HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/02/2008, SS 1 - STORM WATER PROGRAM STATUS hke�e D.m
councilDecember 2, 2008
ac,Enaa REpoRt �N
CITY OF SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: Jay D. Walter, Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Barbara Lynch City Engineer
SUBJECT: STORM WATER PROGRAM STATUS
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file a report on the City's Storm Water Program Status.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
As part of the implementation of the 1972 Federal Clean Water Act, the City developed and
began implementation of a storm water management plan. As part of the 2007-09 Financial
Plan, the City Council approved about $1.5 Million over the 2 year plan in increased resources to
support that implementation. Staffing to implement the program is largely in place.
The City is now in the process of having their Storm Water Management Plan reviewed and
approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and has been since March of 2003. At
the time of this report preparation, the Regional Water Quality Control Board staff was finalizing
comments on the City's Stormwater Management Plan. The Board staff recently increased the
requirements for the City's enrollment which, if approved by the Regional Board, will increase
the cost of implementing the program even further. Increased requirements and associated costs
have become and issue throughout the state for agencies implementing these programs.
The implementation of the program has brought about several positive changes. Outreach to
businesses and construction has reduced the amount of unwanted substances going to the creeks.
Stormdrain cleaning efforts have removed tons of material from drain inlets in addition to
removal of material from the streets through the City's street sweeping practices.
Upcoming for the City Council review will be a new ordinance to address the need to improve
water quality. The ordinance will better define ways that the community will need to assist the
City in these efforts and establish enforcement processes for problem areas. It will cover a
number of areas, large and small, and some sensitive ones such as feeding wildlife.
DISCUSSION
Regulatory Background
In 1987 Congress specifically mandated the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to
establish storm water programs that address the introduction of pollutants into water bodies from
�� i
i
Storm Water Program Status Page 2
storm water runoff. Storm water was identified in the original Clean Water Act of 1972 to be a
significant source of pollution.
Phase I stormwater programs began in 1990 and targeted municipalities with populations of
100,000 or greater. In 2003 the State of California adopted a Phase II program to address storm
water from municipalities of 100,000 or less. Unlike the Phase I regulations which issued an
individual National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to each entity, the
Phase II program is a general statewide permit which applies to all municipalities equally, but
requires the development of a Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP) for each municipality.
These programs are generally referred to as Phase II Municipal Storm Water Programs.
The Environmental Protection Agency, acts through the State Water Quality Control Board
(SWQCB) and Regional Water Quality Control Boards (RWQCB) to implement the provisions
of the Clean Water Act. The City is one of several small communities most recently to be
integrated into this national effort to improve water quality. The City is part of the Central Coast
Region of the Water Board system. This region includes Santa Barbara and Monterey counties
as well. The City, along with most of the other agencies in the region, is in the process of being
enrolled in the program.
In September of 2005 a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) for pathogens was adopted for San
Luis Obispo Creek. The RWQCB performed the TMDL study because the creek had been listed
as "impaired" by the existence of pathogenic organisms that exceeded the Water Contact
Recreation (REC-1) beneficial use standards. This City is now 3 years into implementing this
program. The TMDL issues and implementation efforts are also incorporated into the SWMP.
Program Resources
In the fall of 2006, staff from several departments began discussions on the where and how this
program might be implemented. The group recognized that this City-wide program would take
the efforts and coordination of several departments to make the program successful.
In March of 2007, in conjunction with the budget process for the 2007-09 Financial Plan
adoption, a detailed report was presented to the City Council of staff's work efforts, enrollment
status, and estimated resource needs. The final result was the preparation of a Significant
Operating Program Change to implement the program and Capital Improvement Plan requests
for equipment. These requests were approved as part of the 2007-09 Financial Plan and totaled
$1.5 million for the two year cycle.
The program was placed in the existing Creek and Flood Protection program in the City's
budget. Part of the current operating budget goes to traditional activities, including creek
clearing, material disposal and street sweeping. The remaining budget covers program
implementation, code enforcement, laboratory testing and public education materials. In effect,
this is not so much a Storm Water program as it is a Clean Water program.
I- a-
I
Storm Water Program Status Page 3
1. Staffing Status
The 2007-09 budget included the addition of 4.5 full time staff, 1 manager position, 1 code
enforcement position, 2 maintenance positions, and a % time Geographical Information Services
(GIS) staff position. The GIS position was filled almost immediately with staff already working
part time. The code enforcement and maintenance positions were filled over the next 9 months
and the manager position filled after 12 months. The manager position is vacant, 5 months after
being filled.
Given the City's current "chill" for staff positions, staff is reevaluating priorities to determine
where the necessary work for this program will land and how we can adjust to still accomplish
the program with potentially fewer resources.
Storm Water Management Plan and Enrollment
To implement the statewide general permit, the SWQCB approved the Municipal General Permit
under which each agency becomes an enrollee. The current permit required the City to submit a
Stormwater Management Plan (SWMP) in the spring of 2003. The plan was submitted for
review to the Central Coast RWQCB at that time.
The unique thing about the Central Coast region is that we are almost entirely composed of small
cities. While the large urbanized areas in the San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego areas
typically entered under multi-agency, or regional permits, the Central Coast presented a
challenge to our RWQCB simply by virtue of the large numbers of agencies that had to be dealt
with and enrolled. As a result, the City is still not enrolled after 5 %2 years. To date the plan has
been rewritten by City staff five times in an attempt to satisfy RWQCB staff requirements, and a
sixth rewrite will have to be completed before our plan is posted for public review.
1. Enrollment Sequence
Step 1. The RWQCB staff will review the City's response to their comments during
January (sixth rewrite.) The review should be completed at the end of January of 2009.
Step 2. The RWQCB staff will then post this version on their web site along with a table
of final revisions the RWQCB will require the City to incorporate into their plan. This
information is posted for a period of 60 days for interested parties to review and comment on
and/or request a hearing. The 60 day period is expected to go through March of 2009.
Step 3.A. If a hearing is requested by the City or a private party, group, or other agency, a
date will be set for the hearing and City staff will be responsible to make a presentation
defending the City's SWMP. At that hearing, the RWQCB will adopt a resolution enrolling the
City and providing a final table of corrections for incorporation in the plan. A hearing is
expected take place in May of 2009.
Step 3.13. If no one requests a hearing before the RWQCB, the RWQCB staff will return the
revisions with a letter of enrollment which could be expected in April of 2009.
I-3
Storm Water Program Status Page 4
Step 4. In either case, the City will have 30 days from enrollment to complete the
revisions and submit the final plan and begin implementation. The City also has that same 30
days to appeal the RWQCB decision to the SWQCB.
2. Enrollment Letter—New Requirements
Over the last year, the low number of agencies enrolled since the March 2003 submittal deadline
came to a head. The RWQCB staff attempted to address this by requesting the RWQCB to allow
them to prepare a prescriptive permit. Such a permit would have dictated the same requirements
to every agency. This did not seem to be a good fit because of the variety of physical and
financial conditions and environmental issues. There were also concerns expressed by
environmental groups that such an undertaking would further delay enrollment. After receiving
public comment, the RWQCB decided against a prescriptive permit and encouraged their staff to
set out a schedule to get the plans before the Board. That direction occurred in October of 2007.
When staff met with the City Council in March of 2007, it was with the belief that the City,
working with RWQCB staff, had developed a program that was ready for approval. On February
15, 2008 the RWQCB staff issued an enrollment letter (Attachment 1) to all affected
municipalities outlining the timeline for enrollment. Surprisingly, the letter did not stop there,
but rather added several new requirements that the individual SWMPs must include. These
additional items were not simple additions or clarifications and had not been covered during the
RWQCB meetings where the enrollment schedule was discussed.
Phase I cities and metropolitan areas have been enrolled for over 15 years. The expectation of
Phase II cities and counties has always been that they would follow behind Phase I agencies in
terms of the level of expectations and implementation. Phase I agencies would test the water,
make the mistakes and develop the standards because they are better equipped and staffed to deal
with these complex issues. Phase II cities would follow behind, adopting already tried methods
and standards and implementing requirements more rapidly. What we are seeing in the current
enrollment letter is not only an effort to bring us up to the level of regulation currently required
for Phase I agencies but, in some areas, to exceed current Phase I agency standards.
The RWQCB uses the term Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP) as a determining factor in
whether an agency will be required to include certain activities in their SWMP. The enrollment
letter states "...the MEP standard is the same for Phase I and Phase II municipalities." Staff does
not agree that what is achievable for one agency is achievable for another, particularly when
comparing a large Phase I agency with a Phase II agency. Note at the end of each section on
minimum control measures in the enrollment letter the statement "You must include an effective
strategy to ... or Water Board staff will recommend to the Water Board requirements in the
resolution approving your SWMP and enrolling you in the Phase II permit."
Agencies in the region are concerned about the new requirements outlined in the enrollment
letter. On April 30,2008, staff from agencies throughout the county submitted endorsements to a
letter prepared by the SLO County Partners for Water Quality. (Attachment 2) The partners are
a loose knit group of Phase 2 agencies in this county that work together on events, public
outreach and public participation to share costs and resources. This was followed by a letter
from the California Stormwater Quality Association (CASQA) sharing our concerns regarding
1 _`,(
1
Storm Water Program Status Page 5
the content of the enrollment letter. (Attachment 3) CASQA is an advocacy group for local
governments and has developed design and regulation resources to assist local agencies.
On May 9, 2008, during the public comment period, City staff requested that the RWQCB
conduct public hearings for the new requirements to hear all sides of the issues, benefits and
concerns, but the Board declined this request.
Key Issues for the Current Enrollment:
The City staff is unarguably new at stormwater regulations; however, there are certain things
about the enrollment which generate concern. Below are a couple of the key issues covered
in the letter.
