HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-07-14 City Council (7)TO:
FROM:
City of Palo Alto
HONO~LE CITY CO~C~L .................................................................................................................................................
CITY MANAGER
DEPARTMENT: PUBLIC WORKS.1"
DATE:JULY 14, 2003 CMR:255:03
SUBJECT:APPROVAL OF ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING STORM WATER
POLLUTION PREVENTION MEASURES FOR LAND
DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that Council approve the attached ordinance (Attachment A)
establishing storm water pollution prevention requirements for land development
projects.
BACKGROUND
The San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) issues
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits that stipulate water
quality requirements for discharges to waters of the State. In 1990, the Regional Board
issued a joint NPDES permit to the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution
Control Program (Program), consisting of 13 Santa Clara Valley cities, the County of
Santa Clara, and the Santa Clara Valley Water District, for discharge of storm water to
local creeks and the San Francisco Bay. The permit required the development and
implementation of an Urban Runoff Management Plan (Plan) containing control
measures to be implemented by municipalities, residents, and businesses to reduce storm
water pollution. The Plan identified best management practices (BMPs) for storm water
pollution control, public outreach and education programs, and local inspection and
enforcement activities designed to improve storm water quality.
The Regional Board’s regulation of storm water discharges has been based upon the
development and implementation of BMPs, as contrasted to the more traditional approach
of specifying numerical discharge standards. The Program entities have worked to
continuously improve their urban runoff management plans over the years to control
pollution "to the maximum extent practicable," based upon improvements in available
technology, improved identification and understanding of critical pollutants, and practical
experience with various BMPs. The Regional Board issues a new NPDES permit every
five years, each time redefining what is required to satisfy the standard of controlling
storm water pollution "to the maximum extent practicable." A second generation NPDES
permit was issued to the Program in 1995. The new permit required the co-permittees to
adopt a series of performance standards which specify the BMPs and the level of effort
CMR:255:03 Page 1 of 5
that will be implemented for each of the elements covered by the co-permittees’ urban
runoff management plans (e.g. industrial/commercial facility inspection program, street
maintenance, etc.). In 1997, the Program was renamed the Santa Clara Valley Urban
Runoff Pollution Prevention Program to better represent its adopted mission and
eliminate the public’s confusion over the term "nonpoint source pollution."
The Regional Board approved the Program’s third-generation NPDES permit
(Attachment B) during 2001. The revised permit requires further efforts by the Program
and the co-permittees to control storm water pollution. As reported in a June 2002
informational report to Council (CMR:268:02), the key new provision of the revised
permit involves the requirements imposed upon land development and redevelopment
projects.
DISCUSSION
The revised NPDES permit focuses primarily on the potential impacts of land
development and redevelopment on storm water quality and establishes new requirements
intended to mitigate those impacts. The Regional Board has deemed land development
activity as a significant potential pollutant source in the region, threatening the water
quality in local creeks and San Francisco Bay. The permit requires the co-permittees to
modify any land development project approval processes so that developers would have
to incorporate treatment measures and other appropriate source control and site design
measures into projects to reduce pollutant discharges to the maximum extent practicable.
Adoption and enforcement of the attached storm water ordinance (Attachment A) will
fulfill the City’s obligation to regulate land development activity in accordance with the
revised permit.
The proposed ordinance establishes a broad framework that gives staff the ability to
regulate land development and redevelopment projects that equal or exceed a minimum
threshold size specified in the revised NPDES permit. Initially the requirements would
apply to projects that create or replace one acre or more of impervious surface (i.e.
buildings, parking lots, driveways, patios, or other "hardscape" that generates storm
runoff). The current permit language lowers the threshold to 5,000 square feet beginning
in October 2004, but Regional Board staff has indicated a willingness to relax the
secondary threshold to 10,000 square feet, to exclude individual lot single-family
residential development from the requirements; and to extend the secondary
implementation date to April 2005, in order to be consistent with NPDES permits
recently issued to other Bay Area storm water programs. Projects that exceed the
threshold size must reduce storm water pollution through a combination of treatment,
source control, and site design measures. Examples of these storm water control
measures are described below.
Treatment Measures are features that treat storm water runoff, using settlement,
infiltration, bioremediation, or filtration to remove pollutants that have accumulated as
the runoff flows across a developed site. Examples include:
CMR:255:03 Page 2 of 5
Vegetated swales
Detention basins
Catch basin filter inserts
Source Control Measures are features that prevent pollutants that may be present on a
developed site from entering storm water runoff. Examples include:
Covered loading docks, dumpster areas, and fueling areas
Indoor mat/equipment wash racks for food service facilities
Prohibition of storm drain connections for swimming pool, air conditioner, and fire
sprinkler system drains
Site Design Measures are features that reduce storm water pollution by decreasing or
slowing storm water runoff or interrupting the flow of runoff across a series of
contiguous impervious surfaces. Examples include:
Clustering of structures in order to minimize land disturbance
Roof downspouts that drain to landscaped areas
Pervious pavement materials
Minimization of directly connected impervious areas
City staff has been proactive over the past five or more years in requiring developers to
incorporate these types of control measures into projects in order to protect water quality.
