OCPB agenda 070115 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

Craig Benedict: We don’t know how many people get to planning. We have a very strict limit in Orange County. We 1 are suggesting minor flexibility that 6% may be difficult. Our standards are very tight. We are still 25% below what the 2 state allows us to do. 3 4 Maxecine Mitchell: When you talk about purchasing a home and being a realtor myself, I guarantee you that lady didn’t 5 say, at some point I am going to add a swimming pool. If you do that a realtor may be able to direct you. The staff did 6 inform Commissioner Barry Jacobs was concerned about the critical watershed. Is this place falling into that area? 7 8 Michael Harvey: Yes ma’am, we did not amend the proposal to exclude this option. 9 10 Buddy Hartley: I do like what staff has done with this giving flexibility and still has guidelines that will have to be 11 enforced with this. They are consistent with the UDO and I like the package they have put together. 12 13 Herman Staats: I agree with that and following Craig’s comment that Orange County does have strict definitions on 14 these things. 15 16 Pete Hallenbeck: It’s easy to look at that and say if you approve this, all you have to do is put down this spongy 17 concrete and you are good to go but to exceed the limits you have to have an engineered solution that is a BMP. 18 19 Michael Harvey: Obviously, there is the hope for some people who have talked to staff about this, you have to show us 20 this will not result in a negligible increase in runoff or basically water quality issues. That was a selling point to OWASA. 21 22 Pete Hallenbeck: It is an engineered solution. It is an option available. 23 24 Lisa Stuckey: People let stuff go. 25 26 Tony Blake: I agree with that. I wonder if this is a problem in search of a solution. When people see what this is really 27 going to cost them, do we really want to add an artificial complexation in reaction to this one instance? I wouldn’t vote 28 against this but I think there is an easier solution elsewhere. 29 30 Pete Hallenbeck: I think its clear people want to see a performance bond, inspections, I want everyone to understand 31 that it is an engineered solution you don’t just put things down. We have a statement of consistency. There is a 32 document called the Comprehensive Plan and the UDO and the two are often in conflict that we shouldn’t be changing 33 structure and detail unless in aligns with the general Comprehensive Plan. The statement of consistency is that it is 34 consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and the proposed amendment package. 35 36 MOTION made by Buddy Hartley that this is consistent with the Compressive Plan. Seconded by Bryant Warren. 37 38 Lisa Stuckey: I would be much more comfortable with this if putting up a bond were required? 39 40 Michael Harvey: You will be adding that in a motion to approve, you will be including that. 41 42 VOTE: 11 to 1 no (Lydia Wegman) 43 44 Lydia Wegman: I don’t think it is environmentally responsible to make this change. I think the staff has done an 45 excellent job. This is a broad solution to solve a very limited problem and there should be limited solution to that limited 46 problem. 47 48 MOTION made by Lisa Stuckey to approve with amendments on page 60. Seconded by Laura Rohrbacher. 49 18