Agenda - 02-28-2011 - C.1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

195 837 Approved 2/2/11 838 Pete Hallenbeck: My main goal tonight was to take advantage of May's expertise to ensure there was not some glaring thing that 839 was omitted. This driveway thing might be a problem but it seems to be covered. 840 841 May Becker: Since you bring up driveways over streams and all that. It is all a matter of degree, in that sense we've got a 842 homeowner who happens to be close to a stream and he wants to have his pickup truck over that stream and I don't think that is 843 necessarily going to be a problem hundreds of miles downstream. On the other hand if you have a tendency to develop Orange 844 County and you are going to do it near streams and you are sitting a precedence of sorts, I think we should be aware of what that 845 potentially could do to down stream erosion, to the flooding, to the question of fisheries, there the question may come up on how 846 you know but there are things we do know. We know for example that you look at hydrograph, you look at rainfall and then there 847 is a big storm and you see this big peak. There is also a low area that is called base flow which is like ground water flow and a 848 lot of what we rely on is being able to analyze these types of hydrographs. We don't necessarily know what is going on with the 849 ground water because we don't have the data for it and so we see more urbanization and see these peaks. You see the base 850 flow, if you don't see as much of a base flow signature in the hydrograph. Potentially it means there is more quick flow going to a 851 river. Base flow is associated with slow flow, like ground water flow or like, if you go to a river bank and it has been a dry 852 summer and then you can see the river bank water level is approximately representative of the ground water table. If you go out 853 There after a big sturrn Tiled you are going to see u)e water is rushing by so if you urbanize areas then you are going to get more 854 peak flow. That means if you have more fresh water coming into the estuary then the boundary between salt and fresh water is 855 pushed more toward the ocean then you've got this density driven flow. 856 857 Pete Hallenbeck: I get the feeling that a lot of your concerns are almost more global concern up until quality of development and 858 it is hard for me to bring that into each little piece. 859 860 May Becker: My general point is here are some things that are best management practices like having buffers, open space, 861 filtering nutrients and not creating a lot of impervious surface. 862 863 Brian Crawford: I don't think any of that has gone away. We are all on the same page and comfortable with the next steps. We 864 don't need to revisit this in February. I will leave a section open for new business. I think if we could wrap this up. 865 866 Alan Campbell: The next meeting, are we going to try to approve the whole thing? 867 868 Brian Crawford: I have not seen the minutes for the first meeting, how did we resolve it in the first meeting. We got all buy in on 869 the first meeting. 870 871 May Becker: We didn't know we were still talking about conditional zoning. 872 873 Brian Crawford: Were there things not resolved? 874 875 Craig Benedict: I thought there was consensus, there was clear consensus, we went around the table, that doesn't mean that 876 100% of people would vote for conditional use. 877 878 Brian Crawford: We didn't take a vote? There are still things still outstanding but at the next meeting we will take a vote. 879 880 May Becker: I did talk about some .... I just feel like... 881 882 Brian Crawford: Remember there is still Phase 2 and we will go through the substantive things that you were concerned about. 883 What stopped this piece was there lack of clarity on conditional use and conditional zoning and your suggestion about stream 884 buffers so I think we have gone through this and there was a general consensus. I don't think we can do anything but go for a 885 vote next month and yes there will be those that vote against it but we have to a vote to be consistent with the timeline we 886 suggested when we submitted to the BOCC and that has to take place in February. 887 888 889 AGENDA ITEM 3: ADJOURNMENT 890 891 MOTION: Alan Campbell made a motion to adjourn. Seconded by Mark Marcoplos 892 VOTE: Unanimous 893 Brian Crawford, Chair 15