The week is a follow-up column.
First, I need to clarify my prior comments on the Klamath Basin Watershed Team. In that
column I stated that the RCDs (Resource Conservation Districts) had not yet requested the
full three step, top-down assessment and planning “process” under the Klamath
Basin Adaptive Management Plan. That is true. However, the Watershed Team has been called
upon by the RCDs to assist in various projects, such as small dam fish passage in the
Shasta and an expanded sediment study in the Mofffett Creek
I also wanted to report on the Board of Supervisors’ discussion
on a possible grading ordinance. The idea was first floated at a Planning Commission
meeting. Work on the concept was announced to the Board by Supervisor LaVada Erickson.
Many of you contacted the Board and Planning
Director Wayne Virag with comments about that concept.
As background, many people – particularly in south county –
have been concerned about the visual impacts of development on the landscape. There are
concerns about building in high wildfire
areas, on steep slopes or in scenic viewsheds. A Lake Siskiyou Watershed Assessment
indicated that that watershed could be imperiled if development was left unchecked.
Apparently, a working group -of which I was not a part - originally looked at three
possible ordinances to address these issues: grading, slope stability and wetland/water
quality. It was decided to focus on grading.
At the last Board meeting, Director Virag presented his research and
report. He first presented a “model” or sample
grading ordinance. It was discussed whether it could be written to initially apply only to
the Lake Siskiyou Watershed area, and not north county, as this is where the watershed
analysis had been completed
Virag indicated that of the 23 counties he had surveyed, and only
five had formal grading ordinances. Three of the five ordinances only trigger when steep
slopes are involved. The grading permits require application fees, coupled with submission
of a plan for county review. Some require a certified professional to prepare the plan at
the applicant’s expense. Typically, a refundable deposit is also required to ensure
that the plan is followed. CEQA (California
Environmental Quality Act) with a public and agency environmental review process applies
Four of the five counties cautioned against adopting such an
ordinance. Apparently, their public process of issuing a permit had become mired in
lawsuits. Costs had skyrocketed and there were substantial time delays. Enforcement was
difficult.
Director Virag recommended that the Board not consider adopting a grading ordinance.
Instead, he suggested that the Board contract with a consultant to review the antiquated
1973 vintage Land Development Manual. This manual is a policy document, applied
countywide, from which specific standards are developed. He recommended that regulated
earthmoving activities in the manual exclude: (1) Agricultural-related activities; (2)
Activities governed by the Forest Practices Act; (3) Maintenance (including snow removal)
of existing roads and facilities; (4) Development of existing parcels; and (5)
Restrictions to existing development, roads and private driveways.
The update to the Manual in regard to earthmoving as discussed would
ensure safe and adequate access to all new parcels, ensure two means of access to new
subdivisions, minimize visual impacts from earthmoving activities, and mitigate erosion
and sediment from new development. It is anticipated that a workshop on the proposed
Manual update will be held in early spring of next year.
I appreciate the time and effort of folks who commented on the idea
of a proposed ordinance. I hope that you will continue to stay involved as we move forward
to revising the Land Development Manual to ensure it reflects all your concerns. |
