Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03221994 - WC.2 WC2 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: WATER COMMITTEE Costa Supervisor Sunne Wright McPeak �^ rr-Y}� Supervisor Tom IJu Torlakson �.Juy DATE: March 22, 1994 SUBJECT: REPORT ON WETLANDS PROGRAMS SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATION(S) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Direct Community Development Department staff to cease further work on the current draft wetlands ordinance, and instead, focus on in-house efforts to attain ordinance goals (including permit,streamlining, consistency and no-net loss, as part of the development review process). 2. Direct the Community Development Department to proceed with the wetlands mitigation banking program by working with relevant agencies and providing specifics as to program components, including an approach for a competitive bid process for the mitigation bank, and report back to the Water Committee. REASON FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND The Water Committee, after more than 3 years of work on the draft wetlands ordinance, has come to the conclusion that the draft ordinance, as written, may not be the best method to implement General Plan goals and policies. -Instead of advocating continued staff involvement in further revision of the draft, the Water Committee recommends that staff efforts could be better directed towards implementation of General Plan goals and policies through in-house efforts. This would allow permit streamlining, consistency in mitigation and no-net loss mandates, as well as other goals and policy contained in the County General Plan to continue, without the high level of special interest group/public discomfort associated with the draft ordinance. Wetlands mitigation banking could address goals.of no net loss and best mitigation practices if this type of program were instituted in the County. The program appears to have a great deal of merit, and the Board has previously endorsed this approach. The Water Committee has requested additional information from staff as to how to proceed with such a program, more detailed funding considerations, and additional staff work with agencies and individuals related to the mitigation bank, and to a competitive bid process which would enable acquisition of land for this purpose. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATUREIS): Supervisor Sunne W. McPeak Supervisor Tom Torlakson ACTION OF BOARD ON /9'fAPPROVED AS RECOMMENDED 1( OTHER The Board APPROVED Recommendations 1 and 2 above, and in addition DIRECTED staff to consider potential MOU relationships or .further protocol reiationshi�s between jurisdictions and to add the Delta Protection Commission to that consideration as well. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS X. UNANIMOUS (ABSENT I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND AYES: NOES: CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact: Roberta Goulart (510) 646-2071 ATTESTED 7y4tk � 19 y� cc: Community Development Department PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF THE Public Works Department BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND County Counsel COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR BY: , DEPUTY RG:rw RRG2:3-22we2.bod WC. 2 THE DRAFT WETLANDS PROTECTION ORDINANCE: A SUMMARY Since 1991, several drafts of a County Wetlands Protection Ordinance have evolved in response to comments from various agencies and other sources. In the course of drafting the Ordinance, many controversial issues have emerged and a far- reaching consensus has been difficult to achieve. The issues Include the appropriate definition for wetlands; the role of federal, state, and local government as it relates to wetlands, agricultural concerns, and the potential for new costs and delays resulting from the incorporation of wetlands regulatory authority at the local level. However, the proposed ordinance, as it currently reads, is designed to minimize delays by simplifying and streamlining the development review process by bringing together the appropriate parties in the early planning stages . Furthermore, costs associated with wetlands would only be incurred by applicants whose proposed development is situated on or near a wetlands area, in the form of a wetlands delineation (Corps) or an assessment study, as part of CEQA review. In earlier drafts of the Wetlands Protection Ordinance, the definition of wetlands mirrored that of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service definition contained in the County General Plan. The latest draft ordinance utilizes both definitions, using the Corps definition for "significant" (three-parameter) wetland areas not addressed by the Corps. Wetlands potentially significant under County regulation wo;ald primarily include those wetland areas where the Corps is not exercising jurisdiction. These areas would Include, but not be limited to, areas less than one acre, isolated wetlands and/or areas impacted by activities other than dredging or filling. To comply with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service definition contained in the County General Plan, the latest draft Wetlands Protection Ordinance has