MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES AUGUST 1 ...

MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION

MINUTES AUGUST 1, 2002

LOCATION: Mendocino County Board of Supervisors
Chambers, 501 Low Gap Road, Ukiah,
California

COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: McCowen, Barth, Nelson, Calvert, Berry,
Lipmanson

COMMISSIONERS ABSENT: Little

PLANNING & BLDG SVC STAFF PRESENT: Debra White, Office Manager
Sandi Butterfield, Staff Assistant IV
Raymond Hall, Director
Frank Lynch, Chief Planner

OTHER COUNTY DEPARTMENTS PRESENT: Frank Zotter, Deputy County Counsel
Ben Kageyama, Dept of Transportation

1. Roll Call.

The meeting was called to order at 9:06 a.m. Commissioner Lipmanson arrived at 9:10 a.m.
Commissioner Little was absent by pre-arrangement.

2. Determination of Legal Notice.

Mr. Lynch advised the Commission that all items have been properly noticed.

3. Director’s Report and Miscellaneous.

Mr. Hall reviewed the written Director’s Report submitted into the record.

4. Consent Calendar.

4A. CDREV 1-2002 – HUBBART – Southeast of Point Arena

Request: Reversion to Acreage of Parcel Division #P 5-76 to merge 19 parcels into one parcel containing
approximately 402 acres to comply with a California Coastal Commission Agreement.

The public hearing was declared open and subsequently closed when no one came forward to address the
Commission.

Upon motion by Commissioner Nelson, seconded by Commissioner Lipmanson and unanimously carried
(6-0; Little – Absent), IT IS ORDERED that the Planning Commission approves #CDREV 1-2002,
making the following findings and subject to the following conditions of approval:

Environmental Findings: The Planning Commission finds that the project is Categorically Exempt
(Class 5) under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and concludes that the Reversion to

MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2002
MINUTES PAGE 2

Acreage creates less of an impact by reducing the number of parcels from 19 parcels to one parcel, further
finding:

1. The proposed Reversion to Acreage is in conformance with the certified Local Coastal Program;
and

2. The proposed Reversion to Acreage will provide adequate utilities, access roads, drainage, and
other necessary facilities.

3. The proposed Reversion to Acreage is consistent with the purpose and intent of the zoning district
applicable to the property, as well as the provisions of the Coastal Zoning Code and preserves the
integrity of the zoning district; and,

4. The proposed Reversion to Acreage will not have any significant adverse impacts on the
environment within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

5. The proposed Reversion to Acreage will not have any adverse impacts on any known
archaeological or paleontological resources.

6. Other public services, including but not limited to, solid waste and public roadway capacity have
been considered and are adequate to serve the proposed reverted acreage.

7. The proposed Reversion to Acreage meets the requirements of the Coastal Ordinance, the
Subdivision Map Act and is consistent with all applicable policies of the Coastal Element.

Resource Protection Impact Findings:

1. The resource as identified will not be significantly degraded by the proposed development.

2. There is no feasible less environmentally damaging alternative.

3. All feasible mitigation measures capable of reducing or eliminating project related impacts have
been adopted.

Impact Finding for Resource Land Designated AG, RL and FL:

1. The proposed use is compatible with the long-term protection of resource lands.

Agricultural Land Impact Findings:

1. The project maximizes protection of environmentally sensitive habitat areas;

2. The project minimizes construction of new roads and other facilities.

3. The project maintains views from beaches, public trails, roads and views from public viewing
areas, or other recreational areas;

4. The project ensures the preservation of the rural character of the site;

5. The project maximizes preservation of prime agricultural soils;

6. The project ensures the adequacy of water, waste water disposal and other services;

MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2002
MINUTES PAGE 3

7. The project ensures existing land use compatibility by maintaining productivity of on-site and
adjacent agricultural lands.

Land Division/Reversion to Acreage Findings:

1. The new lot created has or will have adequate water, sewage, including a long term arrangement
for septage disposal, roadway and other necessary services; and

2. The new lot created will not have, individually or cumulatively, a significant adverse
environmental effect on environmentally sensitive habitat areas or on other coastal resources; and

3. The new lot created will not significantly adversely affect the long-term productivity of adjacent
agricultural or timber lands; and

4. Other public services, including but not limited to solid waste and public roadway capacity, have
been considered and are adequate to serve the proposed parcel; and

5. The proposed reversion to acreage meets the requirements of Chapter 20.524 and is consistent
with all applicable policies of the Coastal Element.

Findings for Land Divisions/Reversion to Acreage of Non-prime Agricultural Lands: Reverting 19
parcels to one parcel does not constitute a conversion to non-agricultural use thus the findings in Section
20.532.100(C)(3) are not applicable.

