinate to farm stands sales as 

determined by percent sales floor area. 

6) The public access to a maximum of 10,000 square feet, not 

including parking areas 




2) Production limited to limbing of healthy trees and downed or 

diseased trees 


4) No new structure(s) that would require a planning permit. 

5) Must follow Agricultural Commissioner Guidelines for import 

and export of plant materials 

6) Must be consistent with oak tree ordinance requirements 





2) Shade structure less than 3,000 square feet uses permeable, dark, non-reflective 

covering 

3) No more than 10,000 square feet per parcel of total accessory structures, in the 

proposed critical viewshed corridor 



54) No plants on the Agricultural Commissioner's list of noxious or invasive species shall 

be cultivated or sold 

No Tier I. Activity is exempt or triggers the threshold for a development plan. 

Draft - Scalability rev. 10/6/11 AS Page 6 

No Tier I



Agricultural 

Processing Existing Permit Requirements 

Activity 

Composting Facility 

Drying, Freezing, Precooling 

and Packaging 

Milling of Flour, Feed 

and Grain 

Tree Nut Hulling and 

Shelling 

MCUP 

per Sec. 35.21.030 - Agricultural Zones and 

Allowable Uses , Table 2-1of the LUDC. Not 

allowed in the Coastal Zone. 

Exempt - (E) 


the LUDC 

Exempt - (E) 


the LUDC 



1) Material originates within Santa Barbara 

County 





4) 2,500 cubic yards or less of composting 

material 

5) Compost pile cannot be over 12 feet in height 




7) Operator must maintain and follow odor 

abatement plan per Santa Barbara County Air 

Pollution Control District guidance 



2) Cumulative total of no more than 10 roundtrips 

per day 



4) Does not interfere with agricultural production, 

resources, or operations on or adjacent to the lot 

on which it is located 




per day 






CUP 

with Agricultural Industry Overlay (AIO). Not 



Per Sec. 35.42.040 - Agricultural Processing and 


Sec. 35.21.030, of the LUDC. Use is currently 


termed "Agricultural Processing - Extensive." 

per day 

Agricultural processing that can be done with a 


LUP/CDP is limited to a facility used for 


sorting, cleaning, packing, freezing, and storage 

of horticultural and agricultural products (other 

than animal) grown on the premises 

rev. 10/6/11 AS 




2) If new structure is proposed, it must be less than 3,000 square feet 




1) Structure less than 3,000 square feet 






Page 7


Agricultural 

Processing Existing Permit Requirements 

Activity 

Small Scale Processing 

(processing beyond the 

raw state) 

Lumber Processing, 

Milling 

Slaughtering Facility 

(mobile and stationary) 

CUP 

with Agricultural Industry Overlay (AIO). Not 


Per Sec. 35.42.040 - Agricultural Processing and 

Sec. 35.21.030, of the LUDC. Use is currently 

termed "Agricultural Processing - Extensive". 

Agricultural processing that can be done with a 

LUP/CDP is limited to a facility used for 

sorting, cleaning, packing, freezing, and storage 

of horticultural and agricultural products (other 

than animal) grown on the premises 

LUP/CDP or CUP 

per Sec. 35.25.030 - Industrial Zones , Table 2-20, 

of the LUDC. Use is currently termed "Lumber 

and Wood Product Manufacturing" and is in 

the land use category of "Industry, 

Manufacturing & Processing, Wholesaling" 

Not allowed on agriculturally zoned land. 

Allowed in some industrial zones with a CUP 

per Sec. 35.25.030 of the LUDC. 

Mobile Units are Exempt 






per day 



4) Required to follow appropriate Health and 

Safety regulations 









4) Must follow Agricultural Commissioner 

Guidelines for import and export of plant 

materials 




Mobile units exempted 

No exemptions from permit requirements for 

stationary facilities. 




1) Requires a Gaviota Agricultural Processing Overlay 

2) Livestock originates from Santa Barbara County 

3) New structures less than 3,000 square feet 






Educational 

Experiences Existing Permit Requirements 

Activity 

Educational 

Experiences 

may require a CUP 

per Sec. 35.42.240 - Rural Recreation of the 

LUDC 




1) Activity is incidental to agricultural 

operations 





4) Does not include commercial facilities open to 

the general public 

5) Does not require an expansion of urban 

services 

6) Less than 30 people is not an event and 

unlimited, 31-75 people constitutes an event and 

limited to 20 events per year 1 




8) A log of all events must be kept and 

presented to the county when requested 

Footnotes 

Exempt - (E) 


1) Any events exceeding these limits would be considered a special event, see LUDC Section 35.42.260. This does not include activities in the Outdoor Recreation category. 

rev. 10/6/11 AS 


Page 9



Footnotes and Considerations for All Activities 

1) In regards to outdoor recreation activities, motorized vehicle (i.e., trucks, ATVs, OHVs, etc) usage shall be conducted on existing ranch roads. Motorized vehicle usage shall only result in incremental increases to noise and lighting 

2) Activities will also need to follow the appropriate Santa Barbara County Fire Codes and receive Fire Department approval, as necessary. 

3) Activities will also need to follow all appropriate State & Federal Regulations (i.e., CA DFG, US FWS, RWQCB, etc) 

4) All non-agricultural Outdoor Recreation, Lodging, Entertainment, Education Experiences, and Equipment Storage Activities shall be subordinate to agriculture 

5) All non-agricultural activities on a parcel shall have a cumulative total of no more than 10 vehicle roundtrips per day and remain exempt unless explicitly noted 

6) Operations do not negatively interfere with agricultural production or residential uses on or adjacent to the lot on which it is located

Tier I - Long Range Planning Division - Santa Barbara County ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?