also incorporated wetland-related habitat fitting this definition as one of the County's regulatory responsibilities when the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) applies to a proposed development. Lands remaining in agricultural use, and levee maintenance activities, would be exempted from the Ordinance. For projects potentially impacting wetland-related habitat, and therefore requiring a wetlands assessment study, the assessment would tell the County the extent, function and value of habitat, as well as any impacts and mitigation measures recommended by a designated consultant. A wetland delineation consistent with Corps requirements would be required for significant wetland areas for which the Corps is exercising jurisdiction. In: some cases, both a delineation and assessment would need to be incorporated Into environmental documentation for a given project. It is the County's position that a consistent approach to consideration of impacts, as well as appropriate mitigation requirements is Important to establishing no-net-loss as part of development. Draft of March 25, 1993. Minor revision February 1994 DRAFT ORDINANCE PRESERVATION OF WETLANDS IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY Article I Fin_ (1) FINDINGS: Wetland areas, and their associated habitats, are among the most important and unique habitat areas in the County. Wetlands are areas of great natural productivity, hydrological utility and environmental diversity, providing natural flood control, improved water quality, recharge of aquifers, flow stabilization of streams and rivers, and stopover for migratory waterfowl and other habitat for fish and wildlife resources. Wetlands provide recreationai, scientific and aesthetic resources to the people of the County. A considerable number of these important natuzal resources have been lost or degraded by draining, dredging, filling, excavating, development, release of pollutants, and other activities. Without sufficient protection, piecemeal or cumulative losses will continue to occur. It is therefore necessary for the County to ensure protection of significant wetlan4 areas by closely monitoring development activities in wetlands and in wetland-related habitat areas. It is the County's intent to preserve wetland areas as well as their function and values. (2) PURPOSE: The purpose of this Ordinance is to partially Implement the Goals and Policies of the Contra Costa County General Plan. The General Plan classifies a "wetland" as an area that has one or more of the following attributes: (1) at least periodically, the land supports predominantly hydrophytes; (2) the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil; and (3) the substrate is nonsoil and saturated with water or covered by shallow `rater at some time during the growing season of each year. This ordinance implements this classification by regulating two different categories: potentially significant wetlands and wetland- related habitat. The County intends to protect both significant wetland areas and related habitat areas. In cases where losses to wetlands and related habitat are not avoided, compensation, restoration, creation or other mitigation will be required to offset further losses. In order to accomplish its purpose, this ordinance provides a procedure to address proposed development projects that 1 affect significant wetland areas and wetland-related habitat areas. It is also the purpose of this ordinance to reduce the delays and uncertainty which can occur in the current wetland planning and regulatory framework through improved coordination (to the extent possible) and by providing mechanisms for expedited permit review consistent with the conservation of wetland resources. This ordinance implements this objective in part by defining a significant wetland in the same way as the federal Corps of Engineers, through the soils, water and vegetation requirement, in order to avoid inconsistent government regulation, and then reaching wetlands in areas not subject to such individual Corps jurisdiction, by examination of associated habitat. The wetlands-related habitat component bridges the gap between the Corps regulatory definition of wetlands, and the biologically- oriented definition used by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, which is also contained in the County General Plan (January 1991) . In this manner, the County can regulate significant wetlands consistent with the Corps, but also ensure consistency with the General Plan through the broader habitat-related component. Article II Terms Assessment. An assessment of wetlands-related habitat, as more particularly providEd in Article IV(C) . Atlas. "Atlas of Tidal and Formerly Tidal Wetlands in Contra Costa County, California" (1992) prepared for the Community Development Department, Contra Codta County, California by the Botanical Research Group, Berkeley, California; and its accompanying report, "Selected Tidal and Associated Wetlands in Contra Costa County, California Attribute. One of the parameters which defines a wetland, which are as follows; saturated soil, water, and/or vegetation adapted to saturated conditions. See (potentially) significant wetland and wetland-related habitat definitions) . Board. The Board of Supervisors or such other County decision oa erkerk as may have jurisdiction over the project, with such rights of appeal and review as may be provided by County ordinances other than this ordinance. GEQA. The California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq. , as amended, including the State CEQA Guidelines ("Guidelines for Implementation: of the California Environmental Quality Act," 14 Calif. Code Regulations Sections 2 15000 et seq. ) and applicable court decisions. Corps. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Delineation. An examination of potentially significant wetlands on the project site meeting Corps' requirements, as more particularly provided in Section IV(8) . Department. The Contra Costa County Community Development Department. Development Project. A "discretionary project", as defined by CEQA, primarily involving a significant change in the density or Intensity of use of land. Director. The Director of the Community Development Department or such persons as the Director may designate to administer and Implement this ordinance. General Plan. The Contra Costa County General Plan 1990-2005 dated January 1991, as the same may be amended. Ap Mitigated Negative Declaration. A negative declaration with revisions in the project avoiding or mitigating potentially significant environmental effects, as described in CEQA Guidelines Sec. 15070(b) and the comments to it. (Potentially) Sionificant Wetland. Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs and similar areas. (definition requiring all three attributes to be present) . Program. A wetland related habitat mitigation program, as more particularly provided in Article V. Pro ect. The particular project which is the subject of an application to the Department. Proiect site. The land on which the project is located. Wetland-Related Habitat. Habitat for species which are dependent upon wetland areas, consistent with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service definition of wetlands, as follows. Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface, or the land is covered by shallow water. For purposes of this classification, wetlands must have one of the following attributes: (1) at least 4 periodically, the land supports predominately hydrophytes; (2) the substrate is predominately undrained hydric soil; and (3) the substrate is non-soil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year. Wetlands typically include, but are not limited to, mudflats, unvegetated seasonal ly-ponded areas, wet meadows, vernal pools, and riparian woodland and scrub. (definition requiring 1 of 3 attributes) . Article III Authority, Application and Determinations A. Relationship to Corps Authority and Administration. 1. When the Corps is exercising its authority over potentially significant wetlands on the project site, the County's regulation of such potentially significant wetlands shall be consistent with Corps' requirements to the extent possible and to the ex,rent the Corpe ' requirements are known at the time the County is acting. In these circumstances the County'e efforts will be primarily concerned with wetlands-related habitat through the CEQA process. B. County Authority and Administration. 1. The Director is responsible for the administration and Implementation of this ordinance. The Director shall encourage coordinated review of each development project subject to this ordinance with the Corpsand other governmental agencies with jurisdiction over the Project. 2. The Director shall review any delineation, assessment and program, and recommend approval, conditional approval or denial of such delineation, assessment or program to the Board. When the project ultimately comes before the Board for approval, the determinations by the Director under this ordinance are subject to review by the Board, which may approve, modify or reverse the Director's determinations, as the Board may determine. C. Application of ordinance. 1. Application. This ordinance shall apply to all discretionary development entitlement applications and projects not otherwise exempt under CEQA. 2. Exemptions. The following is exempted from this ordinance; 4 a. Land remaining in agricultural uses. b. Levee maintenance activities. D. Initial Determination by Director. 1. Initial Determination. As part of each development project's initial review under CEQA, a determination shall be made by the Director as to: (a) whether there is a reasonable possibility that potentially significant wetlands or wetlands-related habitat may be existing on the project site; and (b) whether the project could have an adverse environmental effect on such wetlands and wetlands-related habitat, If they exist. In making these determinations, the Director may refer to any delineation which the applicant may have elected to prepare, the Atlas, and any other information available to the Department. Any determination that potentially significant wetlands may exist on the project site shall be based on some adequate documentary evidence. The Atlas shall be used as a guideline for purposes of the initial determination and shall not be used for wetland delineation purposes. 