As a result, many of these features already exist at sites throughout Palo Alto (and
particularly in the Stanford Research Park). The most significant changes imposed on
developers by the new ordinance are the requirements to size the control measures to
handle a specified percentage of the storm runoff and to maintain the control measures
for the life of a project. Many of the technical requirements are cited by reference rather
than included directly in the ordinance. At the Program level, there has been an effort to
provide regional guidance documents in order to promote consistency between agencies
to the greatest extent possible. These reference documents will contain the technical
information needed by project developers and designers to comply with the storm water
regulations. The availability of consistent information throughout the county will make it
easier for land development permit applicants to comply with the new requirements.
The control measures required by the proposed ordinance will also have direct benefits
on the performance of the City’s existing storm drain system. By their nature, many
storm water quality control measures also reduce storm water runoff volume and peak
flow rates by promoting storm water infiltration into the ground and interrupting the
continuous flow of runoff over impervious areas. While these measures will not
eliminate the need for storm drain capacity upgrades, they will reduce the magnitude of
existing drainage system deficiencies as areas are redeveloped.
CMR:255:03 Page 3 of 5
Staff has performed outreach to those impacted by these new storm water regulations at
both the local and regional level. Regionally, the Urban Runoff Program has prepared
guidance documents and conducted regional training workshops for agency staff as well
as members of the development community. At the local level, staff prepared an
informational fact sheet on the new regulations (Attachment C) that has been available at
the Development Center and on the web since March 2003. Staff also sent out a direct
mailing to impacted property owners and local developers and designers. Staff has given
presentations to the Planning and Transportation Commission, Architectural Review
Board, and the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce’s Environmental Health and Safety
Forum about the new storm water ordinance.
The new storm water requirements may increase design and construction costs by up to
two percent for developers whose projects must comply with the ordinance. Adoption of
the ordinance is not, however, expected to have a significant impact on land development
activity in Palo Alto, since there will likely be relatively few developments that will
create one acre or more of impervious surface and thus be subject to the ordinance.
RESOURCE IMPACT
Enforcement of the proposed ordinance will require additional effort by Public Works
and Planning staff both during permit review and periodic follow-up inspections to verify
proper maintenance of storm water control measures. Because of the relatively small
number of development projects expected to exceed the initial one-acre threshold during
the first 18 months of implementation, the need for additional staff is not anticipated at
this time. Additional costs incurred by the City for plan review and site inspections will
be recovered through increased permit fees. Staff will reassess workload impacts when
the threshold compliance trigger is lowered to 10,000 square feet in April 2005.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The storm water pollution prevention measures contained in the proposed ordinance are
consistent with a number of policies and programs contained in the Comprehensive Plan:
Program N-29: Actively participate in programs such as the Santa Clara Valley Urban
Runoff Pollution Prevention Program to improve the quality of stormwater runoff.
Policy N-21 : Reduce non-point source pollution in urban runoff from residential,
commercial, industrial, municipal, and transportation land uses.
Program N-27: Work with regulatory agencies, environmental groups, affected
businesses, and other stakeholders to identify economically viable Best Management
Practices (BMP) for reducing pollution.
CMR:255:03 Page 4 of 5
Policy N-22: Limit the amount of impervious surface in new development or public
improvement projects to reduce urban runoff into storm drains, creeks, and San Francisco
Bay.
Program N-75: Establish a standardized process for evaluating the impacts of
development on the storm drainage system.
TIMELINE
The attached ordinance will take effect on the 31 st day following the second reading of
the ordinance. The provisions of the ordinance will be applicable to permit applications
deemed complete by the City on or after October 15, 2003 for projects that equal or
exceed the threshold size criteria. This implementation schedule is consistent with the
revised NPDES permit, ~vhich requires the co-permittees to begin enforcing the new
development-related storm water pollution prevention requirements by October 15, 2003.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Adoption of the attached ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) as a measure taken to implement an action to assure
the maintenance, restoration, enhancement, or protection of the environment.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: Ordinance Establishing Storm Water Pollution Prevention Measures for
Land Development Projects
Attachment B: October 17, 2001 Revisions to NPDES Storm Water Discharge Permit
Attachment C: Fact Sheet on New Storm Water Regulations
PREPARED BY:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
JOE TERESI
Senior Engineer
GLENN S.
Director of Public Works
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
HARRISON
Assistant City Manager
cc: Sandra Lonnquist, Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce
CMR:255:03 Page 5 of 5
ATTACHMENT A
ORDINANCE NO.
ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO
ALTO AMENDING TITLE 16 [BUILDING REGULATIONS] OF
THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER
16.11 RELATING TO STORMWATER POLLUTION
PREVENTION MEASURES
The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as
follows:
SECTION i. Leqislative Findings¯
declares as follows:
The Council finds and
A.In order to protect water quality, the California
Regional Water Quality Contro! Board has modified the Nationa!
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit issued to
the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program
regulating the discharge of stormwater runoff to local creeks by
Santa Clara Valley municipalities. The new permit provisions
mandate that the municipalities develop ahd enforce regulations
that require owners/developers of applicable projects to instal!
and maintain permanent stormwater quality protection measures in
accordance with specific design criteria.
B.Effective October 15, 2003, the regulations will
apply to projects that create or replace one acre or more of
impervious surface. Permit applications for private projects
deemed complete prior to October 15, 2003 and public projects
for which funding has been committed and for which construction
is scheduled to begin by October 15, 2003 will not be subject to
the new regulations.
C.The City of Palo Alto (as well as all other
cities in the Santa Clara Valley) will be adopting new
stormwater regulations that apply to land deve!opment projects
that create or replace one acre or more of impervious surface.
D.The City of Palo Alto, in order to meet the
provisions contained in Division 7 of the California Water Code
and regulations adopted thereunder and the provisions of the
Clean Water Act as amended and regulations and guidelines
adopted thereunder, shal! comply with the California Regiona!
Water Quality Contro! Board’s Provision C.3. New and
p =Redevelopment _er~ormance Standards of Order No. 01-119.
SECTION 2. Chapter 16.11 [Stormwater Pollution
Prevention] is hereby added to Title 16 (Building Regulations)
of the Pa!o Alto Municipal Code to read as fol!ows:
030709 sm 0053230 1
16.11.010 Purposes and Intent. This chapter is necessary to
protect the health and safety of the residents of Palo Alto and
the surrounding region from water quality degradation caused by
stormwater run off. This chapter has been enacted and shal! be
implemented in a manner consistent with the requirements of the
California Regiona! Water Quality Control Board applicable to
the City of Palo Alto. This chapter shall be supplemental to
the requirements of chapter 16.09 [Sewer Use] with respect to
stormwater.
16.11.020 Definitions. The following words and phrases,
whenever used in this chapter, shal! be as set forth be!ow:
(a)Development Project shall mean any private or public
project which falls under the planning and building
authority of the city that results in the creation of
one acre (43,560 square feet) or more of impervious
surface, collectively over the entire project site,
including but not limited to parking lots, roof area,
streets, and sidewalks. Development project shal!
include the issuance of a permit for building,
construction,reconstruction, subdivisions, parce!
maps or occupancy, but not a permit to operate.
(b)Impervious Surface shall mean land that has been
modified by the action of persons to reduce the land’s
natural ability to absorb and hold rainfall. This
includes any hard surface area which either prevents
or retards the entry of water into the so! mantle as
it entered under natural conditions pre-existent to
development, and/or a hard surface area which causes
water to run off the surface in greater quantities or
at an increased rate of flow from the flow present
under natural conditions pre-existent to deve!opment.
Impervious surfaces include, but are not limited to,
rooftops, pavement, sidewalks, walkways, patios,
driveways, and parking !ots where such surfaces are
not constructed with pervious materials and/or are not
designed to have zero stormwater discharge.
(c)Permanent Stormwater Pollution Prevention Measures
(PSPPM) shal! mean any combination of source contro!
measures, site design measures, and/or stormwater
treatment measures that reduce stormwater pollution to
the maximum extent practicable as required by Order
No. 01-119 in NPDES Permit No. CAS029718 issued by the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San
Francisco Bay Region, as it may be amended from time
to time. The design and implementation of the PSPPM
030709 sm 0053230 2
must be in accordance with the guidelines and
technical specifications provided by the City or other
City-approved authority and the requirements of Order
No. 01-119.
(d)Significant Redevelopment Project shall mean any
private or public project which falls under the
planning and building jurisdiction of the city on a
previously deve!oped site that results in addition or
replacement of one acre (43,560 square feet) or more
of impervious surface, collectively over the entire
project site, including but not limited to roof area,
parking !ots, streets and sidewalks, but not including
interior remodels nor routine maintenance or repair,
such as roof or exterior surface replacement and
repaving.
(e)Site Design Measures shall mean any project design
features that reduce stormwater pollution by
decreasing or slowing stormwa~e_ <unof{or
intercepting the f!ow of runoff across a series of
contiguous Impervious Surfaces.
(f)Source Control Measures shall mean any project design
features that aim to prevent stormwater pollution by
eliminating or reducing the potential for
contamination at the source of pollution.
(g)Stormwater Treatment Measures shall mean any
engineered system designed to remove pollutantsfrom
stormwater by simple gravity settling of particulate
pollutants, filtration, biologica! uptake, media
adsorption or any other physical, bio!ogica!, or
chemica! process.