A. Infiltration
The letter outlines requirements for agencies to implement to 1) Maximize infiltration of
water, 2) Require development to match pre-development run-off characteristics, and 3)
Develop a hydromodification management plan. City staff will be charged with developing
language to address these requirements. The RWQCB staff has indicated they are flexible
as to what language is used, but that any language different than what they have established
as default language will have to be justified with technical back up documentation showing
that it will achieve the RWQCB goal of a healthy water shed, as defined by the RWQCB.
Infiltration, in this context, means having water that runs off solid surfaces re-enter the
ground at the site rather than flow off the site into storm drains. Infiltration can be a good
thing; however, the affect of infiltrating water at one site designed to handle it, on an
adjacent site not designed for that, is unknown. Since the infiltration would be the result of
a City requirement, it could put the City in a position of liability for damage to adjacent
structures.
The other requirement for this program is establishing numeric criteria for controlling
runoff volume and rates. Numeric limits have always been a point of concern for the
agencies because it creates so many opportunities for failure which can lead to third party
lawsuits. The engineering community has reviewed the requirements and recently spoke
during a hearing for the City of Lompoc enrollment expressing their concerns at being able
to achieve the criteria set out by the RWQCB staff.
Agencies and developers are also uncertain how this will impact infill development,
particularly high density development to reduce sprawl. An example of these concerns has
been set forth by the Home Builders Association in a letter to the City. (Attachment 4)
B. Minimization of pollutants
One of the required elements is the reduction of pollutant loading using existing conditions
as the starting point. This would require end-of-pipe and creek sampling to determine
existing conditions and ultimately treatment for City outfalls to the creeks. This is not in
the City's Stormwater program approved by Council in July 2007. The City will have to
assess our current water quality, determine how we will reduce the number of pollutants,
and implement control measures. This will be a large undertaking. Metals, oil and grease
I, �
Storm Water Program Status Page 6
are common run-off constituents from automobiles. Reducing pollutants from such uses
could include retrofitting every street .in the City to capture these before they enter the
system.
Current Strategy
Besides the actual requirements of the enrollment letter, what has staff most concerned are
the controversies to the north and south of us in the metropolitan areas between local
governments and the RWQCBs. These are agencies that have worked with the program for
15 years and have far greater knowledge of the difficulties with cost and implementation than
agencies in this County. The most recent quote heard was from a city in the Los Angeles
region estimating a price tag of$55 million to comply with a proposed trash TMDL. These
types of high dollar numbers have galvanized agencies into collective resistance to their
RWQCBs. The unfortunate outcome is litigation and a nearly irretrievable working
relationship between agencies and RWQCB staff.. Environmental group litigation is also an
issue for the State and the cities. San Luis Obispo County agencies are continuing to attempt
a cooperative approach with the RWQCB staff.
A. What is going on at the State Level?
The SWQCB creates the General Permit under which we are enrolled; however, they do
not provide oversight to the activities of the various RWQCBs. This has allowed the
RWQCBs to take the regulations to whatever level they deem needed given the various
issues in their region. The only route for the City to take regional issues to the state level,
is through an appeal to the SWQCB.
The SWQCB is currently working on the revision to the two big permits related to storm
water. The first is the Construction Permit which is required for sites greater than I acre.
The second is the General Permit under which the City will be enrolled. It would appear
that the SWQCB is using an inclusive process in developing these permits. Some
workshops have been held in Sacramento on the Construction Permit and SWQCB staff is
doing additional work to address concerns raised. The SWQCB staff is working with
CASQA and agency work groups to develop language for the General Permit. The
SWQCB staff is also working with environmental groups, and so are challenged to provide
something agreeable to all. City staff is, at least encouraged, that they are working on these
new regulations in this manner. Because of what is happening at the regional level, with
RWQCBs adding various requirements, the SWQCB is now considering a prescriptive
permit. City staff is not certain that this would prevent what is occurring here, in the
future.
As alluded to above, both in the San Francisco Bay area and the Ventura and Los Angeles
areas, agencies are struggling with new requirements, using public comment opportunities
and in some cases, litigation,to get their concerns across.
B. What is happening at our regional level?
Regionally, county based groups meet to share resources and to work together on the
current enrollment. All the local agencies are either enrolled or in the process of being
enrolled with several plans posted on the RWQCB web site for review. Some of the larger
I - (
Storm Water Program Status Page 7
agencies in our region, such as the City and County of Santa Barbara, and the County of
San Luis Obispo, have already been enrolled for over a year. They are still concerned
about the current enrollment because as their permits come up for annual review, they are
being asked to include the new language (language from Attachment l) in a revision. This
serves as an alert to all agencies that getting approval of a 5 year SWMP is no guarantee of
what will be required year to year.
Our RWQCB is made up of 9 members representing various interests in the community.
The seats represent: Irrigated Agriculture, Water Quality, Public, Industrial Water Use,
Water Quality (currently vacant,) Recreation, Fish & Wildlife, County Government
(currently vacant,) Water Supply, and Municipal Government (currently vacant.) As can
be seen from this list, local agency concerns are currently not well represented on the
Board. It should also be noted that these members are appointed by the governor and
communications with individual members is not allowed making meaningful discussion
with individual members, outside the limits of a Board meeting, difficult.
C What is happening at the local level?
In addition to the SLO Partners, who have operated for some time on public outreach and
participation, the City Managers in our county have recently begun discussing the issues
facing us. Their hope is to work with the RWQCB and develop a solution that does not
lead us down the path of animosity and litigation. Contacts have been made to the League
of California Cities to keep in touch with what is happening statewide and some effort is
underway to get representation on the RWQCB.
The approach to the regulations by the various cities in our region is not uniform. Some do
not believe the regulations will really affect them because they are built out. Their
approach has been to give a wary okay to the new requirements. Some agencies have other
permits with the RWQCB and, although they are concerned with the new requirements,
have other priorities to consider.
The city managers have met with the Executive Officer for the RWQCB and presented the
position to the Executive Officer that the local agencies should be enrolled as prescribed
under the conditions of the current General Permit with staff time and energies focused on
developing a workable plan to deal with the additional requirements outlined in the
enrollment letter. The establishment of a technical advisory committee to guide this
development and build stakeholder support for the outcome was proposed. This concept
was supported by many people at the hearing on the City of Lompoc's enrollment that was
held in October. Such a committee would establish a forum for collaboration between
agencies, builders, environmental groups and those with technical knowledge in this field.
The Executive Officer expressed concern that such a large group of diverse interests may
never reach agreement. Instead, he agreed to a meeting between his staff and agency staff
to better define what will be acceptable in the agencies permits as they move forward into
enrollment in the coming year. This meeting has been set for December 3, 2008, and will
be facilitated by a local mediator. Staff will provide an update to the City Council on the
outcome of that meeting.
Storm Water Program Status Page 8
The program presents difficult choices for the City. Clean water is certainly a priority for
San Luis Obispo; however, there are considerable demands on the City's funds. Staff is
approaching the program with an eye to achieving the results the RWQCB is looking for at
an affordable cost.
Program Activities
Now for the good news. While it took awhile to get all the staffing here, they have not been idle
implementing the program. The program goal is the reduction of non-point source pollutants
entering local water bodies. For some of the program activities, there is a side benefit of reduced
flood potential.
Our SWMP is broken into what are commonly known as the 6 minimum measures found in all
Phase II community SWMPs. The six measures are public education, public participation, illicit
discharge, construction, post construction, and good housekeeping of municipal operations:
1. Public Education:
What is it?
Public Education is the distribution of educational materials, or equivalent outreach activities,
about the impacts of storm water discharges to water bodies and the steps the public can take to
reduce pollutants in stormwater runoff. Departments involved in implementing this component
are: Public Works, Utilities, Administration, Parks & Recreation and Community Development.
What are we doing?
Outreach activities are occurring at a number of places. The Utilities Department produces
public service announcements for television and radio covering storm water issues in addition to
water conservation. Preventing run off serves both a water conservation and a storm water
purpose because run off from irrigated areas can carry nutrients that impair water quality.
Administration produces the Environmental Stewardship Report that also provides information
to the community. City staff participated in the countywide Water Fest event, working with
other local agency staff. The City also pays for an educational program that goes into the class
room and educates elementary school children about what they can do to help keep the storm
water clean.
On a more commercial scale, public education is a daily activity carried out through our code
enforcement staff on the street. As is often the case with newer programs, private parties have a
general understanding of the issue, but do not necessarily know what that means in real terns, on
the ground. This is where City staff step in to provide the assistance needed. We are providing
information to operators and reviewing their site with them to implement necessary corrections.
To date, staff has made approximately 475 personal contacts, with 160 of those being complaint
or non-compliance related. An additional 113 individuals have been through training and
another 1340 received a mailing targeted to their activity. Four training sessions have been
conducted by a combination of Public Works and Utility staff for the automotive industry and
mobile cleaners (including sidewalk scrubbers.) Planning for restaurant owner training is
underway. Construction site inspections are occurring weekly to ensureproper erosion and
J,g
Storm Water Program Status Page 9
sediment control is maintained. The staff has generated 20 brochures covering a variety of
subjects from pet care to construction to assist the public with how to do things to minimize their
impact on water quality. This work is in addition to the site inspections that are part of our pre-
existing industrial waste inspection program with restaurants and other commercial
establishments.
The City now has areas of our web site dedicated to clean water with information for the public
and links to other sites. Our draft SWMP and ordinance are available there as well.
2. Public Participation:
What is it?
Public Participation includes complying with State and local notice requirements when
implementing a public involvement/participation program and soliciting input from the
community. Departments involved in implementing this component are: Public Works,
Utilities, and Administration.