2. Delineatiifn and Assessment Requirement. If the Director determines that there is a reasonable possibility that wetlands may exist on the project site, then a wetland delineation and/or assessment shall be required. a. If the applicant elects to cause its project to entirely avoid potentially significant wetlands, the applicant shall be exempt from further application of this ordinance. A project shall have entirely avoided wetlands when in the reasonable judgment of the Director the project entirely avoids any construction on (or other significant physical change, or other Impacts to) potentially significant wetlands on the project site and provides a setback (deemed adequate by regulatory authorities) around such wetlands sufficient to protect wetland-related habitat values. b. If the applicant does not so elect to entirely avoid wetlands, then the Director shall require a delineation of potentially significant wetlands and an assessment of wetland- related habitat on the project site pursuant to Article IV of this ordinance and this ordinance shall apply to the project. 3. Inapplicability When No Wetlands. If the Director S r determines that there is not a reasonable possibility that potentially significant wetlands or wetlands-related habitat may be existing on the project site, or (b) that the project would not have a significant effect. on such wetlands/habitat, then this ordinance shall not thereafter apply to the project. Article IV Delineation and Assessment A. Overall. This Article IV shall apply when the Director has required a delineation and/or an assessment pursuant to Section III(D) (2) (b) . 1. Time. The delineation and/or assessment shall be conducted prior to or in conjunction with the preparation of an . Initial study, environmental impact report or mitigated negative declaration. B. Delineation. A determination of the extent, function and value of Potentially signifinant wetlands on the project site which satisfies Corps jurisdictional requirements, made by a qualified Independent professional acceptable to the Corps and the County. The delineation should identify any impacts to significant wetlands areas and include a program to mitigate those impacts, consistent with Article V. C. Habitat Assessment. 1. Procedure. If a delineation is to be completed, the same consultant may, where qualified, complete the habitat assessment, or the assessment may be done by a different qualified professional with the approval of the Director. Z. Contents. The assessment shall include an evaluation of wetlands-related habitat, considering the biological extent, function and value of the wetland-related habitat based upon the following information: a. An identification of wetland-related habitat (and any significant wetlands) on maps acceptable to the Director, consistent with General Plan policy. b. An evaluation of site characteristics including physical features and geographic setting, such as current land use, levels of disturbance, areas and shape of contiguous wetland related habitat, and the relationship to neighboring non-habitat areas. C. An inventory and evaluation of associated biological resources., such as plant communities and plant species; 6 wildlife habitat relationships and animal species, including all species of special concern (e.g. endangered species) ; d. An assessment of soil stability and flood potential where appropriate; e. An assessment of any potentially significant impacts on wetland resources; f. Recommendations for appropriate mitigation of any significant impacts of the project on habitat. g. Other information reasonably required by the Director to enable adequate habitat evaluation. 3. Additional Contents if No Corps Jurisdiction. If the delineation establishec that the Corps will not be exercising jurisdiction over the project site, then the assessment shall also Include an identification of any potentially significant wetlands on the project site over which the Corps #s not exercising jurisdiction. The purpose of this identification is to enable the County to assess the value of such potentially significant wetlands, assess impacts, and mitigate as necessary. D. Mitigation Program Requirement. A mitigation program shall be required pursuant %t Article V if the evidence in the approved delineation or assessment establishes that the project as proposed will have an adverse environmental effect on potentially significant wetlands. Article V Mitigation Program [To be prepared) Article VI Guidelines The following provisions are guidelines to assist applicants In preparing their applications and the Director in the implementation of this ordinance; they are not rules which must be invariably applied. They are arranged in the same order as the articles of the ordinance above. A. Findings. [To explain consistency with General Plan. ] B. Terms. 