16.11.030
Required.
Permanent Sto~mwatem Pollution Pmevention Measumes
(a)All Development Projects shall include Permanent
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Measures in order to
reduce water quality impacts of stormwater runoff from
the entire site for the life of the project.
(b)All Significant Redevelopment Projects shall include
Permanent Stormwater Pollution Prevention Measures in
order to reduce water quality impacts of stormwater
runoff for the life of the project.
(i)Significant Redevelopment Projects that result in
an increase of, or replacement of, more than
030709 sm 0053230 3
(c)
fifty (50) percent of the impervious surface of a
previously existing development shall include
Permanent Stormwater Pollution Prevention Measures
sufficient to reduce water quality impacts of
stormwater runoff from the entire site for the
life of the project.
(2)Significant Redevelopment Projects that result in
an increase of, or replacement of, fifty (50)
percent or less of the impervious surface of a
previously existing deve!opment shall include
Permanent Stormwater Pollution Prevention Measures
sufficient to reduce water quality impacts of
stormwater runoff from the increased or replaced
portion of the site for the life of the project.
Stormwater Treatment Measures proposed as part of a
project’s Permanent Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Measures shal! be designed in accordance with the
following hydraulic sizing criteria to treat
stormwater runoff.
!)Volume Hvdraulic Design Bas~s S~o_mwa~e_
Treatment Measures whose primary mode of action
depends on volume capacity, such as
detention/retention units or infiltration
s<ru~ures, shall be designed to treat stormwater
runoff equa! to:
i. The maximized storm water quality capture
volume for the area, based on historical
rainfal! records, determined using the
formula and volume capture coefficients set
forth in Urban Runoff Quality Management,
WEF Manual of Practice No. 23/ASCE manual of
Practice No. 87 (1998), pages 175 -178
(e.g. approximately the 85:h percentile 24-
hour storm runoff event); or
ii.The volume of
achieve 80
determined
methodology
Stormwater
Handbook
Redevelopment
data.
annua! runoff required to
percent or more. capture,
in accordance with the
set forth in the California
Best Management Practices
for New De ve l opmen t and
(2003), using loca! rainfall
030709 sm 0053230
2)Flow Hydraulic Design Basis. Stormwater
Treatment Measures whose primary mode of action
4
(d)
(e)
16.11.040
(a)
depends on flow capacity, such as swales, sand
filters, or wetlands, shall be sized to treat:
i. I0 percent of the 50-year peak flow rate; or
ii. The flow of runoff produced by a rain event
equal to at least two times the 85th
percentile hourly rainfal! intensity for the
applicable area, based on historica! records
of hourly rainfall depths; or
iii. The flow of runoff resulting from a rain
event equal to at least 0.2 inches per hour
intensity.
All plans and construction are subject to inspection
and approva! by the City Engineer.
No final building or occupancy permit shall be issued
without the written certification of the City Engineer
that the requirements of this chapter have been
satisfied. Such certification shall be in the form
prescribed by the City Engineer and shal! not be
issued without payment of all applicable fees which
may be imposed for administration of this chapter.
Inspection and Maintenance.
The property owner(s), its administrators, successors,
or any other persons, including any homeowners
association, shall take al! necessary actions to ensure
that the Permanent Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Measures are properly maintained so that they continue
to operate as originally designed and approved. The
maintenance of the contro! measures shal! be in
accordance with the terms and conditions of a
maintenance agreement and shal! be in the form of a
covenant running with the land, environmenta!
mitigation measures, a use permit, enforceable
conditions of approval, or other lega! agreement. The
agreement shall provide access to the extent allowable
by law for representatives or agents of city for the
purposes of verification of proper operation and
maintenance of the specific PSPPM.The agreement
shal! be recorded in the office of the County
Recorder, shall remain in force unti! ownership of the
deve!oped property has been transferred, and upon
transfer, shal! be binding on the new owner(s).
030709 sm 0053230 5
(b)Any property owner that has been required by this
chapter to construct or instal! and maintain Permanent
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Measures shall upon
transferring ownership of such property provide the
new owners with a current copy of this chapter, and
shal! inform the new owners in writing of their
obligation to properly operate and maintain such
PSPPM.
It shall be unlawful to alter, modify or change any
components of the Permanent Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Measures without first obtaining the written
certification of the City Engineer that the
requirements of this chapter have been satisfied.
16.11.050 Monitoring and Reporting.
(a)As a condition of approval, the City Engineer may
require the owner of a Development Project or
Significant Redeve!opment Project, to establish a
self-monitoring and reporting program to ensure all
PSPPM are in compliance with the provisions of this
chapter. The self-monitoring report must be in
accordance with the guidelines published by the Public
Works Department.
