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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

GavPAC Meeting #53 DRAFT Meeting Minutes 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. Public Comment: 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 Gaviota Coast Planning Advisory Committee
GavPAC Meeting #53 DRAFT Meeting Minutes (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. Public Comments: 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 Gaviota Coast Planning Advisory Committee
Page 1 and 2: DATE: July 5, 2012 TO: GavPAC Membe
Page 3 and 4: 4. Agricultural Permit Streamlining
Page 5 and 6: Parcel Size Maximum RSU (Square Fee
Page 7 and 8: 1 Gaviota Coast Planning Advisory C
Page 9 and 10: GavPAC Meeting #52- DRAFT Meeting M
Page 11 and 12: GavPAC Meeting #52- DRAFT Meeting M
Page 13 and 14: I. Statement of Purpose & Intent 2
Page 15 and 16: II. Updated PRT Map 4
Page 17 and 18: III. Siting Principles & Criteria 6
Page 19 and 20: Coastal Trail Specific Siting Princ
Page 21 and 22: IV. Specific Criteria & Narrative f
Page 23 and 24: Deliberation: Feeney expressed agre
Page 25 and 26: Arroyo Hondo to San Onofre ACTION:
Page 27 and 28: ACTION: Motion by McKenna to refer
Page 29 and 30: Public Recreation Gaviota Coast Pla
Page 31 and 32: ACTION: Motion by Bowman, seconded
Page 33 and 34: [Note: GavPAC direction to remove r
Page 35 and 36: VI. Incentives 24
Page 37 and 38: Voluntary Actions on Agricultural L
Page 39: GavPAC Meeting #53 DRAFT Meeting Mi
Page 43 and 44: GavPAC Meeting #53 DRAFT Meeting Mi
Page 45 and 46: PROCEDURES FOR COMPLYING WITH MULTI
Page 47 and 48: Compliance Manual Santa Barbara Cou
Page 57 and 58: Practice Name (FOTG #) Compliance M
Page 59 and 60: 4. Grassed Waterw ay (412) Complian
Page 61 and 62: 7. Ponds (378) Compliance Manual Sa
Page 91 and 92:
Compliance Manual Santa Barbara Cou
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Page 105 and 106:
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
Page 111 and 112:
Page 113 and 114:
Gaviota Coast Plan - Draft GavPAC P
Page 115 and 116:
Page 117 and 118:
Page 119 and 120:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Draft - Scalability Proposed Permit
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?