7 General Plan. Mote that the ordinance relies on the current , General pian in effect at the time the project is being reviewed, not the General Plan in effect on the date the ordinance was adopted. Development Project. To be subject to the ordinance, a project must Fe "discretionary". a. A project is "discretionary" if it would be so classified by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) . Under the CEQA definition, a discretionary project (generally speaking) is one requiring the exercise of judgment or deliberation when the public agency or body decides to approve or disapprove a particular activity, as distinguished from "ministerial" and other non- discretionary projects. In cases where there is any doubt, reference should be made to the CEQA definition for an exact determination of what is discretionary and what is ministerial or otherwise not discretionary. See Public Resources Code Sec. 21080 and State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15268, 15357) . b. A project is a "development" project if it primarily Involves a significant change in the density or intensity of use of land. Potentially Sianificant Wetland: In order to avoid inconsistent governmental regulation, the definition of a potentially significant wetland,,contained in the ordinance is the same as the definition of a wetland by the Corps of Engineers, as it relates to the three "parameters" or attributes (key elements) of a wetland; hydrology, hydric soils and hydrophytic plants. The interpretations of the Corps' definition by the Corps and the Courts will apply to Corps' delineations of potentially significant wetlands pursuant to the ordinance, but not for other purposes. The geographic and activities limitations on the Corps' exercise of its jurisdiction do not apply to the ordinance. While the Corps ' definition is brief, its interpretation is the subject of an extensive set of materials. These include the manual being applied by the Corps at the time this ordinance was adopted [1987 manual] and the Corps regulatory guidance letters. Reference should be made to these interpretive materials, as in effect on the applicable date, in determining the presence and extent of wetlands. (While the EPA has authority to veto Corps wetland determinations, this is seldom exercised. ) It is the intention of the ordinance to apply the Corps' wetland definition (three-parameter component) and its Interpretations in effect on the applicable date. The applicable date is the date the Director makes the initial determination 9 i concerning the presence of wetlands, for purposes of the initial determination (Section III(C) (1) , and the date of the wetlands assessment for all other purposes. While this ordinance relies on the Corps definition to some extent and interpretations for purposes of determining what is a wetland (i.e. for wetlands delineation) , the County Ia jurisdiction over wetlands is not subject to the Corps ' geographic and activities limitations. For example, this ordinance applies to wetlands even if they are not "waters of the United States", and even if they are "isolated wetlands". It also applies to any type of substantial adverse environmental effect on a wetland, not just discharges of dredged or fill materials into a wetland. [Further Guidelines to be prepared. ) 9 & ovation Element must be mined and addressed as part of the review of applications. Both public and private whip of the resources within unique natural w aas shall be considered as long as the protection is long term and guaranteed in some manna. Dine to the fragile nature of some of these resources, however, public seem to the areas should be limited or restricted. The following statements shall guide County elected and appointed officials in making decisions which may affect the ecological resources of Contra Costa County. Note that not all of the biotic arras within the County are discussed here. Goals„policies,and implementation measures regarding t riparian corridors vegetation and wildlife along creeim and streams are included in a later section of this element, 'Water Resources - Urban and Rural tweets.• . i VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE GOALS 8-D. To protect ecologically significant lands, wetlands, plant and wildlife habitats. ' 8-E. Oft platM mrA thr+eit~ftirendaflgeredd speaeas of fift wildlifer and plandn, ogni5carr!~�► . f plow aomnmultie s, and other resdaras svft3cIt stand out as unique because of their scarcity.— • aaientifis value,.aesthetic qualityof cinitui st�not:°�attempt'16-schuss a sigaiFi LUL — ty over ft fih-tnf dw ezreraT" - - 4isn. The definition of rare,threatened and endangered includes those definitions provided by the Federal Endangered Species Act, the California Endangered Species Act, the California Native Plant Protection Act and the California Environmental Quality Act. ST. To encourage the preservation and restoration of the natural characteristics of the San Francisco Bay/Delta estuary and adjacent lands, and recognize the role of Bay vegetation and water arra in maintaining favorable climate, air and water quality, and fisheries and • migratory waterfowl. VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE POLICIES T 8 Significant tree:, natural vegetation, and wildlife populations generally shall be preserved 8-7. Important wildlife habitats which would be disturbed by major development shall be t preserved,and corridors for wildlife migration between undeveloped lands shall bo retained. : 8-& Significant ecological resource areas in the County shall be identified and designated for compatible low-intensity land Ines. Setback zones shall be established around the resource areas to assist in their protection. � I 8-4 Area: determined to contain significant ecological resources, particularly those containing endangered specie:, shall be maintained in their natural state and carefully regulated to S-26 • 8. C.bnservation Element the matdmum legal extent. Acquisition of the most ecologically sensitive properties within the County by appropriate public agencies shall be e=uraged. 