(b)The City Engineer, or his or her authorized
representatives, may conduct all inspection,
surveillance, and monitoring procedures necessary to
assure compliance with applicable sections of this
chapter or with state regulations.
Representatives of the City Engineer shall be
authorized to enter, without unreasonable delay, any
premises of any project subject to the requirements of
this chapter to carry out inspections and monitoring
to assure compliance with this chapter and applicable
state of California regulations. Records shall be
available to city personnel for inspection and
copying.
(d)in addition to any other remedy available to the city,
city inspectors may issue compliance directives at the
time of the inspection to require the owner to
implement actions that will correct violations of this
chapter.
//
//
030709 sm 0053230
16.11.060 Enforcement and Penalties.
(a)As provided in Chapter 1.08 of Title 1 of this code,
violations of the provisions of this title shal! be
subject to crimina! penalties. The fol!owing
designated employee positions may enforce the
provisions of this chapter by the issuance of
citations.Persons emp!oyed in such positions are
authorized to exercise the authority provided in Pena!
Code Section 836.5 and are
citations for violations of
designated emp!oyee positions
industrial waste inspector;
investigator; associate
authorized to issue
this chapter. The
are: city engineer,
industria! waste
engineer;manager,
environmental control programs; supervisor, industrial
waste; and manager, environmental compliance division.
(b)
(c)
Enforcement - Judicial civil penalties.
Any person who intentionally or negligently violates
any provision of this chapter or any provision of any
certificate issued pursuant to this chapter shall be
civilly liable to the city in a sum of not to exceed
twenty-five thousand dollars per day for each day in
which such violation occurs. The city may petition the
Superior Court pursuant to Government Code Section
54740 to impose, assess, and recover such sums. The
remedy provided in this section is cumulative and not
exclusive, and shall be in addition to the penalty
provisions of Chapter 1.08 of this code and al! other
remedies available to the city under state and federal
law.
Enforcement - Administrative civi! penalties.
(!)Complaint. The city engineer may serve an
administrative complaint on any person who has
violated any provision of this chapter.The
complaint shall state:
(a)The act or failure that constitutes the
violation;
(b)The provisions of law authorizing the civi!
liability to be imposed; and
(c)The proposed civil penalty.
The complaint shal! be served by personal
delivery or certified mail on the person subject
to the requirements that the city engineer
alleges were violated, and shall inform the
person served that a hearing on the complaint
shall be conducted within sixty days after
030709 sm 0053230 7
(a
(b
(c
(3
(4
service, unless the person charged with the
violation waives his or her right to a hearing.
Hearing. Unless the person charged with the
violation(s) waives his or her right to a
hearing, the city manager or designee of the city
manager shal! conduct a hearing within sixty
days. If the hearing officer finds that the
person has caused a violation, he or she may
assess administrative penalties against the
person. In determining the amount of the civi!
penalty, the hearing officer may take into
consideration all relevant circumstances,
including, but not limited to, the extent of harm
caused by the violation, the economic benefit
derived through any noncompliance, the nature and
persistence of the violation, the length of time
over which the violation occurs and corrective
action, if any, attempted or taken by the
discharger. Civi! penalties that may be imposed
are as fol!ows:
An amount not to exceed two thousand dollars per
day for failing or refusing to furnish technical
or monitoring reports;
An amount not to exceed three thousand dollars
per day for failing or refusing to comply in a
timely fashion with any compliance schedule
established by the city;
An amount not to exceed five thousand dollars per
day of violation for discharges in violation of
P_even~!onany Permanent Stormwater Pollution < -~
Measure certification, permit condition or
requirement issued by the city.
Appea!. Any person against whom the hearing
officer assesses penalties may appeal the
decision of the hearing officer within thirty
days of notice of the decision. The city counci!
may hear the appea! or deny review of the case.
if the city counci! decides to hear the appea!,
it shall conduct the appea! in accordance with
procedures established by the counci!. The
decision of the city council shal! be in wr!ting
and shal! be fina!. All civil penalties imposed
in accordance with this section shall be payable
within thirty days of the decision of the hearing
officer; provided, that if the decision is
appealed, al! penalties shall be payable within
thirty days after the city council decision on
the appeal.
Lien. The amount of any civi! penalties imposed
under this section which have remained delinquent
030709 sm 0053230 8
for a period of sixty days shall constitute a
lien against the real property of the discharger
from which the violation occurred resulting in
imposition of the penalty. The city engineer
shal! cause the amount of uncollected penalty to
be recorded with the county recorder, in
accordance with Section 54740.5 of the California
Government Code, as the same from time to time
may be amended.
(d)Enforcement - Administrative citation.
Any person who violates any provision of this chapter
or any provision of any certification or certificate
issued pursuant to this chapter shall be subject to
the administrative citation provisions contained in
Chapter 1.12 of this code.
(e)Enforcement - Administrative compliance order.