Reversion to Acreage Findings (Mendocino County Code Section 17-41 (J) and (K)):

A. The Planning Commission finds, pursuant to Mendocino County Code Section 17-41(J) of the
Mendocino County Code, that none of the following conditions exist:

1. The tentative map or the land division plan is not in conformity with provisions of law or
this Chapter or the Land Division Plan is not in conformity with accepted Planning or
Engineering standards or the County General Plan.

2. The Department of Public Health Report indicates that the property is, or will become,
unhealthful or unfit for human habitation or occupancy if developed as proposed.

3. The Preliminary Soils Report or Geologic Hazard Report indicated adverse soil or
geological conditions and the subdivider fails to provide sufficient information to the
satisfaction of the County engineer or Planning Commission that said conditions can be
corrected or provided for in the Development Plan.

4. The property is subject to periodic inundation.

5. Cost to County Taxpayers, outweighs the advantages created by the proposed division of
land.

6. The proposed development is not compatible with the character of the neighborhood.

7. The proposed development is in an area not desirable for the intensive use proposed.

B. The Planning Commission finds, pursuant to Mendocino County Code Section 17-41(K) that
none of the following findings are applicable to this project:

MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2002
MINUTES PAGE 4

1. That the tentative map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans of
Mendocino County.

2. That the design or improvement of the proposed land division is not consistent with
applicable general and specific plans of Mendocino County.

3. That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development.

4. That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development.

5. That the design of the land division or the proposed improvements are likely to cause
substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or
their habitat.

6. That the design of the land division or the type of improvements is likely to cause serious
public health problems.

7. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with
easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the
proposed subdivision. In this connection, the Planning Commission may approve a map if
it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided and that these will
be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection
shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgment of a
court of competent jurisdiction, and no authority is hereby granted to the Planning
Commission to determine that the public at large has acquired easements of access
through or use of property within the proposed land division.

Reversion to Acreage Findings (per Section 66499.16 of the Subdivision Map Act):

1. Dedications or offers of dedication to be to be vacated or abandoned by the Reversion to Acreage
are unnecessary for present or prospective public purposes; and

2. All owners of an interest in the real property within the subdivision have consented to reversion.

General Plan Findings: Pursuant to Section 66473.5 of the California Government Code, the proposed
Reversion to Acreage, together with the provisions for its design and improvement is consistent with the
applicable goals and policies of the General Plan.

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:

1. The owner shall file with the County Surveyor a Final Map in accordance with the provision of
the Subdivision Map Act.

2. A notation shall be placed on the Final Map stating that the Reversion to Acreage shall not
relinquish, remise, release, or terminate any prior right, interest in rights-of-way, easements, or
other rights which may be appurtenant to and/or an encumbrance to the subject property. Any
rights-of-way of easement that are remaining for the benefit of other parcels shall be shown on
the reversion to acreage map. Any public street or public easement to be left in effect after the
reversion shall be adequately delineated on the map.

MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2002
MINUTES PAGE 5

3. A notation shall be placed on the Final Map stating that: “Pursuant to Mendocino County
Counsel Opinion #92-121 and the agreement between the California Coastal Commission and the
property owner recorded in Book 1260, Page 701, Mendocino County Records, this Reversion to
Acreage does not extinguish or invalidate underlying potential entitlement to Certificates of
Compliance.”

4. A notation shall be placed on the Final Map stating that “Future development shall be in
conformance with the development criteria contained in the Coastal Plan and the Coastal Zoning
Code.”

5. Regular Calendar.

5A. R 5-2002/MS 4-2002 – LARNED – North of Ukiah

Request: Rezone a 40+- acre parcel from Rural Residential-10 acre minimum (RR:L:10) to Rural
Residential-5 acre minimum (RR:L:5) and a minor subdivision to create one 5+- acre parcel and one 35+-
acre parcel.

Mr. Lynch reviewed the staff report noting that there was a revision to the map regarding access. He
suggested corrections to the proposed conditions of approval.

Commissioner Lipmanson expressed concerns regarding sedimentation. In response to Commissioner
Lipmanson, Mr. Lynch noted that the building site would be very limited due to the slopes. In response
to Commissioner Lipmanson, Mr. Lynch noted that the Regional Water Quality Control Board would be
the agency what would enforce Best Management Practices. Commissioner Lipmanson questioned the
location of the nearest Class 1 or Class 2 stream. Mr. Lynch noted that there is a Class 3 stream on the
proposed Remainder Parcel. In response to Commissioner Lipmanson, Mr. Lynch also noted that there
would be some earth moving required.