8-10. Any development located or proposed within significant eeok)gical resource areas shall enure that the resource is protected 8.11. The County shall utilize performance criteria and standards which seek to regulate uses in and adjacent to significant ecological resource areas. 812 Natural woodlands shall be preserved to the mardmum extent possible in the course.of land development. 813. The critical ecological and scenic characteristics of rangelands, woodlands, and wildlands shall be recognized and protected. 8-14. Development on hiillsidcs shall be limited to maintain valuable natural vegetation,especially forests and open grasslands, and to control erosion. Development on open hillsides and significant ridgelines throughout the County shall be restricted, and hillsides with a grade of 26 percent or greater shall be protected through implementing zoning measures and other appropriate actions. 8.15. Existing vegetation, both native and non-native,and wildlife habitat areas shall be retained in the major open space area sufficient for the maintenance of a healthy balance of wildlife populations. 8.16. Native and/or sport fisheries shall be preserved and re-established in the streams within the County wherever possible. 817. The ecological value of wetland areas, especially the salt marshes and tidelands of the bay and delta, shall be recognized Existing wetlands in the County shall be identified and regulated Restoration of degraded wetland areasshall be encouraged and supported whenever possible. 818. The filling and dredging of lagoons, estuaries, and ban which eliminate marshes and mud flats shall be allowed only for water-oriented projects which will provide substantial public benefits and for which there are not reasonable alternatives, consistent with State and federal laws. 8.19 The County shall actively oppose any and all efforts to construct a peripheral canal or any other water diversion :stem that reduces Delta water flows unless and until it can be conclusively demonstrated that such a :stem would, in fact, protect, preserve and enhance water quality and fisheries of the San Francisco Bay-Delta estuary system. 820. Fish, shellfish, and waterfowl management shall be considered 'the appropriate had use for marshes and tidelands, with recreation being allowed as a secondary use in limited locations, consistent with the marshland and tideland preservation policies of the General Plan. & ODuservatlon Element low 8.21. The planting of native trees and shrubs shall be encouraged in order to preserve the visual integrity of the landscape, provide habitat conditions suitable for native wildlife, and ensure that a maximum number and variety of well-adapted plants are sustained in urban areas. 8-22 Applications of toric pesticides and herbicides shall be kept at a minimum and applied in accordance with the strictest standards designed to conserve all the living resources of the County. The use of biological and other non-toxic controls shall be encouraged. its- 8-23. Runoff of pollutants and siltation into marsh and wetland areas from outfalls serving nearby urban development shall be discouraged Where permitted, development plans shall be 90 designed in such a manner that no such pollutants and siltation will significantly adversely affect the value or function of wetlands. In addition, berms, gutters, or other structures should be required at the outer boundary of the buffer zones to divert runoff to sewer systems for transport out of the area 8-24. The County shall strive to identify and conserve remaining upland habitat areas which are adjacent to wetlands and are critical to the survival and nesting of wetland species. -- 8-25. The County shall protect marshes, wetlands, and riparian corridors from the effects of potential industrial spalls. 8-26. The environmental impacts of using poisons to control ground squirrel populations in grasslands shall be thoroughly evaluated by the County. y 8-27. Seasonal wetlands in grassland arras of the County shall be identified and protected. 8-2L Alt efforts shall be made to identify and protect the County's mature native oak, bay, and buckeye trees. VEGETATION AND WILDLIFE DeLEMENTATION MEASURESi Scant Ecological Resource Inventory 8-a. As funding becomes available, prepare a detailed inventory of ecologically significant resource areas which include unique natural areas, wetland arras, habitats of rare, threatened, endangered and other uncommon and protected species. The inventory shall be mapped as an overlay to the existing Resource Mapping System and shall include buffer zones around the identified source areas in order to take into account for periodic, seasonal, or ecological changes. The maps shall be revised on a regular basis to refect the I availability of new information from other agencies, changes in definition, or any other changes. Maintain an updated list of State and federal rare, threatened and endangered