Any person who violates any provision of this chapter
or any provision of any certificate issued pursuant to
this chapter shal! be subject to the administrative
compliance order provisions contained in Chapter 1.16
of this code.
(f)Enforcement - Notice of noncompliance.
(!
(a
(2
Unless the c_~y engineer finds that the severit7
of the violation warrants immediate action or
cert.=. ~_!:lca~e revocation or suspension, he or she
shall issue a notice of noncompliance which:
Enumerates the violations found; and
Orders compliance by a date certain.
if the violations are not abated in the time
period identified further action may be taken by
the city engineer, including, but not limited to,
suspension, revocation or modification of the
certificate.
Subject to the fol!owing limitations, and in
addition to the provisions of subsection (a), the
city engineer may require a discharger that has
violated any discharge limits contained in this
chapter to instal! a temporary system for the
capture, testing and release of stormwater.
SECTION 3. The City Engineer shall
implement the provisions of this ordinance.
administer and
SECTION 4. This ordinance is exempt from the provisions
of Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 21100) of Division 13 of
the Public Resources Code [California Environmenta! Quality Act
030709 sm 0053230 9
(CEQA)] pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15308 as an
action that assures the maintenance, restoration, enhancement,
or protection of the environment where the regulatory process
involves procedures for protection of the environment.
SECTION 5. This ordinance shall be effective on the
thirty-first day after the date of its adoption.
INTRODUCED:
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Mayor
APPROVED:
City Attorney City Manager
Director of Public Works
030709 sm 0053230 i 0
ATTACHMENT B
CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION
ORDER NO. 01-119
NPDES PERMIT NO. CAS029718
AMENDMENT REVISING PROVISION C.3. OF ORDER NO. 01-024 FOR:
SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA, CITY OF
CAMPBELL, CITY OF CUPERTINO, CITY OF LOS ALTOS, TOWN OF LOS ALTOS
HILLS, TOWN OF LOS GATOS, CITY OF MILPITAS, CITY OF MONTE SERENO, CITY
OF MOUNTAIN VIEW, CITY OF PALO ALTO, CITY OF SAN JOSE, CITY OF SANTA
CLARA, CITY OF SARATOGA, AND CITY OF SUNNYVALE, which have joined together to
form the SANTA CLARA VALLEY URBAN RUNOFF POLLUTION PREVENTION
PROGRAM
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, hereinafter
referred to as the Regional Board, finds that:
Existing Permit and Revision of Provision C.3.
The Regional Board adopted Order No. 01-024 on February 21, 2001, reissuing waste
discharge requirements under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit for the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (Program) for
the discharge of stormwater to South San Francisco Bay and its tributaries. The Program’s
NPDES permit is jointly issued to the thirteen Cities of Santa Clara County named above,
Santa Clara County and the Santa Clara Valley Water District, all of which are Co-
permittees. These Co-permittees are referred to as the Dischargers.
As outlined in Finding 17 of Order No. 01-024, Provision C.3. of Order No. 01-024 is to be
revised in response to the "Cities of Bellflower, et. al." decision by the State Water
Resources Control Board (State Board Order No. 2000-11).
Order No. 01-024 recognizes the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Management Plan
(Management Plan) as the Dischargers’ Comprehensive Control Program and requires
implementation of the Management Plan, which describes a framework for management of
stormwater discharges. The 1997 Management Plan describes the Program’s goals and
objectives and contains Performance Standards, which represent the baseline level of effort
required of each of the Dischargers. The Management Plan contains Performance Standards
for seven different stormwater management activities.
Nature of Discharges and Sources of Pollutants
o Urban Development Increases Pollutant Load, Volume, and Velocity of Runoff: During
urban development two important changes occur. First, where no urban development has
previously occurred, natural vegetated pervious ground cover is converted to impervious
surfaces such as paved highways, streets, rooftops, and parking lots. Natural vegetated soil
can both absorb rainwater and remove pollutants providing a very effective natural
~--1204787
purification process. Because pavement and concrete can neither absorb water nor remove
pollutants, the natural purification characteristics of the land are lost. Secondly, urban
development creates new pollution sources as human population density increases and brings
with it proportionately higher levels of car emissions, car maintenance wastes, municipal
sewage, pesticides, household hazardous wastes, pet wastes, trash, etc., which can be washed
into the municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4). As a result of these two changes, the
runoff leaving a newly developed urban area may be significantly greater in volume, velocity
and/or pollutant load than pre-development runoff from the same area.
Certain pollutants present in stormwater and/or urban runoff may be derived from extraneous
sources that dischargers have limited or no direct jurisdiction over. Examples of such
pollutants and their respective sources are: PAils which are products of internal combustion
engine operation and other sources; heavy metals, such as copper from brake pad wear and
zinc from tire wear; dioxins as products of combustion; mercury resulting from atmospheric
deposition; and natural-occurring minerals from local geology. All of these pollutants, and
others, may be deposited on impervious surfaces and roof-tops as fine air-borne particles,
thus yielding stormwater runoff pollution that is unrelated to the particular activity or use
associated with a given new or redevelopment project. However, dischargers can implement
treatment control measures, or require developers to implement treatment control measures,
to reduce entry of these pollutants into stormwater and their discharge to receiving waters.