What are we doing?
The new portions of the web site are a key link for the local community and other interested
parties. In order to make sure people know what currently going on, staff has a list of interested
parties. Email notifications were made when our current SWMP and draft ordinance were
posted. The interested parties represent a range of people including environmentalists,
developers, regulatory agencies, internal staff and City Council.
Public Participation also includes the opportunity for members of the public to notify us if they
see something. The City now has a telephone hotline for reporting incidents as well as a link on
the web site.
3. Illicit Discharge:
What is it?
This part of the program is for the detection and elimination of a variety of discharges. Activities
in this category include storm sewer mapping, inspection, surveillance, wild animal control, pet
waste, enforcement, and regulation of certain authorized non-storm water discharges that may
carry pollutants. Authorized discharges include hydrant flushing, potable water spills and
springs. Much of the TMDL program is included in this section as well. Departments involved
in implementing this component are: Public Works and Utilities.
What are we doing?
A key component of regulating illicit discharge is clearly articulating in an ordinance just what
that is. In its simplest form, anything but rainwater is potentially unacceptable. Staff has
completed a first draft of a clean water ordinance and routed it internally, with the exception of a
legal review. Staff is waiting to receive comments or proposed language changes from the
RWQCB staff and environmental groups before requesting a legal review. The draft is posted on
the City's web site and comments are expected from the RWQCB staff and possibly others.
I��
Storm Water Program Status Page 10
Staff is planning to conduct a public workshop before bring it before the Council for adoption.
An overview of the ordinance is included in a separate section of this report.
Code enforcement staff has issued 111 Notices to Correct or Notices of Violation specific to the
stormwater program. There are also several inspection and response activities that have been in
place for many years related to sewage spills and businesses and industries permitted under the
City's pre-treatment program. Those activities are funded by the sewer fund and enforced by
their staff. Many of the City parks have Mutt Mitt dispensers to encourage people to cleanup
after their pets. The program was initiated in the Parks Maintenance program, but is now funded
out of this program.
Staff completed a preliminary mapping of the storm drain system using student interns a few
years ago. Essentially all the drainage surface features in the roadways were located by
coordinates and a "dot-to-dot" approach was taken for mapping the pipelines. The new
maintenance personnel are making corrections to the maps as they clean the system. Mapping
can assist in tracing pollutants to the source and so is an important component of our illicit
discharge efforts.
The TMDL Program requires the City to conduct sampling and address the pathogens found in
the creek. Laboratory testing for pathogens in the creek are conducted four times per year with
each event consisting of five days of sampling. The sampling encompasses the five sites
required by the TMDL as well as other sites determined by City staff to aid in locating the source
of the pathogen. This sampling has shown that the highest rise in pathogens occurs in the tunnel
that covers the creek as it flows under the downtown area and opens at the Mission Plaza.
The undercity culvert that runs between Higuera and.Osos streets and the Mission Plaza, serves
as habitat for several species of animals including pigeons, bats, and ducks. The indicator
organisms for the study are fecal coliforms, found only in the feces of warm blooded animals. In
an attempt to remove one of the potential sources of pathogen contamination, staff completed an
experimental preclusion project under Broad Street Bridge by the use of netting. Follow-up
testing will be conducted at this site to test the effectiveness of this project at preventing roosting
by birds and reducing pathogens. Private sewer laterals suspended under the tunnel are inspected
by staff during a quarterly creek walk to determine if any leaks, or other potential sources of
human contamination are contributing to the creek's pathogen loading. Wastewater Collections
staff have also pressure tested the siphons that flow under the creek and have found no evidence
of any leaks.
Caffeine testing has also been performed in the downtown area. Caffeine has shown to be a
good indicator for the presence of human contamination in water. New testing methods allow
for detection in the part per billion ranges. As humans ingest caffeine in products such as
beverages and foods, some of it will pass through the body without being completely
metabolized. This along with caffeinated liquids being directly poured down sinks will travel
through the wastewater collection system toward the Water Reclamation Facility (WRF).
Positive caffeine results have been shown at the WRF; however, creek testing in January 2008
has shown no detectable caffeine in the downtown area. This would suggest that there is no
pathogen contamination from leaking plumbing or from the sewermains. As positive pathogen
I �I�
Storm Water Program Status Page 11
testing results were found at the WRF concurrently with negative caffeine testing results in the
creek, it suggests that the current source of contamination is from non-human sources.
The TMDL requires the RWQCB to assess the progress made by the City every three years. City
staff will schedule a meeting this January and discuss the feasibility of reducing the pathogen
levels to a level that meets that meets the REC-1 beneficial use. Along with the findings
suggesting that the sources of the contamination are from non-human sources, the City will
discuss the appropriateness of the RECA beneficial use for the creek. This discussion and
potential guidance from RWQCB staff will be useful for the City's strategy for completion of the
TMDL at the end of the allotted ten year period.
4. Construction:
What is it?
The construction component of the plan works to prevent the discharge of pollutants to the
system from construction. Activities in this category include plan review, inspections and
enforcement of site plans and stormwater requirements. Departments involved in implementing
this component are: Public Works, Utilities, and Community Development.
What are we doing?
The largest impact we can have to minimizing construction run off is to regularly work with
active construction site managers to maintain site controls. The City's code enforcement staff is
currently visiting construction sites throughout the City every day, working with contractors and
builders to get their sites properly prepared and maintained for wet weather. If cooperation is not
forthcoming, citations are issued.
The RWQCB has asked that we increase the strength of our regulatory language to include
issuance of Stop Notices for failure to comply. The draft ordinance includes this language and
proposes that funds are held for all construction so that the City would have the resources to
install erosion and sediment control in the event it is not completed by the responsible party.
S. Post Construction:
What is it?
Ensuring developed sites minimize their impacts to water quality by management and control of
site runoff falls under the Post Construction measure. Activities include private storm drainage
system maintenance, inspections, reporting and enforcement of stormwater requirements.
Departments involved in implementing this component are: Public Works and Community
Development.
What are we doing?
The largest challenge for post construction is knowing what is out there and tracking new
installations. The City has records of its own installations, but has not historically retained
records for private property. The GIS staff is collecting data on drains in private property and
mapping that information for code enforcement staff. Drains with oil and grease separators will
be inspected to insure maintenance is being performed by the owner.
Storm Water Program Status Page 12
The City does receive annual reports on detention basins. Those reports are prepared on behalf
of the homeowners association that owns the basin and the reports detail necessary maintenance
work. The City has never verified the recommended work was being completed, but has now
done that through code enforcement staff.
6. Good Housekeeping of Municipal Operations:
What is it?
Prevention and reduction of pollutants from activities such as parks, streets and utility
maintenance and new construction. Activities include special practices for maintenance
activities, storm drain maintenance, street sweeping, inspection, and training. Departments
involved in implementing this component are: Public Works, Utilities, Administration, Parks
and Recreation, Community Development and Fire.
What are we doing?
There are two main efforts underway in this area. The first, street sweeping, has been ongoing
for many years. Recent disposal of sweepings would indicate that we collect roughly 7 tons a
week or 350 tons per year. This is material that would ultimately enter the storm drain system
and the creeks. The second is the cleaning of the City's storm drain system. In past years, the
downtown drainage inlets have been cleaned annually. The downtown was the focus because the
higher volume of activities leads to higher volumes of trash. Using the recently arrived
hydrocleaning machine, staff has cleaned 625 of the 1111 drainage inlets and removed
approximately 27 tons of debris. Once all of the inlets have been cleaned, work will begin on the
pipelines. Long term employees indicate it has been as many as 25 years since the piped system
received any regular cleaning.
Maintenance staff personnel have used a special Quickstik portable camera, essentially a camera
on a stick, to inspect inlets and pipelines. The portable camera has allowed the inspection of 19
inlets and 23 pipelines since the equipment purchase in May. No surprise, the 23 corrugated
metal pipes that were inspected are unsound because their flow lines have rusted out. The
locations and conditions have been routed to engineering for prioritization in the CIP. The crew
has also located several blocked outlets for future sediment removal efforts.
GIS staff converted the originally mapped stormdrain system into a specialized database, the
same as is used for our other utility lines, to track maintenance efforts and needs. Correction of
the map and clear delineation of public versus private system elements is ongoing.
Clean Water Ordinance (... "Don't Feed the Ducks?!")
Under many of the work areas of the SWMP is the provision for developing an ordinance to
address it. The EPA provided a template for such an ordinance and several Phase I cities have
already adopted them. Staff collected some samples and starting with what looked to be the
clearest and most thorough, set to work adjusting it to address the specifics of our program and
our situation. As noted above, this effort is in the public review process at this time and will be
before the Council some time early next year.
I, (a-
� 1
Storm_Water Program Status Page 13
The main thrust of the ordinance is that people may not discharge anything that pollutes stone
water. The ordinance goes on to identify those items that are exempted or assumed to be clean
discharges such as air conditioning condensate.
What will likely be one of the more controversial items in the ordinance is that portion
addressing animals. Animal waste can be a major contributor to the decline of water quality. As
noted above, our TMDL for pathogens appears to come from animals living in the under city
culvert. The ordinance identifies a couple of ways to minimize that, cleaning up after privately
owned animals and not feeding wild animals. While wild animals are a natural part of the
environment, feeding by the public allows the numbers to grow unnaturally and concentrates the
waste in the feeding areas, leading to a decline in water quality.
The ordinance provides authority for the City to develop and enforce best management practices
for various activities that have the potential to affect water quality. The ordinance also sets out
standards for proper maintenance of property and storm water devices.
There are several sections in the ordinance that address how connections to the City system will
be monitored and regulated and where the responsibility for that lies. And lastly the ordinance
addresses how violations are to be handled and how appeals are made.