Ms. Lynn McNamara, representing the application, described the property as approximately 1-acre flat
terrain with gentle slopes. She also stated that the Lake Ridge Drive area is developed with the exception
of this parcel. She noted that Millview County Water District has an easement through the parcel that
serves a large water storage tank. She felt that the road would only need to be widened slightly. She
requested that the Fish and Game fee be reduced to $25.00.

The public hearing was declared open and subsequently closed when no one came forward to address the
Commission.

Commissioner Lipmanson felt that he could support the project if the County had a grading ordinance.
He expressed that he would like a better map showing the contour lines and the road widths. He
expressed that he would like a site visit to visualize how much grading would be needed to widen the
existing road.

In response to Commissioner Barth, Mr. Ben Kageyama, Department of Transportation, described the
condition of the existing road. He felt that half of the current road is an adequate width and the rest of the
road would probably only need to be widened a couple of feet. He noted that the existing road slope is
less than 5 percent.

In response to Commissioner Nelson, Mr. Lynch noted that it has been several years since the rough
grading created the access to Millview’s water tank.

MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2002
MINUTES PAGE 6

In response to Commissioner discussion, Mr. Lynch noted that if a grading permit were required, the
Uniform Building Code (UBC) regulations would apply.

In response to Chairman McCowen, Mr. Lynch noted that it has been 15 years since the owner originally
subdivided the property, so the Planning Department determined that this division would be classified a
minor subdivision.

Commissioner Nelson noted that if the Best Management Practices were not followed, the contractor or
the owner would be subject to fines by the Regional Water Quality Control Board.

Upon motion by Commissioner Berry, seconded by Commissioner Calvert and carried by the following
roll call vote, IT IS ORDERED that the Planning Commission recommends that the Board of Supervisors
adopt a Negative Declaration and approve #R 5-2002/#MS 4-2002 with the following findings and
subject to the following conditions of approval:

Environmental Findings: The Planning Commission finds that the environmental impacts identified for
the project can be adequately mitigated through the conditions of approval or features of the project
design so that no significant adverse environmental impacts will result from this project, therefore, the
Planning Commission recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt a Negative Declaration.

Department of Fish and Game Findings: The Planning Commission has evaluated the Initial Study and
other information pertinent to the potential environmental impacts of this project and finds that, based
upon the existing development on the subject parcel and surrounding parcels, the project will not have
any adverse impact upon wildlife or the habitat upon which wildlife depends and, therefore, the
Commission has rebutted the presumption set forth in subdivision (d) of Section 753.5.

Department of Fish & Game Finding: The Planning Commission finds that, because this division
would create additional density and intensity of land use and would contribute to the overall reduction in
wildlife populations and habitat from a cumulative standpoint, the de minimis finding can not be made for
this project. The Planning Commission therefore recommends that the Board of Supervisors subject the
project to the Fish and Game fee of $1,275.00.

General Plan Findings: Pursuant to Section 66473.5 of the California Government Code, the Planning
Commission recommends that the Board of Supervisors find the proposed rezoning and subdivision,
together with the provisions for its design and improvement is consistent with the applicable goals and
policies of the General Plan.

Project Findings: The Planning Commission recommends that the Board of Supervisors approve #R
5-2002 and #MS 4-2002, making the above findings, subject to the following conditions of approval,
further finding the proposed minor subdivision complies generally with all requirements of the
Subdivision Map Act and of the Mendocino County Code, specifically with respect to area, improvement
and design, flood and water drainage control, appropriate improved public roads, sanitary disposal
facilities, water supply availability and environmental protection.

RECOMMENDED MOTION FOR THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS: The Board of Supervisors
makes the above findings, adopts a Negative Declaration and approves #R 5-2002 and #MS 4-2002,
subject to the following conditions of approval, and adopts Ordinance No. ________ approving the
rezoning of Assessor’s Parcel Number 168-080-07 from RR:L:10 to RR:L:5.

MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2002
MINUTES PAGE 7

STANDARD CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:

For a subdivision that has been approved according to the Mendocino County Code, the following
“Conditions of Approval” shall be completed prior to filing a Parcel Map or an Unilateral Agreement.

1. Through the use of Best Management Practices, sediment caused by grading conducted on the
property shall be retained on the site to greatest extent feasible. If excessive erosion occurs from
the project, erosion and sediment control measures shall be immediately implemented to reduce
erosion to allowable levels to the satisfaction of the Department of Planning and Building
Services.

2. No material shall be placed into or where it may pass into any stream or watercourse in quantities
that would be deleterious to fish, wildlife or other beneficial uses.

3. Requirements of the Air Quality Management District’s memorandum dated April 18, 2002 shall
be adhered to.

4. This entitlement does not become effective or operative and no work shall be commenced under
this entitlement until the California Department of Fish and Game filing fees required or
authorized by Section 711.4 of the Fish and Game Code are submitted to the Mendocino County
Department of Planning and Building Services. Said fee of $25.00 $1,275.00 shall be made
payable to the Mendocino County Clerk and submitted to the Department of Planning and
Building Services prior to September 16, 2002. Failure to pay this fee by the specified deadline
shall result in the entitlement becoming null and void.

