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

Browse Search

208 DRAFT 671 instance but it does say, provide the maximum water quality protection practicable and that mitigation will be provided. I am a 672 strong believer in water quality. 673 674 Pete Hallenbeck: I'd like staff to see I'm thinking correctly, or what but when I think mitigation, I don't think we're going to pollute 675 the stream here but we're going to plant this beautiful growth of trees here. I think mitigation will end up with a system that 676 protects the water as well as what it specifically outlines here. I think that I heard this in that storm management pond could 677 have a much bigger buffer around it if it had to be thirty feet away from the stream that we're talking about at the last meeting. 678 That concept of mitigation.... 679 680 Craig Benedict: Yes, there are many ways to achieve suitable mitigation, in some cases they have to plant more than what was 681 disturbed. 682 683 Pete Hallenbeck: So mitigation notes the goals of mitigation is no change of protection, the term refers to a way to come up with 684 a specific plan site by site that achieves the same results? 685 686 Craig Benedict: I'd say that's fair. 687 688 May Becker: I do want to ask one question just to be clear. We're taking the ordinance from allowing a pond if you establish a 689 riparian buffer around it to allowing a pond with mitigation which may be a riparian buffer or it may be some other form or 690 mitigation? Is that correct? 691 692 Perdita Holtz: Yes. 693 694 Andrea Rohrbacher: On page 43, d, uses allowable with mitigation and then the sentence below it says the following uses are 695 permitted. I thought we were changing the 'permitted to'allowable'. 696 697 Perdita Holtz: Sorry, we missed that one. 698 699 Larry Wright: Staff do you have any brief comments on what has been discussed. 700 701 Craig Benedict: No, we're in line with what you suggested as changes and we're comfortable. 702 703 Larry Wright: I'd like to go around to each member now and we are discussing stream buffers. Could you make your comments 704 brief please and express your opinion that you would like to convey to the Board: 705 706 Mark Marcoplos: I comfortable with the state of the UDO on the stream buffer issue and look forward to learning as we go in 707 phase two and as we continue to protect the water. 708 709 Andrea Rohrbacher: I am comfortable with it. I think it addresses, to the best of our knowledge, the concerns that we're aware 710 of to this point and we can in phase two make additional changes. 711 712 Pete Hallenbeck: I have read every page of this 800 pages, I think I've got about 40 hours in this thing. I think the changes 713 we've made regarding the stream buffers have clarified some of the points that were brought up and further restricted some of 714 these. We still have some overriding concerns in the document such as goals, purpose, and intent for the County Commissioner 715 approvals and using the Comprehensive Plan for guidance while making decisions. I like that because that means when there's 716 a problem with details there's guidance on how to deal with that and my last general comment is that something that we keep 717 wrestling with here is the sum of these parts, the outcome that we want. I am noticing that every time we have a discussion 718 about something. Can you guarantee that by having all these little specific rules that when all those are applied you get what you 719 want. I have been trying in these discussions to figure out are we hung up on that or are we hung up on specific language. I am 720 happy with the state of the stream buffers for phase one at this time. 721 722 Alan Campbell: I will be very brief. I am comfortable with the stream buffers section of the UDO. 723 724 Larry Wright: With respect to stream buffers, I'm comfortable with it as it was presented and from what I do understand I do not 725 have the expertise in this area of either Mark or May and I have to go with what was presented and what I understand. To this 726 point I am comfortable with it. 727 728 May Becker: I feel better about a lot of what we talked about toward the end of the last meeting. I feel its closely related to the 729 storm water section and we haven't spent time on that and I think that's why some of these questions have come up in terms of 730 ponds near streams and storm water and driveways which we talked about at the last meeting. You get a brief description of 731 something that is potentially going to be developed for example a pond near a stream and how that works with storm water but 12