Comments on the ordinance are expected to range from "too much" to "not enough" depending
upon the source. Staff's charge will be to try to craft a document that is livable while still giving
the City the regulatory authority to carry out the requirements from the RWQCB and improve
water quality.
FISCAL IMPACT
During the 2007-09 Financial Plan process, staff brought forward to Council the SWMP and
requested funding support for implementation. Approximately $500,000 was budgeted for in the
first year for startup equipment costs and another $500,000 for operating costs each year for a
total of$1.5 million for the two year budget. There were considerable cost savings in operating
program the first year due to the delay in staffing and so implementing the program. Those
funds were returned to be used to cover other City budget issues. Additional savings will
realized this year with the loss of the program manager both in salary and reduced ability to
complete implementation.
While there are some grants available for stormwater related work, those grants are for specific
projects with the current focus on regional projects incorporating low impact development. The
Rinds are not for general operating costs, which must be borne entirely by the City. The passage
of Proposition 218 created more stringent requirements for the City to establish fees to fund this
new initiative. Accordingly, any added costs are likely to directly impact the General Fund.
Significant fiscal impacts could occur if the enrollment proceeds under the requirements outlined
in the letter. Both the City and the development community will have additional costs, which are
difficult to estimate at this time.
Storm Water Program Status Page 14
The RWQCB estimated in their TMDL study that attainment of the REC-1 beneficial use will
cost the City $2,000,000 over a ten year period. However staff hopes that with the additional
coordinated efforts of the SWMP and the information collected to date, that the actual cost will
be less.
ATTACHMENTS
1. February 15, 2008 Enrollment Letter
2. SLO Partners Letter
3. CASQA Letter
4. Home Builders Association Letter
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE
Council Agenda Report- March 20, 2007
SOPC—Storm water Management Plan Implementation
Draft Storm Water Management Plan—Regional Board Submittal
tAcouncil agenda rcporlslpublic works car\stormwater\12-2-09 swprognatus doc
1-1`}
Attach t 1
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
tiaaa S.Adams Central Coast Region AroaaSmwachwa,zea
eW
AgvW Sacrawy or
Internet Address: hupJ/www.wamrboards.cLpv/omtnleoast
895 Aerovista Place,Strite 101,San Luis Obispo,California 93401-7906
Phone(805)549-3147•FAX(805)543-0397
February 15,2008*
Barbara Lynch
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Barbara Lynch:
Notification to Traditional,Small MS4s on Process for Enrolling under the State's General
NPDES Permit for Storm Water Discharges
Introduction
As Executive Officer of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region (Water
Board), I am writing to notify you of the Water Board's revised process for enrolling traditional,
small Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems (MS4s) under the State's General Permit No.
PAS000004 (General Permit). Water Board staff have identified you as an entity that owns or
operates an MS4,.so you must enroll in the;General Permit and develop and implement a Storm
Water Management Program (SWMP)::This,letter describes the.SWMP approval process and our
expectations regarding the content of your SWMP..to comply,with the General Permit, and provides
you with the schedule Water Board staff intend to follow for review of your SWMP and enrollment
of your MS4 under the General Permit Staff will communicate further with you as yourenrollment
cycles begin,to establish specific schedules for the five phases leading to enrollment.
Water Board staff will evaluate your SWMP for compliance with the General Permit requirements,
including the Maximum Extent Practicable standard, and as appropriate will approve the SWMP
and enroll you in the General Permit If requested,Water Board staff will schedule a public hearing
before the Central Coast Water Board for consideration of an individual SWMP.
The Water Board's revised enrollment process is a fundamental shift from the way we have
reviewed and approved SWMPs to date. The revised enrollment process eliminates the multiple
SWMP review/edit iterations and negotiations that characterized our previous approach. For
SWMPs that do not meet the schedule and content described here for General Permit compliance,
staff will draft specific resolutions or individual permits for Water Board consideration that will
protect water quality, beneficial uses,and the biological and physical integrity of watersheds.
Enrollment Process and Schedule
Water. Board staff grouped: the 24 remaining un-enrolled traditional MS4s into eight enrollment
cycles (Table,1). Each cycle spans a period of 33 to 38 weeks and concludes, on the projected
date,.with..Water Board:approval of individual SWMPs and enrollment, of the MS4s under. the
General Permit. . I
u
9
California Environmental Protection Agency , pp
Recycled Paper I I 7
9
1
Attachment 1
Barbara Lynch .2- February 15,2008
Each enrollment cycle includes five time-limited phases requiring specific actions by both Water
Board staff and the MS4 (Table 2). The precise timing and duration of each phase is subject to
change; Water Board staff will develop specific schedules at the commencement of each
enrollment cycle.
Table 1: Enrollment Cycles for Attachment 1 and 2 MS4s
Projected Projected Projected
Cycle MS4 Group Group Members Start Date for ExecutiveOfficerBoard SWMP
Enrollment Cycle royal approval
App
1. Santa Maria/Lompoc Santa Maria Jan.22,2008 July 28,2008 Sept. 5,2008
Lompoc San Luis
Obispo
2 Coastal Santa Barbara Goleta Jan.29,2008 September 2, Oct. 17,2008
County . Carpinteria 2008 Santa Barbara
Santa Barbara
UC Santa Barbara
3 Santa Cruz Mountains Santa Cruz County Mid February 2008 October 20, Dec. 5,2008
and Coast Capitola 2008 San Luis
Soquel Obispo
Aptos
Ben Lomond
Boulder Creek
Live Oak
Felton
Coralitos
Watsonville
City of Santa Cruz
Scotts Valley
UC Santa Cruz
4 Coastal San Luis Arroyo Grande Mid April 2008 January 2009 2009.=-i
Obispo County Grover Beach Quarter
Pismo Beach San Luis
Oceano Obispo
Morro Bay
Ba ood—Los Osos
5 Upper Salinas IGng City Early June 2008 February 2069-710-09-71'r—
Templeton
0092009-1Templeton Quarter
Atascadero Salinas
6 City of San Luis Obispo City of San Luis Early September April 2009 2009—2
Obispo 2008 Quarter
San Luis
Obis o
7 Upper Pajaro Gitroy Early November August 2009 2009—3
San Martin 2008 Quarter
Santa Clara Watsonville
8 Santa Ynez Buellton Mid November August 2009 2009—3
Solvang 2008 Quarter I
Vandenberg AFB San Luis k
Obis o n
1. Board approval only required if a hearing is requested by stakeholder
California Environmental Protection Agency I I g
s'
Recyckd Paper
I
z
Attachment 1
Barbara Lynch .3- February 9 5,2008
Table 2: Phases of MS4 Enrollment Cycle
Duration
weeks
Phase I: Water Board Staff Assessment of Wates Odaility Challenges
Water Board staff:
Assess available water quality information
Accept input from stakeholders on water quality conditions 3-4
Prepare and transmit to MS4 staff a statement of current knowledge of water
quality challenges that must be addressed by SWMP
Phase II:Water Board Staff SWMP Review
Water Board staff:
Review SWMP and"red-lines'text 3-4
Send red-lined SWMP and letter explaining requirements to MS4
Phase 111:-MS4 SWMP`Redraft
MS4 staff re-draft SWMP and post for Public Review 6
Phase IV:Water Board Staff Final Review and Posting of SWMP
Water Board staff review SWMP 2-4
Water Board staff post SWMP and table of required revisions for Public Review 8
Water Board staff respond to public comment and EO approves SWMP --3-4
Phase V:Water Board Action if hearing re nested
Water Board staff prepare Staff Report with recommendation and resolution for 2
SWMP approval
Water Board Staff:
Post Staff Report with Board Agenda for Public Review
Respond to additional public comment 6
Prepares Presentation for Hearing
a. Conduct internal review up to Board Meeting
Total 33 to.38
Communication
Clear and open communication between Water Board staff, MS4 staff, and stakeholders is vital to
the success of this enrollment process. Also, the Phase II General Permit requires public
participation as a component,of developing and implementing..successful stormwater management
programs for MS4s. To comply with the General Permit, you must verify that you have achieved
broad and timely distribution of announcements of scoping meetings, draft stormwater program
documents, and local agency actions on stormwater program activities when you submit your
SWMP for Water Board staff review.
s
Water Board staff are committed to ensuring that the enrollment process proceeds with open
communication. Staff will employ a list-serve (email notification) for notifying all interested parties
of important milestones in each enrollment.cycle. Water Board staff will also maintain an. MS4
enrollment tracking webpage where staff will post relevant documents and indicate the status of
each MS4 in the enrollment process. Additionallyi an individual Water Board staff person will be C
assigned to each enrollment cycle. We request that you also identify an individual to serve as
point of contact representing your MS4 with whom we will communicate during the enrollment,
process. You must identify your point of contact when Water Board staff contact you to initiate
your enrollment cycle. x
fi
California Env&onmentd Protection
Agency
10 RecyledPape
I I
i
Attachment 1
Barbara Lynch .4- February 15,2008
Central Coast Water Board Expected SWMP Content
The federal'Clean Water Act(CWA)provides that.National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permits for MS4s must require municipalities to reduce pollutants in their stormwater
discharges to the Maximum Extent Practicable (MEP) (CWA §402(p)(3)(B)). The California Water
Boards have established the meaning and application of this standard through several adopted
stormwater permits (the MEP standard is the same for Phase I and Phase If municipalities)'. The
Water Board implements the General Permit to be consistent with its Water Quality Control Plan
(Basin Plan) to ensure protection of water quality, beneficial uses, and the biological and physical
integrity of watersheds according to the issues in the Regions.