species which are known or suspected to occur in the County. The following other uncommon or protected species which occur or may occur in the County should also be included in the list: plant species which are included in the California Native Plant Society's Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California, species of special concern as designated by CDFG, and California Fully Protected animah as defined by California Fath 5-.30 r Conservation Element and Game Code. In addition to mating updates as new inforamatibn becomes available,the list should be reviewed at least once every two years for adequacy. $rc. In cooperation with other public and private agencies, prepare a detailed inventory of biological and archeological resources in the Southeast County area, to be used in project review. Dm elapment Review Process Update and maintain detailed maps of the significant ecological resource areas descn'bed in Implementation 6-a above, and use them in the environmental review process to determine potential impacts upon these resources. 8�. Prior to the approval of discretionary permits involving parcels within a significant ecological resource area as descnlmd in Implementation Measure&a,the County shall require a biotic resources evaluation based upon field reconnaissance performed at the pppropriate=tae +1 ofyear o d tetenn ne the presence or absence of rare, threatened or Ladangered species 7f plants or animals. Such evaluation will consider the potential for significant impact on these resources, and measures proposed to mitigate such impacts,where feasible,or indicate why mitigation not feasible. r 8-£ Prepare a list of standard mitigation measures from which the County could select appropriate measures to mitigate the impacts of projects in or adjacent to significant ecological resource areas. 8-g. Require the environmental impact analysis of all significant grassland land sites proposed for development to include an early spring site reconnaissance to determine the presence of vernal pools and rare species associated with vernal pools, and document the use of • any seasonal wetlands by water bird species, Aneral observationof such sites during the dry portion of the vear shall be deemed ins rent for environmental review. Significant grasslands include generally parcels of more than 40 acres which are located in an area dominated by native or introduced grass species. ` &h. Amend the recently adopted Heritage Tree Preservation Ordinance (sections 6164.2 through 816-4.1010 of the County Code) to protect all native trees with a trunk circumference of 72 inches or more measured 412 feet above the ground and to require land owners or developers, not the general public, to demonstrate why the removal of one _ or more heritage am is unavoidable in order to build a proposed development project. 8-i. Amend the ordinance to require developers to pay mitigation costa according to an adopted schedule, such as requiring, where appropriate, and to the a:tent legally permissible, that throe new trees be planted for every one mature tree removed as part of a development. Replacement trees should be the same or a similar species as the tree removed, and should .i be native species or naturalized species which are well-adapted to the site's conditions without posing a threat of invasion into surrounding lands. r 8-j. Amend the ordinance to prohibit damage to heritage trees by soil compaction, grading, String or alteration of drainage patterns beneath the root zones of heritage trees during r L 8-31 8. Conservation Element construction. Watering programs for lawns and gardens in new subdivisions should be designed to prevent soil saturation around the root zones of oak trees during the summer months to avoid infection by oak root fungus. Wetland Areas 8-k.'. A setback from the edge of any wetland area may be required for any new structure. The breadth of any such setback shall be determined by the County after environmental review examining (a) the size and habitat value of the potentially affected wetland, and (b) potential impacts on the wetland, and adjacent uplands, arising out of the development and operation of the new structure. Unless environmental review indicates that greater or lesser protection is necessary or adequate, setbacks generally will be between SO and 100 feet in breadth. Expansions or other modifications of non-habitable agriculturally-related structures existing as of 1990 shall be exempt from this setback requirement. Parcels which would be rendered unbuildable by application of this standard shall also be exempt. 8-1. Permit minor landfill (less than one acre) or other land reclamation for water-oriented uses T only if a finding has been adopted by the planning body that verifies no alternative site is 41 available, and if public benefits clearly exceed public detriments from the loss of open water or tidelands areas. t 8-m. The County shall require avoidance,minimization and/or compensatory mitigation techniques ' to be employed with respect to specific development projects having a potential to affect a wetland. In evaluating the level of compensation to be required with respect to any given T project, (a) on-site mitigation shall be preferred to off-site and in-kind mitigation shall be ' preferred to out-of-kind, (b) functional replacement ratios mav va to the extent necessary to incorporate a mar ' re ect n t e ted de ee of success associated with the mitigation plan, and (c) acreage replacement ratios mayvary depen ing on the relative ' functions and values of those wetlands being last and those being supplied To the extent permitted by law, the County may require 3:1 compensatory mitigation of any ' project affecting a 'Significant Wetland". 