5. There shall be provided an access easements of 50 and 60 feet in width (as per tentative map)
from a publicly maintained road to the proposed turnaround, and an access easement of 40 feet in
width from the turnaround to the Parcel 1 boundary. Documentation of access easement(s) shall
be provided to the Mendocino County Department of Transportation for their review prior to final
approval.

6. If a Parcel Map is filed, all easements of record shall be shown on the parcel map. All utility
lines shall be shown as easements with widths as shown of record or a minimum of ten (10) feet,
whichever is greater.

7. If approval of the tentative map is conditioned upon certain improvements being made by the
subdivider, the subdivider shall notify the Mendocino County Department of Transportation when
such improvements have been completed.

8. If a Parcel Map is filed, all natural drainage and water courses shall be shown as easements on the
final parcel map. Minimum width shall be twenty (20) feet, or to the high water level plus five
(5) feet horizontal distance, whichever is greater. (All parcels 5 acres and less).

9. ROAD IMPROVEMENT REQUIREMENTS.

A. Eighteen (18) foot wide road within the 50 and 60 foot wide access easements, from
Marina Drive (CR 226) to the proposed turnaround, including four (4) inch minimum
rock base, one hundred twenty-five (125) foot minimum radius of horizontal curve, grade
not to exceed fifteen (15) percent, drainage culverts where necessary. New or replaced
culverts shall be a minimum of twelve (12) inches in diameter. The radius of horizontal
curve may be reduced to a minimum of seventy (70) feet, however, in all areas where the

MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2002
MINUTES PAGE 8

radius of horizontal curve is less than 125 feet, the roadway shall be widened to twenty
(20) feet.

B. A 40-foot radius turnaround be constructed within a 50-foot radius easement (as per
tentative map) to the satisfaction of the Mendocino County Department of
Transportation.

10. The subdivider shall comply with those recommendations in the Redwood Valley-Calpella Fire
District letter of April 10, 2002 and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
letter dated July 10, 2002 (File # 359-02) May 17, 2002 (File #182-02). Written verification shall
be submitted from the Redwood Valley-Calpella Fire District and the California Department of
Forestry and Fire Protection to the Department of Planning and Building Services that this
condition has been met to the satisfaction of the Redwood Valley-Calpella Fire District and the
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection.

11. Submit to the Division of Environmental Health an acceptable site evaluation report (DEH Form
Number 42.04) for Parcel 1 and the Remainder Parcel to be completed by a qualified individual
demonstrating compliance with the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board’s “Basin
Plan Policy for On-site Waste Treatment and Disposal” and Mendocino County Division of
Environmental Health’s “Land Division Requirements” (DEH Form Number 26.09). The report
shall also include identifying replacement areas for existing on-site sewage disposal systems
which may exist on the project site.

12. Submit to the Division of Environmental Health an acceptable water quantity evaluation (DEH
Form Number 26.05) by a qualified individual of a water source located on any Parcel of the
subdivision demonstrating an adequate water supply in compliance with the Division of
Environmental Health’s “Land Division Requirements” (DEH Form Number 26.09), and submit
to the Division of Environmental Health an acceptable standard mineral analysis performed by a
certified public health laboratory on a sample from the subdivision water source.

13. In the event that archaeological resources are encountered during construction on the property,
work in the immediate vicinity of the find shall be halted until all requirements of Chapter 22.12
of the Mendocino County Code relating to archaeological discoveries have been satisfied.

SPECIAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL:

1. The subdivider shall construct a ten (10) foot wide all-weather driveway within the 40-foot wide
access easement serving Parcel 1, including four (4) inch minimum rock base, fifty (50) foot
minimum radius of horizontal curvature, grade not to exceed sixteen (16) percent.

AYES: Nelson, Barth, Calvert, Berry, McCowen
NOES: Lipmanson
ABSENT: Little

5B. CDMS 1-2001/CDU 2-2001 – PEIRCE – South of Fort Bragg

Request: Coastal Development Minor Subdivision to create two parcels of 10 acres each, and a
remainder parcel of 20 acres. The proposed subdivision includes a request for an exception to access
easement requirements. Coastal Development Use Permit to address issues within the Planned
Development Combining District, including establishment of building envelopes for future residential
development, development of roadways, creek crossing and establishment of riparian buffers.

MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2002
MINUTES PAGE 9

Commissioner Barth stated that she is acquainted with the Peirce family, however, has not discussed this
case with them or their agent.

