Laserfiche WebLink
Erosion Control Ordinance t <br /> February 24, 2009 <br /> Page 4 <br /> For projects that do not currently require a MCWD permit there will be additional expense. <br /> House additions require an updated survey for the building permit so the expense of having <br /> erosion control measures added should be minimal. The expense will be greater for swimming <br /> pools, which are often built based on an older survey and lot corners being located when the <br /> footing inspection is done , and smaller land alteration permits, which are often issued with <br /> drawings done by the homeowner. <br /> Staff Proposal <br /> Rather than spending more time trying to design the perfect system, staff proposes to put this <br /> scheme in place as soon as possible. It would be re-evaluated at the end of the year and adjusted <br /> as necessary. This would provide the City with a tested system by the time the economy <br /> recovers and land disturbing activity increases. <br /> As part of the evaluation the role of the MCWD would be eaamined. The City may want to <br /> assume sole responsibility for enforcing erosion control measures. <br /> Staff also suggests ending the $500 credit for engineering review for Land Alteration Permits <br /> that do not require a conditional use permit since they generate only $50 in revenue. <br /> Attachments <br /> List of Permits Issued in 2008 Likely to Require Level II or III review. <br /> Example of Regulations <br /> Submission requirements for Level II project <br /> Submission requirements for Level III or IV project <br /> Submission requirements for MCWD permit <br />