Pollutants present in stormwater can have damaging effects on both human health and
aquatic ecosystems. In addition, the increased flows and volumes of stormwater discharged
from new impervious surfaces resulting from new development and redevelopment can
significantly impact beneficial uses of aquatic ecosystems due to physical modifications of
watercourses, such as bank erosion and widening of channels.
Water Quality Degradation Increases with Percent Imperviousness: The increased volume
and velocity of runoff from newly developed urban areas can greatly accelerate the erosion of
downstream watercourses. A number of studies have demonstrated a direct correlation
between the degree of imperviousness of an area and the degradation of beneficial uses of
downstream watercourses. Significant declines in the biological integrity and physical
habitat of streams and other receiving waters have been found to occur with as little as a 10%
conversion from natural to impervious surfaces. Typical medium-density single-family
home projects developed in previously unurbanized locations, range between 25 to 60%
impervious. Even at very low densities, such as 1-2 housing units per acre, some types of
subdivisions built in previously unurbanized locations can result in more than a 10% increase
in imperviousness.1 Studies on the impacts of imperviousness on beneficial uses of waters
include "Urbanization of aquatic systems: Degradation thresholds, stormwater detection,
and the limits of mitigation," Derek B. Booth and C. Rhett Jackson, Journal of the American
Water Resources Association 33(5), Oct. 1997, pp. 1077-1089; "Urbanization and Stream
Quality Impairment," Richard D. Klein, Water Resources Bulletin 15(4), Aug. 1979, pp. 948-
963; "Stream channel enlargement due to urbanization," Thomas R. Hammer, Water
Resources Research 8(6), Dec. 1972, pp. 1530- 1540; and, summaries of work on the impacts
1A discussion of imperviousness based on type of development and time of construction is
provided in Heaney, J.B., Pitt, R, and Field, R. Innovative Urban Wet-Weather Flow
Management Systems, 1999. USEPA Doc. No. EPA/600/R-99/029 (Chapter 2).
~--1204787
of imperviousness, including "The Importance of Imperviousness," in Watershed Protection
Techniques 1(3), Fall 1994, pp. 100-111, and "Impervious surface coverage: The emergence
of a key environmental indicator," Chester L. Arnold et al., Journal of the American Planning
Association 62(2), Spring 1996, pp. 243-259.
Implementation
This Order, revising Provision C.3., is intended to enhance the Dischargers’ existing
Performance Standard for new development and significant redevelopment. This Order
more clearly requires a level of implementation of best management practices (BMPs),
including treatment measures in new development and significant redevelopment, that
reflects the regulatory standard of maximum extent practicable (MEP). This is done
through addition of requirements to more effectively incorporate source control
measures, site design principles, and structural stormwater treatment controls in new
development and redevelopment projects in order to reduce water quality impacts of
stormwater runoff for the life of these projects. The consistent application of such
measures is intended to greatly reduce the adverse impacts of new development and
redevelopment on water quality and beneficial uses by reducing stormwater pollutant
impacts, and impacts of increases in peak runoff rate.
Cost-effective opporttmities to protect water quality in new and redevelopment may exist
during the land use approval process. When a Discharger incorporates policies and
principles designed to safeguard water resources into its General Plan and development
project approval processes, it has taken a far-reaching step towards the preservation of local
water resources for future generations.
10.The revised Provision C.3. is written with the assumption that Dischargers are responsible for
considering potential stormwater impacts when making planning and land use decisions. The
goal of these requirements is to address pollutant discharges and changes in runoff flows
from significant new and redevelopment projects, through implementation of post-
construction treatment measures, source control, and site design measures, to the maximum
extent practicable. Neither Provision C.3. nor any of its requirements are intended to restrict
or control local land use decision-making authority.
11.Opportunities for Dischargers to address stormwater pollution and hydrograph modification
can be limited by their current local design standards and guidance. For example, such
standards and guidance may reduce or prohibit oppommities to minimize impervious
surfaces, minimize directly connected impervious area, provide for small-scale detention, and
implement other management measures. Depending on the existing state of program
development/implementation and site-specific conditions, revision of current standards and
guidance may result in an increased ability for project designers to minimize project impacts.
Revision of standards and guidance can allow implementation of site design measures in
projects to meet or help meet the numeric sizing criteria in Provision C.3.d. and/or the
hydrograph modification limitation in Provision C.3.f.