Mr. Lynch reviewed the staff report and correspondence.

Commissioner Barth questioned the potential build out.

Several Commissioners stated that the maps were not accurate and not to scale.

Ms. Margaret Mary O’Rourke, agent representing the application, displayed maps for the Commission.
She felt that a 60-foot access requirement would have greater impacts to Digger Creek. She noted that the
owner would prefer a 40-foot offer of dedication.

Ms. Valerie Peirce-Mormon handed out pictures showing the existing culvert.

The public hearing was declared open.

Mr. Peter Ribar, an adjacent landowner, discussed problems with trespassing and the use of dirt bikes on
the Pierce property. He also expressed concerns with the existing culvert not being able to accommodate
the flow from a one hundred year flood event. He felt that the road over the culvert should be widened to
24 feet. He also expressed concerns regarding botanical resources on the property especially the removal
of coast lilies. Mr. Ribar stated concerns that the maps were not accurate and questioned where the
building envelopes are located.

In response to Commissioner Barth, Mr. Ribar noted that trespassing and dirt bike usage has decreased
somewhat.

In response to Chairman McCowen, Mr. Ribar described the existing culvert as approximately 42 inches
in diameter and made from a plastic-like material.

Mr. Alpheus Gillette, an adjacent landowner, also expressed concerns with impacts to Digger Creek,
trespassing, and the usage of dirt bikes on the subject property.

Mr. Ribar expressed additional concerns regarding adequate water supply in the area.

The public hearing was declared closed.

Ms. Valerie Pierce-Mormon stated that the culvert was 36 inches wide and it was installed to Fish and
Game regulations. She noted that Digger Creek’s flow is the same year round.

In response to Commissioner Barth, Mr. Kageyama noted that there are no future transportation
improvement plans for the area. He noted that there are several offers of dedication in the Alice Drive
area.

Mr. Lynch noted that landowners usually like dead-end streets but planning departments, transportation
departments and fire departments prefer through roads.

Upon motion by Commissioner Barth, seconded by Commissioner Calvert and unanimously carried (6-0;
Little – Absent), IT IS ORDERED that the Planning Commission continues #CDMS 1-2001/#CDU 2-
2001 to the October 3, 2002 hearing and directed the applicant to prepare better mapping with proper
scaling and depicting the area around Digger Creek clearly.

MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2002
MINUTES PAGE 10

RECESS: 10:30 a.m. – 10:47 a.m.

8. Approval of Minutes.

A correction to the May 30, 2002 Minutes was noted and incorporated into the motion for approval.

The Commission discussed Item (d) in the motion on Page 5 of the May 30, 2002 Minutes. It was the
consensus of the Commission that no correction should be made to the Minutes as they accurately reflect
the adopted motion, however, it should be noted that it was the intent of the Commission in adopting Item
(d) that no more than one array of panels would be located at the same elevation.

Upon motion by Commissioner Calvert, seconded by Commissioner Barth and unanimously carried (5-0;
Nelson abstained and Little absent), IT IS ORDERED that the Planning Commission approves the May
30, 2002 Minutes correcting the spelling of “previously” in the first paragraph under Item 3A on Page 1.

Corrections to the May 31, 2002 Minutes were noted and incorporated into the motion for approval.

Upon motion by Commissioner Calvert, seconded by Commissioner Nelson and unanimously carried
(5-0; Berry abstained and Little absent), IT IS ORDERED that the Planning Commission approves the
May 31, 2002 Minutes subject to the following corrections:

• Second paragraph on Page 3 – Change “over” to “overly” in the first line.
• Third paragraph on Page 3 – Change last line to read; “…properties are no longer zoned in such a

way that they are no longer for agriculture.

• Ninth paragraph on Page 3 – Change “contractor’s” to “contractors” in the sixth line.
• Tenth paragraph on Page 3 – Change “applicant” to “applicants” and “has” to “have” in the first

line.

By order of the Chairman, in response to a request from Commissioner Calvert, action on the Minutes for
June 6, 2002 was continued to the next meeting.

6. Matters from Staff.

The Commission reviewed the September 19, 2002 Draft Agenda and it was the consensus of the
Commission to hold the meeting in Ukiah.

Staff provided a report on the General Plan Update. Staff will schedule this matter for discussion at a
future meeting at the request of any Commissioner.

7. Matters from Commission.

Commissioner Barth commented that the Caspar Community Center might be a good place to hold
Planning Commission meetings on the coast. She stated that she would provide contact information to
staff for scheduling meetings at the Community Center.

5C. Grading Ordinance.