Your SWMP must include an array of Best Management Practices (BMPs), including the six
Minimum Control Measures listed in the General Permit,to achieve the following conditions:
I. Maximize infiltration of clean stormwater, and minimize runoff volume and rate
II. Protect riparian areas,wetlands,and their buffer zones
III. Minimize pollutant loading; and
N. Provide long-term watershed protection
1. Maximize-Infiltration of dean stormwater, and minimize runoff volume and rate.
Water Board staff expect your SWMP to present a schedule for development and adoption of
control standards for hydromodification. For SWMP adoption, staff will recommend to the Water
Board the following interim requirements, which would apply until such time that you develop
acceptable control standards for hydromodification:
• For new and re-development projects, Effective Impervious Areae shall be maintained at
less than five percent(5%)of total project area.
• For new and redevelopment projects that create and/or replace 5,000 square!feet or more
of impervious surface, the post-construction runoff hydrographs shall match within one
percent (1%) the pre-construction3 runoff hydrographs, for a range of events .with return
periods from 1-year to 1q-years.
• For projects whose disturbed project area exceeds two acres, preserve the pre-construction
drainage. density (miles of stream length per square mile of watershed) for all drainage
areas serving a first order stream° or larger, and ensure that post-project time of
concentration is equal or greater than pre-project time of concentration.
These interim requirements must be implemented for all applicable projects subject to your
discretionary approvals within six (6) months of your enrollment in the Phase II permit. Your
schedule for development and adoption of your own control standards for hydromodification must
include:
• Numeric criteria for controlling stormwater runoff volume and rates from new and I
redevelopment.
' Several stormwater permits adopted by different Regional Boards have been legally challenged. All have
been upheld by the State Water Resources Control Board and the courts. The Water Boards have broad
authority to regulate stormwater and land use activities that result in discharges to waters of the State. N
Urbanization it one the most important land use activities affecting water quality,beneficial uses,and the I
physical and biological integrity of watersheds in the Central Coast Region.
z Effective Impervious Area is that portion of the impervious area that drains directly to a receiving surface
waterbody viva hardened storm drain conveyance without first draining to a pervious area. In other words, w
Impervious surfaces tributary to pervious areas are not considered Effective Impervious Area.
'Pre-construction condition is defined as undeveloped soil type and vegetation.
A first order stream is defined as a stream with no tributaries.
California Environmental Protection Ageney I
- RwycwPaper 1 1
r
r
Attachment 1
Barbara Lynch -5. February 15,2008
• Numeric criteria for stream stability required 'to protect downstream beneficial uses and
prevent physical changes to downstream stream channels that would adversely affect the
physical structure, biologic condition, and water quality of streams.
• Specific applicability criteria, land disturbance acreage thresholds,and exemptions.
• Performance criteria for control BMPs and an inspection program to ensure proper long
term functioning over.
• Education requirements for appropriate municipal staff on hydromodification and Low
Impact Development.
You must include an effective. strategy to control hydromodification, or Water Board staff will
recommend to the Water Board requirements in the resolution approving your SWMP and enrolling
you in the Phase II permit
II. Protect riparian areas,wetlands, and their buffer zones:
Your SWMP must .include BMPs.and/or other control measures to .establish and maintain a
minimum 30-foot-buffer zone for riparian areas and wetlande. The buffer zone is a protective area
that is undisturbed to the maximum extent practicable. Your SWMP must include consideration
and prioritization of local conditions, such as habitat degradation, water quality, and land
management practices, and apply more substantial buffer zones where necessary to protect
riparian areas and wetlands.
You must include an effective strategy to adopt and implement protection of riparian areas,
wetlands, and their buffer zones, or Water Board staff will recommend to the Water Board
requirements in the resolution approving your SWMP and enrolling you in the Phase II permit
III. Minimize pollutant loading
Your SWMP must include BMPs and/or other control measures to minimize pollutant loading,
including volume- and/or flow-based treatment criteria. Your SWMP must include:consideration
and prioritization of local conditions, such as existing pollutant loading; water quality, 303(d) listed
impaired waters, pollutants of concern, habitat degradation, and land management-practices, and
apply more stringent control measures where necessary to minimize pollutant loading.
You must include an effective strategy to reduce pollutant loading, or Water Board staff will
recommend to the Water Board requirements in the resolution approving your SWMP and enrolling
you in the Phase II permit
IV. Provide long-term watershed protection
You must include in your SWMP a strategy to develop watershed based hydromodification
management plans. These plans should incorporate Low Impact Development strategies with the
goal of Post Construction Storm Water Management to achieve an Effective Impervious Area of no
more than three to ten percent (3 10%) of watershed area within your jurisdiction, depending on
local conditions.
The requirements listed above are often characterized as hydromodification controls, or Low
Impact Development These terms are related and their meanings overlap. These requirements
are necessary to ensure protection of water quality, benefidial uses, and the biological and physical
integrity of watersheds and aquatic habitat. You can reference information on hydromodification
controls and Low Impact.Development principles on the Central Coast Water Board's website:
e The Central Coast Water Quality Control Plan(Basin Plan)requires protection of riparian and wetland
habitat and their buffer zones(Basin Plan,Section V.G.4).
California Environmental Protection Agency II
Recycled Paper '/l
1 Attachment 1
Barbara Lynch -6- February 15,2008
hfp://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/stormwater/low%20imi)act%20devel/lid. index.htm.
Evaluation of Program Effectiveness and Progress toward Water Quality Goals
Because MEP is a dynamic performance standard which evolves over time as stormwater
management knowledge increases, MS4 managers must continually assess and modify their
programs to incorporate improvements in control measures and BMPs to achieve MEP. Therefore,
your SWMP should contain a detailed plan for evaluating its effectiveness and progress toward
complying with the General Permit. Your SWMP must also explain how you will communicate
evaluation results with stakeholders. Your evaluation plan should include quantifiable measures
for evaluating the effectiveness of the program and be based on the following objectives:
• Assess compliance with requirements of the General Permit, including:
Inspection Programs
. Construction Site Controls
. Elimination of unlawful discharges
.. New:development and redevelopment requirements
• Verify that BMPs are being implemented (e.g., all new applicable developments meet
hydromodification control requirements described above and as further described in your
SWMP);
• Assess the chemical, physical, and biological impacts on beneficial uses caused by
pollutants of concern in stormwater discharges;
• Characterize watersheds and stormwater discharges;
• Identify sources of pollutants; and
• Evaluate long-term trends in receiving water quality.
Conclusion
Please become familiar with the schedule for the enrollment cycle for your MS4.-and the steps in
the enrollment process. When Water Board staff contact you to initiate your enrollment cycle,
please provide us with contact information for the individual that will be representing your MS4.
Please begin updating.or preparing your SWMP to include the following as explained in this letter.
• Hydromodification controls for new and redevelopment;
Protection of riparian and wetland habitat and their buffer zones,
• Minimization of pollutant loading;
Provision of long-term watershed protection; and
Evaluation of program effectiveness.
Your SWMP must be specific and must include: well-defined BMPs and other actions that you will
implement, schedules, measurable goals, and measures to determine the effectiveness of your
program. If your SWMP is not comprehensive or lacks specificity, I will not approve it, and Water
Board staff will draft a resolution or an individual permit for consideration by the Water Board at a
hearing.
I am clarifying the Water Board's revised enrollment process and SWMP content and requirements
to speed up approval of SWMPs for MS4s in the Central Coast Region that will protect water
quality, beneficial uses, and the biological and physical integrity of .watersheds. I am also
committing staff time to regulate MS4s and provide technical and financial assistance to
municipalities for stormwater management programs.
California Environmental Protection Agency
Rwydled Paper I
Attachment 1
Barbara Lynch .7- February 15,2008
The Proposition 84 Storm Water Grant Program funds may be'use`d to provide matching grants to
local public agencies for the reduction and prevention of stormwater pollution of rivers, lakes, and
streams. A total of approximately $82 million will be available for matching grants. A scoping
meeting to answer questions and to solicit input will be held at ou' office in San Luis Obispo on
Monday. March 3, 2008, from 1:00—4:00 PM. For more information on the Proposition 84 Storrn
Water Grant Program and workshops, visit the .State Water Board's website at:
http://www.waterboards.ca.govifunding/prop84.html.
1 anticipate you will have questions about this letter.and.the.m pected content of your SWMP..
Please contact us. Our lead staff for this enrollment process is Dominic Roques,
droquesO-waterboards.ca.gov or at(805) 542-4780.
Sincerely,
Roger W. Briggs
Executive Officer
W:iStonn WaterWunicipallPhase It MS41MS4 Enrollment StrategieslMS4 Notification LtrlPhasellNotifications2-12-08.doc
I
I
I
I
i
I
California E_ nvironmental Protection Agency I 1
,� ed 1 `
Attachment 2
S L O COUNTY
I r-1 f�
r WATER QUALITY
You are the Solution to Storm Water Pollution!
April 29, 2008
Jeffery Young, Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board Chair and Regional Water
Quality Control Board Members
c/o Roger Briggs, Executive Officer
The SLO County Partners for Water Quality is a group of municipalities and other regulated
communities that meet to share ideas and work together on events and stormwater regulation
implementation. The Partners are dedicated to protecting water quality and educating their members
and the public.
It was with considerable concern that the Partners read the enrollment letter of February 15, 2008 sent
under the signature of Executive Officer Roger Briggs. The letter gave no indication that,it had been
provided to members of the Board and so a copy is enclosed for your reference.
While a variety of concerns have been expressed throughout the region, our primary concerns are
threefold. First, the letter presents a series of new requirements for agency Storrriwater Management
Plans (SWMPs) that were imposed without notice or public input. Second, the Minimum Control
Measures in the February letter represent:a significant,departure from the requirements of the current
State permit under which the submitted.SWMPs.were prepared. Finally, the conditions are being
imposed only on a regional basis, which wilt lead.to inconsistency across the State.