8-n. Urge the appropriate State and federal agencies to implement a rigid and frequent inspection system of all industrial facilities along the shoreline which have the potential of creating hazardous spills. 8.0. Adopt an emergency response plan which outlines how to ensure the swift construction of floating oil slick barriers at the mouths of all slough and creek channel inlets along the County's shoreline areas, in the event of an oil or other hazardous material spill. • Zoning Ordinance Revisions 8-p. Amend the County Zoning Ordinance to include a 'Significant Ecological Resources Area" combining district. Apply the zoning to distinct properties with proven significant ecological st resource area as defined in (a) above. Consider including in the regulations of the combining district the provisions of (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), (j), (k), (1), (m), (n) and (o) &32 �NXt�.N CA1I,,0 WC. -4 EDF ti4 BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION P. O. BOX 5160 200 PORTER DR., SUITE 200 SAN RAMON, CA 94583 BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION (510)820-7626 Fax 15101820-7296 i April 19, 1993 MEMO TO: Supervisor Sunne Wright McPeak FROM: Guy Bjerke Kassandra Fletcher RE: Proposed County Wetlands Ordinance The home building community has some serious questions about the need for a County Wetlands Ordinance. We understand the current General Plan gives you policy direction on this issue. However, at the time of the General Plan's adoption, we did not strenously object to these policies because the Board agreed that the issue of wetlands "definition" would be determined later. It was the business community's hope that we could persuade the Board to adopt a wetlands "definition" that contained the Army Corps of Engineers "three parameter" test. The adoption of that definition would make it less necessary for the Board to adopt additional burdensome regulations and create a new County Wetlands bureaucracy. Unfortunately, County staff pulled a,fast one on both the Board and the business community by slipping in a broader, more expansive wetlands "definition" into your final approval of the General Pian. Now, rather than debating the "definition" and discussing innovative ways to use the existing regulatory structure to save truly valuable wetlands, we find ourselves drafting-an ordinance whose purpose no one can adequately justify and/or explain. We think it is time to ask and get answers to some fundamental questions which will help everyone determine whether we should or should not continue with the development of a County Wetlands Ordinance. In short we need to answer the question: Why? 1. What real; tangible (not perceived) problems are there with the existing federal and state wetlands regulations and their implementation? Please cite Contra Costa examples. EASTERN WEST SAY SOl1'i'!-TERN NORTHERN DIVISIONAL OFFICES: (510)820.7625 (408)977-1490 (408)977-1490 (707)584-9133 San Ramon san Jose San Jose Rohnen Park AFFILIATED WITM NATONAL ASSOCIATION OF 40ME BUILDERS AND CALIFORNIA SUILDWO INj?U RY ASSOCIAT ON _u= Supervisor Sunne Wright McPeak 2 Proposed County Wetlands Ordinance April 19, 1993 2. Why does the County feel that their current authority to review wetlands under CEO.A and comment on any proposed Corp permit is insufficient? 3. What steps has the County taken to resolve those problems within the existing regulatory framework? 4. Is a County Wetlands Ordinance necessary? Are additional local regulations the best way to address the problems identified in questions 1 &-2? b. How is the proposed County Wetlands Ordinance addressing those problems identified in questions 1 & 2? 6. How can the proposed County Wetlands Ordinance be touted as "permit streamlining"? Isn't the proposed ordinance additive to and duplicitive of existing federal, state and local regulations on this subject? a. How does or will the ordinance "streamline" the process? b. What processing steps are eliminated by the ordinance? C. What guarantees are there that current federal and state regulators will cooperate with the County? If the Feds says "X" and the County says "Y", who wins? What keeps a builder from entering the Twilight Zone? 7. How much money has the County spent to date on this effort? 8. What are the estimated costs to implement the proposed ordinance on an annual basis and how will it be paid for? Is this use of funds consistent with the County's fiscal priorities? In this era of fiscal austerity and priority re-evaluation we cannot afford to expand government and its costs without_honestly answering fundamental questions such as these. We look forward to your response. c. BIANC Builders Board of Supervisors Contra Costa Association of Realtors Contra Costa Council COLAB