Subject: Review and recommendations to the Board of Supervisors regarding adoption of Grading
Regulations prepared by the County Grading Committee and Planning staff. The proposed regulations
include, but are not limited to, sections on grading standards, winter grading, vegetation removal, storm
drainage and runoff, erosion and sedimentation control, protection of lakes and watercourses, roads,

MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2002
MINUTES PAGE 11

driveways and parking areas, reservoirs and dams, environmental review and enforcement. The grading
regulations will be applicable in the unincorporated area of Mendocino County, excluding the Coastal
Zone.

Mr. Hall submitted a memorandum entitled “Planning Commission Review of the Draft Grading
Ordinance” dated August 1, 2002, a document entitled “Permits that may be Required for Grading
Activities in Mendocino County – By Permit” dated December 18, 2000 and a letter from the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board dated July 31, 2002. Mr. Hall recommended that the Planning
Commission hear a short introduction by staff on the Draft Grading Ordinance, take public comments and
then provide direction to staff on how the Commission wishes to proceed through their review of the
Draft Grading Ordinance. The Commission has the option of (1) conducting a page-by-page review of
the Draft Ordinance beginning on Page 1; (2) review the ordinance by topic; (3) review and comment
only upon those areas/issues that the Grading Committee provided alternatives for the Commission and
Board of Supervisors; or (3) review and comment upon those “unresolved” issues for which the Grading
Committee provided alternatives and then proceed in a page-by-page review of the ordinance. Mr. Hall
requested that the Planning Commission continue the Draft Grading Ordinance, upon conclusion of
today’s meeting, to September 5, 2002.

Mr. Hall reviewed the staff report dated July 2, 2002 providing background information and a summary
of the Grading Committee’s process and issues. He read the following statement from the Grading
Committee:

“Having worked 14 months in 25 meetings for over 100 hours collectively, and considerably
more hours individually, the Grading Committee accepts the attached draft grading ordinance and
appendices as an accurate reflection of its work. Recognizing that the Committee could not reach
agreement on some elements of the ordinance, we forward to the Planning Commission
alternative approaches for addressing watercourse protection, environmental (CEQA) review and
agricultural grading. Understanding that we are a committee representing divergent opinions and
viewpoints, and that we have been appointed by the Board of Supervisors to perform the complex
task of balancing interests and issues, we agree that the Committee has reached the end of its
collective effort and can in good conscience declare our work completed. We wish to thank the
Board of Supervisors for this opportunity to serve Mendocino County and to produce this draft
ordinance in a democratic and open-to-the-public process.”

Mr. Hall summarized permit requirements for grading activities by other jurisdictions (see document
entitled “Permits that may be Required for Grading Activities in Mendocino County” dated December 18,
2000).

Mr. Hall summarized correspondence received from Bob Whitney dated July 29, 2002, Save the
Redwoods/Boycott the Gap Campaign dated July 31, 2002, California Regional Water Quality Control
Board North Coast Region dated July 31, 2002, Greenwood Watershed Association dated July 29, 2002,
Department of Fish and Game dated July 28, 2002, Mendocino Coast Audubon Society dated July 26,
2002, Dr. Hilary Adams dated July 10, 2002 and the Willits Environmental Center dated July 15, 2002.
Copies of several of these documents were provided to the Commission and the correspondence file was
also circulated to the Commission.

Mr. Hall advised the Commission that the Draft Grading Ordinance would only apply in the
unincorporated areas of Mendocino County outside the Coastal Zone.

The Commission briefly discussed procedures for conducting the public hearing on the Draft Grading
Ordinance and the Commission tentatively agreed to proceed with taking general comments from the

MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2002
MINUTES PAGE 12

public at this time and that the public hearing would remain open to the public for specific comments as
the Commission reviews individual sections. The Commission deferred making a decision regarding
which of the four alternatives for reviewing the ordinance to follow as outlined by staff in the
memorandum dated August 1, 2002 (Items C-1 through C-4). Several Commissioners suggested that an
evening meeting be held prior to conclusion of the review of the ordinance to provide an opportunity for
public input for those individuals who are unable to attend daytime meetings. Also, Commissioners
requested that staff attempt to notify the public when the Commission will be considering specific topics.
Mr. Hall discussed the difficulty in notifying members of the public when the Commission will consider
certain sections or topics.

The public hearing was declared open.

Mr. Chris Brown, Air Quality Management District, explained that fugitive dust from unpaved roads is
the largest source of air pollution in the County. He explained that another new issue in Mendocino
County is naturally occurring asbestos. He stated that the EPA is requiring the removal of the agricultural
exemption from air quality requirements. He explained that they are now requiring grading permits for
any grading activities within ¼ mile of a hospital or school if naturally occurring asbestos is on site. He
suggested that the Commissions set aside some time for him to review air quality regulations as they
relate to grading activities at a future meeting. He felt that it is important to insure that the grading
regulations and air quality regulations are consistent.