Concern 1
In the history of stormwater regulation, the State Water Quality Control Board has honored the
tradition of an open and inclusionary process. The Statewide Construction and Municipal Stormwater
General permits have always included stakeholder meetings and draft language reviews. There is a
cooperative effort currently underway between State Municipal Stormwater General permit writers and
agency stakeholders to develop draft language for the new Municipal General Permit. The Phase II
enrollees are required by the Board to have stakeholder meetings and comply with the State and local
public notice requirements. To our knowledge, the requirements outlined in the February letter had no
such public process.
Cities and counties across California are under considerable pressure at this time to provide workforce
and low income housing. This is typically accomplished through dense development. The conditions
required by Minimum Control Measure I may present challenges to achieving this goal. There are also
several conditions under which infiltration is not acceptable, such as areas of high groundwater or
unstable soil conditions, and the requirements may conflict with portions of the building codes. The
public process allows these types of issues to be surfaced before regulations are finalized. These
potential problems are only now being fleshed out in the larger Phase 1 communities. The Fact Sheet
for the State General Permit indicates that the requirements for Phase 2 communities will not
necessarily conform to programs implemented for Phase 1 communities.
II�)-
I
- Attachment 2
Recommendation 1: Delay implementation of more detailed controls for Phase 2 communities to
allow problems to be identified and MEP standards to be developed by the larger Phase 1 agencies.
The SLO Partners are already working on county wide standards for LID in anticipation of future
requirements and believe that effort provides the interim measures needed to ensure successful and
consistent implementation of LID in the watershed sooner rather than later.
Concern 2
The frustration expressed by both agencies and the Regional Board itself during the October 19, 2007
Regional Board meeting in Santa Barbara regarding the slow process of enrollment will only be
exacerbated by these new requirements outlined in the enrollment letter. Every agency has had a plan
into the Regional Board for 5 years. Some agencies have rewritten their plans as many as four times
following direction of Regional Board staff. At least one agency staff person said their funding has
been shifted to other priorities by their City Council because the lack of actual enrollment was viewed
as an indication that this was one of those government mandates that never actually gets implemented.
As the Regional Board is no doubt aware, the Phase 2 communities are generally small, with SWMP
preparation being assigned to existing staff. Implementation is challenging because of other workload
assignments already assigned to those positions. Board staff has emphasized that we should be
implementing our SWMPs even though we are not permitted. If our limited resources are to be
continually tapped to rewrite SWMPs, implementation will suffer. Each agency will have to prepare a
revision to incorporate the conditions outlined in the enrollment letter, AND when the new State
permit is released, prepare a SWMP amendment to address the conditions of that permit. This is
reminiscent of the past 5 years, where Regional Board staff has continued to push each new plan to the
level of the last plan approved, putting plans in a constant revision mode and agencies in a constant
rewrite mode. Our time would be more effectively spent getting out into the community with the
message of clean water.
Recommendation 2: Direct the Executive Officer to approve SWMPs under the current requirements
of the General Permit. Any appeals to the State Board of those approvals will likely be resolved with
the submittal of the plan amendments required as a result of the approval of the new State Municipal
Stormwater General Permit. Those amendments will bring all plans up to new standards, including
low impact development requirements. Agencies will continue their stakeholder meetings and work
with the Board staff to develop appropriate BMPs to address concerns specific to their community.
Concern 3
The last concern is consistency throughout the State. The purpose in having a Statewide permit is to
have consistency and we agree with the importance of that approach. The General Permit is being
written and is expected to be finalized in 2009. The State Board has received input from the regional
boards about what requirements are needed in the next permit. Those requests will be shaped through
the stakeholder and public review process into a well defined set of requirements. The greatest benefit
of this consistency is the ability for agencies to share information, standards and lessons learned,
expediting implementation. If the regions are not consistent, different standards are set and
implementation becomes more difficult.
Recommendation 3: Direct the Executive Officer to approve SWMPs under the current requirements
of the General Permit, with amendments to follow when the State Municipal General permit is
adopted.
C-)
Attachment 2
We appreciate the Board's in consideration of our concerns and recommendations for moving forward.
As we have discussed with the Board in the past, we need to keep our goal of water quality at the
forefront. We clearly understand the pressure the Board staff finds itself in, sandwiched as it were
between the environmental and the regulated communities. The continued pressure by the
environmental community toward perfect plans will only continue to lead us down the road of inaction.
It appears with the new State permit on the horizon, and amendments required after its adoption, that
much can be gained by approving SWMPs under the current permit and implementing new initiatives
as part of the amendment process. Local government staff need your support through approval of their
submitted SWMPs to make progress toward the goal of clean water.
If the Board believes that the goal of water quality is better served by the implementation of the
requirements set out in the enrollment letter than by the recommendations set forth is this letter, we
respectfully request that a public hearing be set and advertised for these new requirements prior to
implementation with any of the agencies currently affected by the enrollment letter.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
San Luis Obispo County Partners for Water Quality
Cc:
State Water Resource Control Board
CASQA
Attachment 3
• • • California Stormwater QualityAssociation:`
Dedicated to the Adrrnrcement of Stormawer Qnnlity alanavcinent,Science and Regulation
June 27,2008
Mr. Roger Briggs
Executive Officer
Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
895 Aerovista Place, Suite 101
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-7906
Subject: 2/15/08 Letter regarding Notification to Traditional Small MS4s on Process for
Enrolling under the State's General NPDES Permit for Storm Water Discharges
Dear Mr. Briggs:
The California Stormwater Quality Association(CASQA)would like to take this opportunity to
submit this comment letter regarding the subject notification and, in particular, Central Coast
Regional Water Board staff's"expectations" for Phase II Stormwater Management Program
(SWMP)content to receive approval for complying with the State's April 2003 Phase II General
Permit.
CASQA is composed of stormwater quality management organizations and individuals, including
cities,counties, special districts, industries, and consulting firms ihroughout California. Our
membership provides stormwater quality management services to over 26 million people in
California and includes most every Phase I and many Phase II municipal programs in the State.
CASQA was formed in 1989 to recommend approaches for stormwater quality management to the
State Water Resources Control Board(State Water Board).
CASQA typically refrains from commenting on issues associated with a specific Regional Water
Board. However-,the implications of your notification letter are significant and we believe
inconsistent with the current standard of practice of stormwater quality management.
Beginning on page 4 of the subject 2/15/08 notification letter, Central Coast staff outlines its
expectations for the smaller MS4s within the Central Coast region for meeting the following
"conditions":
• Maximize infiltration of clean stormwater and minimize runoff volume and.rate,
• Protect riparian areas,wetlands, and their buffer zones,
• Minimize pollutant loadings,and
• Provide long term watershed protection.
Our concerns primarily regard staff's expectations for meeting the fust"condition." These are
nearly identical to proposed requirements from the draft' Phase I Ventura permit written by Los
' Draft Tentative Order Ventura County MS4 permit,4/29/08,Los Angeles Regional Water Board staff
PO.Box 2105 \denlo Park CA 94026-2105 650.360.1042 %vwxv.casga.urg info@casgaorn I I�t
Attachment 3
CASQA comments to Central Coast RWQCB re: 2/15/08 Phase II Enrollment Letter 2 of 6
Angeles Regional Water Board staff. Many of these draft proposed Phase I requirements have
not been finalized and adopted by any Water Board. In fact,many of the draft proposed Phase I
requirements are the subject of much scientific and technical study and discussion, and
accordingly, are being debated and contested by a large number of municipalities and industry
representatives. The final outcome of these discussions will likely not be known before
December 2008.
We want to recognize and express our support for the Central Coast Regional Water Board's
decision to support the implementation of Low Impact Development(LID)through the
establishment of an endowment and provision of LID and hydromodification design and
implementation services as needed. However,based on the knowledge gained by the Phase I
MS4s with the most experience with LID and hydromodification, focusing on implementation
before establishing technically sound and integrated criteria and approaches is akin to putting the
cart before the horse. As a result, CASQA firmly believes that Central Coast staff has created
requirements that the Phase 11 MS4s will be at a considerable disadvantage,compared to Phase I
MS4s, to meet(and may never be able to meet due to technical and economic reasons). We
make this statement based on the following insights:
• Hydromodification criteria—Phase I programs have been expending significant effort on
the technical challenge of developing appropriate hydromodification criteria for a number .
of years. Since 2001 the San Francisco Bay Area Phase I permittees have been working to
address this issue,yet there is still no accepted common approach (witness the different
approaches between the Santa Clara and Contra Costa Counties). Given the need to
establish an accepted approach that is fully integrated into water quality management
programs,the Southern California Stormwater Monitoring Coalition and the Southern
California Coastal Water Research Project have initiated grant-funded efforts to evaluate
stream impacts and to develop a series of hydromodification management tools. These
tools will support implementation of'appropriaie hydromodification management actions to
better protect the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of streams and their
associated beneficial useS2. This study is currently in year two of a three-year schedule.
These tools will ultimately assist both Phase I and 1I municipalities in developing
appropriate hydromodification management approaches. Consequently requiring Phase II
communities in the Central Coast region to independently develop their own
criteria/approach to this technically complex subject is unreasonable.
• Effective impervious area—The possible creation of"Effective Impervious Area(EIA)"
threshold requirements as a"driver' for LID approaches is currently the subject of intense
controversy within the stormwater quality management/science community as well as
among planners and practicing landscape architects. Specifically, there is disagreement as
to: whether this EIA criterion should be used(and, if used,whether it should be translated
from its originally conceived watershed scale and applied on a site-by-site or regional
basis) along with the implications upon urban redevelopment—whether it is compatible
with smart growth concepts, and possibly increase urban sprawl. For example,
underground storage vaults for urban runoff may not be technically feasible on many
project sites. Locations with shallow groundwater orunderground contamination (i.e.,
Z SCCWRP Research Project A6—Assessment and Management of Hydromodification Effects.
