Steering Group III:  Policies and Ordinances

November 25, 2003

Meeting Notes

 

I.          Welcome and Introductions

 

Brian Baca, County Geologist, attended the meeting to discuss the progress made on the grading criteria.

 

II.        Review and approve notes from last meeting

 

Action:  Notes from the November 11, 2003 meeting were reviewed and approved by the group.

 

III.       Grading Criteria Update (Lisa, Greg, Brian)

 

·        Report on the work done to refine the Grading Criteria.

 

Action:  Group agrees that on lower slopes larger development would meet the grading criteria.  On higher slopes smaller development to meet the grading criteria.  The progression of allowed disturbance/c.y./cut & fill height is logical, but the actual numbers need more review.

Action:  Grading group directed to factor in a measure of lot size and report back at the next meeting.  Factor in area of the lot below a certain percent slope, in order not to include areas that are unbuildable (cliff, bluff, etc.).

Action:  John Watson will come with examples of “good” and “bad” development in terms of visual protection so that we can analyze the characteristics of each type.  Must ensure that our criteria/thresholds encourage “good” development (i.e. not jutting out of hillsides). 

 

Discussion:  The “top-down” approach = looking at existing development and examining what makes it “good” or “bad”.  Determine the characteristics of each.  Translate this into our criteria/thresholds to encourage “good” development.  Determine what our community wants to look like and use our criteria/thresholds to achieve this. 

The “bottom-up” approach = looking at the more objective aspects of potential  projects (e.g., set-backs, height, amount of grading) to see if certain projects, by meeting quantifiable standards , are able to be approved in an expedited manner, i.e., in a more truly “ministerial” fashion.  

Discussion:  We are not working to change community/comp plan polices at this point.  We are working to set criteria/thresholds that are consistent with policies.  By conforming to the criteria/thresholds, applicants could choose to design a project where policy analysis is not required, or only required for limited issue areas of their choice.

Discussion:  Hillside & Watershed Protection Policies

1: “Plans for development shall minimize cut and fill operations…”

2:  “All development shall be designed to fit the site topography, soils, geology, hydrology, and any other existing conditions and be oriented to that grading and other site preparation is kept to an absolute minimum.  Natural features, landforms, and native vegetation, such as trees, shall be preserved to the maximum extent feasible…”

These policies form the backbone of planning in the County and require that grading is kept to a minimum.  Recognition that this sometimes causes tradeoffs with other policies.  Need to translate the hillside and watershed protection policies into our grading thresholds/criteria.  How to balance this with visual protection and other policies?    

 

IV.       Megan’s Analysis (Tom, John Watson)

 

·        Report on current research on recently approved projects.

 

The group reviewed a sheet from Megan’s analysis of ministerial permits for projects approved over the past two years.   Among other analyses that can be performed is whether a significant set of projects have quantifiable features (e.g., set-backs, height, amount of grading) that, by being far from the allowable maxima (or minima,) are able to  be approved in an expedited manner.

 

 

V.        December 2 Board of Supervisors Meeting (Tom & Lisa)

 

·        Review the Group III Section of the Board letter.

Decide on recommendations to be made to the Board

 

·        Presentation at the Board Meeting.

All are encouraged to attend.  Who will speak for the group?

 

Action:  Reviewed and approved the Group III Section of the Board letter.

Action:  Brent Muchow and John Watson will speak for the group at the BOS hearing.

 

VI.       Involvement in and Scoping of Efforts on a Set of Key Substantive Issues

 

·        Slopes/Grading/Drainage

·        Tree Protection

·        Large Houses

·        Calculating Height

·        Creek and Riparian Setbacks

·        Design/Visual Protection

 

Action:  Agreement on the six categories.   We will return next time to discuss formation of the groups to work on each subject.  Need to determine where we are now in terms of progress.  What experts and existing groups to coordinate with?

 

VII.     Next Steps

·        Preparing for December 2 Board Hearing

·        Preparing for Next Meeting on December 9, 2003

 

VIII.    Adjourn

 

Meeting adjourned at 7:50 pm.