Dr. Hilary Adams noted that she has submitted a draft ordinance to the Commission, which is the same
proposal that she submitted to the Grading Committee. She discussed impacts to threatened salmonids
and the need to insure that grading regulations protect watercourses and fisheries. She summarized issues
in the draft ordinance that she submitted and stated that the ordinance meets new laws designed to protect
threatened and endangered species, especially Coho and steelhead salmon. She stated that her ordinance
will help our rivers and streams recover from degradation, while recognizing and supporting good
farming practices. She requested a 300-foot buffer from Class I and II streams and a 200-foot buffer from
Class III streams. She recommended that wetlands have at least a 100-foot buffer. She felt that the 100
cubic yard exemption proposed in the ordinance is excessive and suggested that the exemption be limited
to 50 cubic yards. She also urged that language using “may” or “should” be changed to “shall” or “must”
to insure that the regulations are enforceable. She stated that she could support the “Environmental
Ordinance,” which will be presented by David or Ellen Drell later in the day, if several areas were
“tighter.” Dr. Adams stated that she supports the Planning and Building Services Department being the
administering agency for the grading ordinance.

Ms. Judy Hatch discussed an agricultural exempt dam on Bisby Avenue that has negatively affected
neighbors. She submitted written comments into the record and a copy of an aerial photograph of the
dam.

Mr. Daniel Meyers submitted written comments into the record, which he reviewed. Attached to his letter
were copies of pages from the General Plan EIR, Grand Jury Report, memorandum dated September 25,
2002 from Raymond Hall to the Board of Supervisors, and a document entitled “Opposition to the
agricultural Grading Chapter” signed by D. Myers.

Ms. Vicki Oldham submitted written comments from the Mendocino Environmental Center dated August
1, 2002, which she reviewed. She stated that the County needs strong language to protect watercourses,
lakes, ponds, wetlands and the fish, wildlife and birds that inhabit them.

Ms. Jean Harmon discussed the agricultural exempt dam on Bisby Avenue and impacts to neighbors. She
supported strong language in the ordinance regarding construction of dams.

MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2002
MINUTES PAGE 13

RECESS: 12:02 – 1:04 p.m.

Ms. Yolanda Chavez, Vice-chairman of the Mendocino County Archaeological Commission, discussed
protections for archaeological and cultural resources in Mendocino County. She discussed SB 1828
which would require that the County notify any affected tribe and the Native American Heritage
Commission when a project is within one mile of the exterior boundary of a Native American reservation
or sacred site. Ms. Chavez responded to questions from Commissioners regarding disturbance of
archaeological sites in Mendocino County. Ms. Chavez noted that the Archaeological Commission will
be reviewing the Archaeological Ordinance and proposing modifications to the ordinance to improve
protection of archaeological and sacred sites.

Mr. John Spitz submitted a document entitled “Environmental Grading Ordinance for Mendocino County
– July 2002,” which he read in detail. The document included background information regarding
development of the grading ordinance and a summary of the differences between the “Environmental
Grading Ordinance” submitted to the Commission and the “Draft Grading Ordinance” submitted by the
Grading Committee.

Ms. Ellen Drell explained that the “Environmental Ordinance” submitted to the Commission today
supersedes the Draft Grading Ordiance sumitted to the Commission with a cover letter from the Willits
Environmental Center dated July 1, 2002. She supported the Environmental Ordinance submitted to the
Commission and summarized several areas that are different in the Environmental Ordinance from the
ordinance proposed by the Grading Committee which she felt were important. Ms. Drell discussed the
TMDL model for the Garcia River. She also reviewed three flow charts identifying processes for grading
projects, which were submitted into the record. Ms. Drell responded to questions from Commissioners.

Mr. David Drell, Willits Environmental Center, discussed the TMDL process, which will be required for
every river system in the County. He discussed the TMDL model prepared for the Garcia River. He
spoke in support of the “Environmental Ordinance” submitted into the record and summarized several
sections in the ordinance.

Mr. Peter Bradford, President of the Mendocino County Farm Bureau, submitted a revised Draft Grading
Ordinance prepared by the Mendocino County Farm Bureau. He summarized areas of concern to the
Farm Bureau relating to agricultural grading. Mr. Bradford’s comments were submitted in writing and
are on file with the Department of Planning and Building Services.

RECESS: 2:37 – 2:55 p.m.

Mr. Ernie Wipf supported the efforts of the Grading Committee and had concerns with accepting
proposed revisions.

Mr. Peter Ribar, Hawthorn Timber, had concerns that the Grading Committee did not include a timber
representative, however, stated that the proposed Farm Bureau ordinance addresses many of his concerns.
He discussed the Timber Harvest Plan process and regulations required by other jurisdictions. He
supported exemptions to the Grading Regulations for approved Timber Harvest Plans.