I- a-�
i
Attachment 3
CASQA comments to Central Coast RWQCB re: 2/15/08 Phase II Enrollment Letter 3 of 6
brownfields)may not be able to install tanks to hold stormwater. There are other methods
that permittees can use to meet maximum extent practicable(MEP)requirements that
should not be eliminated with an EIA criterion. These requirements need thorough
evaluation to ensure that societal goals, such as redevelopment of brownfields and infill
development are not interfered with, but rather encouraged,by the permit.
Additionally, it is not clear that there is a reasoned technical basis to require such a
relatively restrictive site design rule. The concept of total impervious area on a watershed
scale has been shown to have a deterministic relationship with channel enlargement in the
receiving stream. The studies that have demonstrated this relationship have been in
watersheds without contemporary hydromodification mitigation controls. A recent study
on this issue(Coleman et. al.,2005)3 notes that effective impervious area is one of the
recommended management strategies to be considered, depending on the current conditions
of the receiving stream and the future anticipated conditions. The report notes that in-
stream strategies are more appropriate for application where the stream course alignment
has been altered or there are other drainage improvements in the watershed.
This debate has been taking place on several tracks (e.g.,technical,policy)at the local,
statewide, and national scales. The recent deliberations of the California Ocean Protection
Council (OPC) are particularly noteworthy because the OPC has taken the recent lead on
examining from a broader perspective the status of the development and use of LID as a
BMP strategy in California. OPC commissioned a report4, held two OPC meetings and two
public staff workshops, and adopted a resolution last month promoting the use of LID
principles, including planned and recommended actions. Appendix A: Options for Enhancing
LID in California Policies in the report on LID policies provides a list of about 50
recommended"Opportunities and Action Items" (Legislative, Aspirational,and Funding)
through which LID can be promoted'or enhanced. That report makes several observations,
lists issues,and provides recommendations that relate to the development and use of LID as a
BMP strategy in California, 'including-
Observations
ncluding:Observations
In California, there has been an upsurge in district planning. New models of district
planning have been launched and fine-tuned in California, including form-based codes,
new urbanism,transit-oriented development, and a new Leadership in Energy and
Environmental Design (LEED)pilot for neighborhood development(LEED-ND).
Issues
Hl.LID requirements are often written to apply to individual projects, which results
in uneven application.
3 Coleman,D.,MacRae,C.,and Stein,E.,"Effect of Increases in Peak Flows and Imperviousness on the
Morphology of Southern California Streams",Technical Report 450,Southern California Coastal Water Research
Project,April 2005
4 State and Local Policies Encouraging or Requiring Low Impact Development in California—Final Report,
Prepared by Tetra Tech,Inc.for Ocean Protection Council,January 2008
Attachment 3
CASQA comments to Central Coast RWQCB re: 2/15/08 Phase II Enrollment Letter 4 of 6
H3.LID often designates hydrology as the indicator of environmental impacts. By
their regulatory nature,stormwater rules have the farthest reach into zoning codes.
These rules tend to emphasize stormwater peak flow attenuation and volume capture,
causing hydrologic performance to outweigh other important environmental issues that
are considered in non-regulatory planning documents, such as infill and redevelopment
priorities and regional growth patterns that can affect watershed health.
H4.Suburban-style LID requirements can run counter to the planning,
transportation and climate emphasis on compact design. Meeting strict stormwater
performance standards in urban areas can be much more difficult than in open areas
with room for swales, infiltration and detention. While LID techniques can decrease
costs for greenfields applications,they can pose higher costs for urban developers,
since underground vaults are often needed to augment urban green building, streetscape
and landscape BMPs to meet performance standards.
Actions
H12. Sponsor an analysis of pilot neighborhoods in the LEED-ND program to see if
they meet stringent stormwater requirements (for volume,treatment and flow control).
H14. Sponsor a pilot study to align major water planning documents(e.g., Basin Plan,
Integrated Regional Watershed Management Plan) with regional and local requirements
(e.g., stormwater permit requirements and local zoning codes) with respect to LID goals
and requirements.
H17.Fund a project to better describe LID techniques based on development settings in
California similar to the effort underway within the Congress for New Urbanism5 based
on the "transect:"The transect establishes seven transect zones based on intensity of
development and urban form. This approach was used to develop new street standards
and could serve as a model for stormwater management as well. '
Based on the commissioned report and input received at the OPC meetings and workshops,
the Ocean Protection Council adopted a resolution on May 15, 2008 that CASQA
supported(including amendments provided by NRDC)that included the following actions
related to stormwater and LID (and by extension EIA) underline added]:
2.State Regulatory Actions
a. State Water Board LID Policy—The State Water Board is encouraged to adopt a
statewide policy for addressing all elements associated with changes in runoff due to
hydromodification impacts, including those specifically related to urbanization. This
policy would include direction on when and how to use LID to avoid,minimize and
mitigate runoff so that downstream water bodies are protected.
5 At the national scale,NRDC,Congress for the New Urbanism,USEPA,and the U.S.Green Building Council have
been developing the LEED-ND standard,which is a comprehensive attempt to integrate land use,financial,
transportation,environmental,and urban design components into a single system for evaluating neighborhood design.
1-:0
Attachmerit 3
CASQA comments to Central Coast RWQCB re: 2/15/08 Phase II Enrollment Letter 5 of 6
3. Incentives,Technical Support, and Research
c. Research and Development of LID-Promote and consider funding technical
research for development of a LID design manual,including example designs and
specifications for LID features, and post-construction evaluations of the effectiveness
of constructed LID features in removing pollutants and controlling runoff flows.
• Consistency—We are not suggesting that the small MS4s not move forward with
implementing LID strategies and provide protection of stream bed integrity. We do
recommend that the Central Coast staff also review the approach being proposed by State
Water Board staff in the Draft Construction General Permit. In making this
recommendation,CASQA is not taking a position on this other approach;rather we are
recognizing the approach being proposed by the Central Coast Water Board staff is
inconsistent with(and will add considerable confusion)to the State Water Board proposed
approach. At a minimum,the difference in approaches once again raises the question as to
why the Water Boards are proposing such inconsistent approaches to basically the same
ends and whether the inconsistency is necessary and appropriate.
• Patchwork—The somewhat patchwork approach being proposed by Central Coast staff for
water quality management(i.e.,the discharger is implementing treatment control BMPs,
LID strategies, and hydromodification controls)will add confusion to an already confusing
situation. We believe developing a statewide policy statement is the appropriate vehicle for
considering and integrating these concepts. This will provide better public opportunities to
consider potential conflicts and craft a fully integrated approach to water quality
management.
All of the above demonstrates that Central Coast staff's expectations regarding
hydromodification and LID criteria are not SWMP-ready. Given the current state of knowledge
and experience, CASQA has recommended to Water Boards that they work with permittees,
CASQA,researchers, and stakeholders to:
• Identify an initial list of LID strategies that must be considered for all development.
• Develop a performance standard for LID strategies that considers the lessons learned in
translating the concept of LID into projects (e.g., San Francisco Bay Area Phase I research
and experience)and recommendations from other drivers such as urban design (e.g.,
LEED-ND standard).
• Produce findings that can form the basis of permit provisions, guidance, SWMPs,
implementation plans, etc.
In summary, CASQA believes Central Coast staff should reconsider their expectations for new
development within the Phase II Stormwater Management Plans. Phase I communities are
expending significant effort and resources,yet still struggling to meet the technical challenge of
developing appropriate hydromodification and LID criteria that are both practical and that will
lead to achieving our water quality goals. Placing such an effort on the Phase 11 communities is
1-a-
Attachment 3
CASQA comments to Central Coast RWQCB re: 2/15/08 Phase 11 Enrollment Letter 6 of 6
inherently impractical as they lack the technical and financial resources to deal with this complex
issue.
Thank you f6r the opportunity to provide comments. If you have any questions please contact
Geoff Brosseau, CASQA Executive Director.
Very truly yours,
ci�
Chris Crompton, Chair
Califomia.Stormwater Quality Association
cc: Tam Doduc, Chair, State Water Board
Gary Wolff, Vice-Chair, State Water Board/Liaison, Central Coast Regional Water Board
Dorothy Rice, Executive Director, State Water Board
Jonathan Bishop, Chief Deputy Director, State Water Board
Bruce Fujimoto, Section Chief-Stormwater, State Water Board
Christine Sotelo, Staff-Phase II Stormwater, State Water Board
Greg Gearheart, Unit Chief-Industrial/Construction Stormwater, State Water Board
Alexis Strauss, Director,USEPA Region IX
CASQA Executive Program Committee
CASQA Board of Directors
\� Attachment 4
Hone Builders Association
OF THE CENTRAL COAST
creating quality housing and communities
Sept. 17,2008
Ken Hampian
City Manager
990 Palm St.
San Luis Obispo,CA.93401
Dear Ken:
The Home Builders Association would like you to provide this letter to your staff working on your MS4 Permit and
Storm Water Management Plan.
About 45 Central Coast city and county staff,Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board staff and Home
Builders Association members had a good discussion on storm water management plans Aug. I.We exchanged
ideas on working together to create plans that will meet local government smart growth,affordable housing,
economic development,and storm water management goals in an integrated manner that is both financially-and
geotechnically feasible.
The association raised eight issues and suggested solutions. Regional Water Board Executive Officer Roger Briggs
and Municipal Stormwater Facilitator Dominic Roques urged the association and local government to work together
to resolve the issues.The water staff said several times that its role would be to provide guidance and to allow the
individual jurisdictions flexibility with how to comply.
