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

Browse Search

207 DRAFT 610 - that sounds a bit redundant but it sounds ...... 611 612 Perdita Holtz: So, you want to have a riparian buffer that meets the requirements of the section and require mitigation? 613 614 May Becker: I am saying that's similar to, that's what ynu're requiring basically, in mitigation you're... 615 616 Perdita Holtz: Not necessarily. 617 618 May Becker: Ok, well my concerns are that the nutrients be protected, that the water be protected from excess nutrients and 619 from potential problems with storm water management ponds. At our last meeting we talked about is it possible to have a pond 620 that does not have a buffer, in other words, can you put a pond practically next to the stream and I think the answer was yes you 621 can based on Orange County regulations and somebody pointed out that there are still state regulations but I would feel more 622 comfortable knowing that there's somebody looking out there to make sure that these nutrients aren't getting into these limited 623 water bodies that we have. So, yeah, I would be more comfortable knowing what means in terms of mitigation and having a 624 buffer. 625 626 Shannon Berry: Mitigation is determined on a case by case basis so it's not going to be spelled out. 627 628 May Becker: That's why I pointed out that yes, I would be more comfortable saying provided a riparian buffer that meets the 629 requirements of this section as established. 630 631 Alan Campbell: So, May what you're saying is you would like to have stricken the old number nine in d? On the old one if you 632 didn't have a riparian buffer you had to have mitigation. You're saying you don't want that option at all, you want to always 633 require a riparian buffer for any storm water pond? 634 635 May Becker: I would like to have, yeah, I would like to have.... 636 637 Alan Campbell: That's different than what we talked about last time. 638 639 May Becker: Well, I guess my understanding is that was in there before, new storm water ponds provided a riparian buffer that 640 meets the requirements of this sections as established and now we're taking that out and saying they're allowed with mitigation 641 but we're not clear on what the mitigation is, it's on a case by case basis. So, we're going from having a pond that needs to have 642 a buffer to a pond that might not need a buffer. 643 644 Larry Wright: I would like to have you make these comments and we have already had a meeting on this and I don't want to 645 have another meeting on this. So, what I'd like to do is move forward and there are other people to make their comments and 646 you can formulate this in your opinion. 647 648 May Becker: At the last meeting we said that the staff was going to change the language and email it and then we'd have a 649 chance to look at it before this meeting and I'd didn't get any of that so that's why it's coming up now. I'm not trying to move 650 backwards on what we were doing, on the other hand, I didn't have a chance to get why we're.... 651 652 Craig Benedict: Were you given the agenda? Did you get the agenda? 653 654 May Becker: In the mail? In the mail, yes, I got the agenda in the mail but I thought we were... we talked about having some 655 emails about the specific language and that we were going to go over that ...... 656 657 Craig Benedict: We thought we'd give you the context of the entire section in our agenda packet so you didn't see things in 658 isolation. We though that the time between getting the agenda and tonight's meeting would be enough time for you to formulate 659 your thought process. 660 661 Mark Marcoplos: I am not adding anything, I'm not starting a new topic. I just want to say that I am totally comfortable with how 662 we ended this discussion at the last meeting. We could have left it where it was in my opinion. We moved it and it is just as 663 good because it still refers to 6.13.6.a over here which says, you have this land disturbing activity and then the owner has to 664 mitigate in so many words, that the use shall be designed, constructed, and maintained to minimum soil disturbance and to 665 provide the maximum value water quality protection practicable. On a case by case basis there is no way you can write a 666 mitigation plan for every bit of geography that you might have to deal with. I think that is as close as you can get to saying that 667 you're going to do what is best in that situation. Somewhere along the line somebody is not going to do as good of a job as they 668 should just because it's possible that could happen with under any ordinance and it's going to be up to somebody else that 669 knows that to point that out and hopefully there are people checking behind on this stuff. I just don't see how it can be improved. 670 1 don't see how we can find language that it is going to ensure that everything will, as humanly possible, will be done in every 11