Mr. Mike Biaggi reviewed an exhibit prepared by the Mendocino County Farm Bureau regarding stream
setbacks. The exhibit was submitted into the record. He discussed Best Management Practices and
supported the draft ordinance prepared by the Farm Bureau.

Mr. Ken Seckora discussed requirements for grading in Lake and Sonoma Counties. He supported the
proposed ordinance submitted by the Farm Bureau, which removes the CEQA process and uses Best

MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2002
MINUTES PAGE 14

Management Practices instead. He discussed erosion control plans and the expense involved in preparing
such plans. Mr. Seckora responded to questions from Commissioners regarding the CEQA process and
regulations imposed by other jurisdictions.

Ms. Themby Borras discussed Forest Practice Rules and the need to protect the environment. She felt
that the primary answer to the problem is education, which would allow injection of ideas in a non-
adversarial arena. She discussed several organizations that have curriculum that could be utilized in
educating applicants. She voiced concerns with the division in the community regarding proposed
regulations.

Mr. Mark Edwards felt that the County should review regulations adopted by other jurisdictions so that
their mistakes are not repeated. He supported exempting smaller projects from the CEQA process and
discussed the expense to hire engineers to perform necessary studies to comply with CEQA. He felt that
Mendocino County should pursue a ministerial approach. He supported the proposal submitted by the
Mendocino County Farm Bureau. Mr. Edwards responded to questions from Commissioners.

Mr. Al Beltrami, Mendocino Employers Council, submitted written comments into the record. He
proposed use of the Uniform Building Code, with modifications, rather than preparing a new ordinance.
He stated that agriculture should be separated from other grading issues, “discretionary” items should be
eliminated so that the CEQA process is not triggered, “riparian” should be clarified and stream bank
setbacks should be simplified.

Mr. Tom Piper, Fetzer Vineyards, submitted a document entitled “References” and discussed Fish
Friendly Farming practices and Best Management Practices. He opposed subjecting grading to the
onerous CEQA process. He identified several documents listed in the “References” document that are
very helpful in mitigating development. He also discussed Best Management Practices that have been
employed by Fetzer Vineyards in developing vineyards to mitigate any potential impacts. Mr. Piper
responded to questions from the Commission.

Mr. Bob Whitney discussed various sections proposed in the Farm Bureau Draft Ordinance and supported
the proposal.

Mr. Leonard Brutocao had concerns with the amount of erosion generated by State and County highway
projects. He noted that he would be submitting comments in writing.

Mr. Peter Dobbins, Friends of the Garcia, supported the Environmental Draft Grading Ordinance. He
supported subjecting large grading projects to CEQA. He spoke in support of protection of resources.

Mr. John Harper, U.C. Cooperative Extension, submitted and reviewed several documents including
documents entitled “Rangeland Watershed Program Fact Sheet – Management Measures and Practices”,
“Best Management Practices Reference List for Grading Operations in Mendocino County,” “Riparian
Herbaceous Cover,” “Riparian Forest Buffer,” Streambank Protection,” “Streambank and Shoreline
Protection,” and “Stream Corridor Improvement.”

Ms. Roanne Withers, Sierra Club, discussed the EIR prepared for the County General Plan and the need
to develop grading regulations. She discussed the need for incentive programs for restoration projects.

Mr. Larry Mailliard supported the ordinance proposed by the Farm Bureau.

Ms. Carre Brown supported use of Best Management Practices, which are based on the best-known
science at this time. She supported a ministerial rather than discretionary process.

MENDOCINO COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AUGUST 1, 2002
MINUTES PAGE 15

The public hearing was closed for today, however, would be reopened at the next meeting.

The Commission discussed continuance of the Grading Ordinance and staff suggested continuing it to
September 5 to begin after the regularly scheduled items. Mr. Hall estimated that hearing of the Grading
Ordinance would begin sometime between 10:00 and 10:30 a.m. given the present agenda for the
September 5, 2002 meeting.

Upon motion by Commissioner Calvert, seconded by Commissioner Barth and unanimously carried (6-0;
Little absent), IT IS ORDERED that the Planning Commission continues the Draft Grading Ordinance to
September 5, 2002.

9. Matters from the Public.

No one was present to address the Commission.

7. Matters from Commission.

Commissioner Lipmanson requested that the Planning Commission consider the underground cable
markers placed along Highway 253. Chairman McCowen noted that this issue has been previously raised
and the Commission requested that staff look into the matter and report back to the Commission.

10. Adjournment.

Upon motion by Commissioner Berry, seconded by Commissioner Nelson and unanimously carried (6-0,
Little absent), IT IS ORDERED that the Planning Commission hearing adjourned at 4:33 p.m.