The association wants to work as partners with our Central Coast governments.We have technical data and practical
knowledge from our experiences building in this area and with storm water plan development in such other coastal
areas as San Diego and Ventura.We have learned from officials there that it is not possible to develop an effective
Hydromodification Management Plan(HMP)in less than two years and that Southern and Coastal California soils
present substantially different infiltration challenges than those confronted when low impact development(LID)
applications were used in places with significantly dissimilar climatic,soil,and geotechnical conditions such as
Portland,Oregon,and the East Coast.
In addition, we know that you:
1. Face immediate and long-term staffing and fiscal limitations in developing and applying new storm water
requirements during the transitional stage of moving to the new standards and in long-term monitoring of
the standards implementation;and
2. Have potential conflicts within normal government operations when you must develop plans to treat and
detain storm water onsite while your flood control requirements may differ.
Our goal is simple.We want to be part of the solution.We want to make sure that the upfront planning is thorough
and that the proposed regulations are realistic,practical,and achievable in order to avoid unintended consequences
later.
We would like to arrange meetings with you as soon as possible to begin more detailed discussions on this or to
work with you on developing and implementing your plan.
Here are some questions and concerns that we discussed with the water board and additional ideas and information
we have added based on that discussion.
811 EI Capitan Way, Suite 120 805.546.0418: phone
San Luis Obispo, California 805.546.0339:fax
93401-3333 www.hbacc.org: internet I`�b
An Affiliate of the National Association of Home Builders and the California Building Industry Association
Attachment 4
I. Grandfathering certain proieet classifications.A project application that has been accepted by a
jurisdiction("deemed complete")as ready for processing and a public hearing should not have to be re-
designed to meet the new standards.By that time,both the applicant and jurisdiction have expended
significant time and funds on the project.
It is our experience that LID must be designed into a project from the very start=when site design and
planning begins—in order to achieve the full effect of low impact development.
We propose that your storm water plan state that projects whose application has been"deemed complete"
prior to adoption of ati interim HMP will be exempt from the new standards,but would be encouraged to
comply with the regulations on a voluntary basis to the maximum extent practicable. Obviously,all projects
in later stages of entitlement,design,or construction would be exempt from the application of the new
regulations as well.
The water board staff has asked the cities and counties to quantify how many projects would likely be
subject to a grandfathering exemption.We can also survey our members for you to determine if they have
any additional projects likely to be proposed in your area.in the immediate future.
The water board staff also asked for more information on the meaning of the"deemed complete"concept.
We have provided our legal understanding of that immediately below.
Deemed complete defined:The regional board staff questioned if"deemed complete" has a common usage
among the cities and counties.We thought this might help explain the term and process for the regional
board staff.
The term comes from the Permit Streamlining Act.It requires public agencies(including charter cities like
Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo)to follow standardized time limits and procedures for specified types of
land use decisions:The act applies to development projects that need adjudicatory approvals such as
tentative maps,conditional use permits,and variances. It does not apply tosuch legislative acts as general
plan amendmentsand rezonings(or development agreements or specific plans)or to such ministerial acts.as
lot line adjustments,building permits,or certificates of compliance.
Public agencies must.establish one or more lists specifying the information an applicant must submit for a
development project to be.deemed complete.For instance,San Luis Obispo requires an application to
include a vicinity map, statement on.zoning,site development,description of any common areas and open
space,CC&Rs, setbacks,drainage, faulting,slope analysis, technical reports like biological,cultural,noise,
traffic,soils,engineering geology,and noise,archaeological recourse inventory,endangered species survey,
preliminary title report,school site,environmental assessment,and an affordable housing plan. Some of
these studies and reports will not be needed for each application,but it is obvious that getting a project to be
"deemed complete" takes extensive work.In addition,once the agency receives the application(with fees),
the agency has 30 days to either deem the application complete or notify the applicant what needs to be done
to be deemed complete. If the city does not respond within 30 days, the application is deemed complete.
Once the application is deemed complete, then the environmental review process begins. Once that
environmental document is approved,the city or county has 60 days if the environmental document is a
negative declaration or 180 days if the project required an EIR to approve or deny the project. Cities and
counties generally approve the environmental document at the same hearing as they approve/deny the project
2. Phasing-in period to complete the Interim Hydromodification Management Plan—Based on experience
in Southern California,we believe you should strongly lobby the water board to allow two years to complete
the Interim HMP(rather than one year).
This is a learning process for all involved.The water board documents acknowledge this fact and recognize a
five-year"ramping up"period. In accordance with that, we suggest that your plan allow a two year gearing
up period before implementing the regulations on applications or until you have an adopted an HMP.
811 EI Capitan Way, Suite 120 805.546.0418: phone
San Luis Obispo, California 805.546.0339:fax
93401-3333 www.hbacc.org: internet
An Affiliate of the National Association of Home Builders and the California Building Industry Association
Attachment 4
Projects that have not been"deemed complete"prior to adoption of the Interim HMP would comply with
your plan. Projects"deemed complete"would be allowed to voluntarily comply with the regulations.
3. Incorporating assessments from proiect geotechnical and soils consultants. As you know,all sites
throughout the Central Coast do not have the same soil conditions and many area soils are poorly suited to
infiltration.Specific site conditions may preclude applying the new standards due to low infiltration
capability of soils or have the potential to damage other infrastructure if infiltration is mandated.Applying
the standards in those conditions could create a public safety hazard.
The water board staff acknowledged that development sites can only be expected to absorb as much storm
water as is geologically possible and that local governments and project applicants should work out how to
address this issue.
We recommend that each city and county storm water management plan include a communitywide analysis
by a geotechnical engineer to determine_ which areas within the community's boundary are suitable for
infiltration and at what rate.
We also suggest that your storm water plan emphasize that you will rely on the applicant's geotechnical/soils
consultant's analysis as part of the decision-making in determining when and where infiltrationAow impact
development BMP's are practical,how much is achievable,and what other best management practices
should be used when infiltration is not usable.
4. Normal maintenance of existing infrastructure by publicagencies,proiect developers,and home
owners associations be exempted from the new standards. When maintaining existing infrastructure,
existing site conditions may preclude applying the new standards.For example,when resurfacing an existing
roadway that has no"extra"land available,it will not be possible to provide additional land for filtration
purposes.
We suggest that your storm water plan state that normal maintenance of existing infrastructure by public
agencies,project developers,and home owners associations will be exempt from the new standards.
5. The"are-development"definition is critical. How pre-development is defined is critical as the baseline
for determining the increase in storm water volumes and rates for new development on a site. Defining it as
pre-development(as in the"natural condition"),regardless of current usage, would make the current
developer responsible for fixing an "existing"problem and,even more importantly,be so cost prohibitive
given the soils in this area that many desirable urban infill projects will become financially infeasible.That
will result in discouraging the"smart growth"urban development principles city and county planners are
promoting in order to reduce sprawl.
We recommend that your storm water plan define pre-development as the immediate pre-project condition.
6. Impact on Insurance.We are concerned about the potential impact a storm water plan may have on the
home buyer's ability to get home owners insurance,the builder's ability to get an infrastructure bond,and
who carries the liability if a government requires some new, locally untested technique that puts a structure
at long-term risk.
We suggest that part of the process you use in preparing and implementing your storm water plan include a
meeting with home builders,mortgage lender institutions,and the bonding and insurance industries.We can
help provide contact information if you need it regarding whom to invite.
7. I_mpact on Department of Real Estate,Home Owner Associations,and Realtor Associations. We are
also concerned regarding the impact of the storm water plan on the real estate sales process and home owner
associations and believe you should make sure your legal counsel is certain that you will not be creating an
irresolvable legal conflict.
811 EI Capitan Way. Suite 120 805.546.0418: phone
San Luis Obispo, California 805.546.0339:fax
93401-3333 www.hbacc.org: internet
An Affiliate of the National Association of Home Builders and the California Building Industry Association
Attachment 4
8. Economic balance: Given the legal issues raised by the recent Orange County Court decision regarding the
Los Angeles Regional Water Basin Plan and the requirement for"balance,"we recommend that your storm
water plan include language that clearly states that the need to achieve"clean water"must be balanced with
other factors in your General Plan and community goals.Maximum Extent Practicable will be a key factor in
achieving an overall balance that a healthy community needs,along with housing affordability,General Plan
goals promoting new urbanism(smart growth),economic development,market-place economics,local
municipal economics,and local public acceptance.
9. Storm water manaeement plans and HMP's should include.stakeholder involvement: Each storm water
management plan should state that the city or county will involve stakeholders,including the HBA in the
development of the community's HMP and criteria and explain how that involvement will be achieved..
10. Countywide Technical Advisory Committee:We recommend that all the municipalities submitting storm
water management plans in the County forma.Technical Advisory Committee that includes stakeholder
involvement and focuses on making sure that storm water plans and implementation,including HMP's,are
usable by the development and engineering communities and in align, for example,with the statewide
requirements of AB32 and local,land use policies,such as smart growth. San Luis Obispo County could
establish a Technical Advisory Committee through its existing SLO County Partners for Water Quality.
We look forward to your response so we may begin more detailed dialogue with you. You may reach me either by
calling or e-mailing me at the contact information below.
Sincerely yours,
Jerry Bunin
Government Affairs Director
Home Builders Association
jbunin@hbacc.org
(805)546-0418
811 EI Capitan Way, Suite 120 805.546.0418:phone
San Luis Obispo, California 805.546.0339:fax
93401-3333 www.hbacc.org: internet 1,33
An Affiliate of the National Association of Home Builders and the California Building Industry Association