12.Provision C.3.f. requires Dischargers to prepare a Hydrograph Modification Management
Plan (HMP), for approval by the Regional Board, to manage impacts from changes to the
volume and velocity of stormwater runoff from new development and significant
~ff-1204787
4
redevelopment projects, where these changes can cause excessive erosion damage to
downstream watercourses. Transit village type developments within 1/4 mile of transit
stations, and within the 80% developed urban core of cities, are unlikely to fall under the
requirements of C.3.f. and the HMP. This is due to the fact that significant change in
impervious surface or significant change in stormwater nmoff volume or timing is unlikely in
this circumstance, because the development would be within a largely already paved
catchment, and on a site that is largely already paved or otherwise impervious.
13.Certain BMPs implemented or required by Dischargers for urban runoff management may
create a habitat for vectors (e.g., mosquitoes and rodents) if not properly designed or
maintained. Close collaboration and cooperative effort between the Dischargers, local vector
control agencies, the Regional Board staff, and the State Department of Health Services is
necessary to identify appropriate vector control measures that minimize potential nuisances
and public health impacts resulting from vector breeding, so that Dischargers and local vector
control agencies can implement such control measures without undue adverse effects.
Public Process
14.The action to modify an NPDES Permit is exempt from the provisions of Chapter 3
(commencing with Section 21100) of Division 13 of the Public Resources Code [California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)] pursuant to Section 13389 of the California Water
Code.
15.The Dischargers and interested agencies and persons have been notified of the Regional
Board’s intent to modify waste discharge requirements for the existing discharge and have
been provided opportunities for public meetings and the opportunity to submit their written
views and recommendations. The following is a brief summary of public meetings and
comment periods on draft versions of this Order:
Oct. 13 - Nov. 13, 2000: Formal public comment period on the Tentative Order for reissuance of the Program’s
entire NPDES permit. Comments were received from Co-permittees, environmental advocacy groups, and
industry, and included comments on new development provision.
Nov. 7, 2000: Regional Board staffheld a stakeholder meeting during the formal public comment period to
discuss permit issues. Significant unresolved comments remained on the new development provision.
Dec. 13, 2000: Regional Board staffheld a public stakeholder meeting on the new development provision.
Jan. 10, 2001: Regional Board staffheld a public stakeholder meeting on the new development provision.
Feb. 21, 2001: The Program’s NPDES permit is reissued, revision of Provision C.3. on new development is
deferred to later date.
May 7, 2001: Administrative draft of new development provision issued for discussion with stakeholders.
May 14, 2001: Regional Board staffheld a public stakeholder meeting on the new development provision.
May 18-June 18, 2001: Forma! public comment period for the May 18 Tentative Order containing the revised
new development provision.
June 5, 2001: Regional Board staffheld a public stakeholder meeting on the new development provision.
August 6, 2001: Regional Board staffheld a public stakeholder meeting on the new development provision.
August 9 & 10, 2001: Regional Board staff spoke at Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association
conferences, "Meeting New Requirements for Stormwater Controls in New and Redevelopment Projects" in
Berkeley and Cupertino.
~-1204787
August 17 - Sept. 19, 2001: Formal public comment period for the August 17 Tentative Order containing the
revised new development provision.
August 27, 2001: Executive Officer and Board staff met with officials from Milpitas, City of Santa Clara, San
Jose, Sunnyvale, Palo Alto, and Santa Clara County to discuss provision revisions.
August 30, 2001: Board staff presented a Workshop in San Jose (courtesy of Altera Corporation) to (1) Bring
newly involved stakeholders up to date on the proposed permit amendment, and (2) Get feedback on the
specific requirements of revised Provision C.3., and possible provision language improvements.
Sept. 5, 2001: Board staffpresented a Workshop in San Jose (courtesy of the SCVWD) to (1) Present and
discuss example post-construction controls at development projects--how they work, how they are sized, and
other technical details, and (2) Get feedback on the technical requirements of the revised permit Provision C.3.,
and possible provision language improvements.
Sept. 14, 2001: Executive Officer and Board staffmet with officials from Milpitas, City of Santa Clara, San
Jose, Sunnyvale, Palo, Alto, Los Altos, Santa Clara County and the SCVWD to discuss provision revisions.
Sept. 20, 2001: Executive Officer gave a presentation on the new development provision to the Santa Clara
Council of Cities.
Sept. 26, 2001: Executive Officer gave a presentation on the new development provision to the Silicon Valley
Pollution Prevention Committee.
Sept. 28, 2001: Executive Officer met with officials from Milpitas, City of Santa Clara, San Jose, Sunnyvale,
and the SCVWD to discuss provision revisions.
Oct. 1, 2001: Board staffmet with members of the Western States Petroleum Association to discuss their
concerns regarding regulation of retail gasoline outlets under Provision C.3.
16.The Regional Board has conducted public meetings to discuss the draft revised Provision
C.3.as follows:
Nov. 18, 2000: Regional Board meeting - Informational Workshop on the Program’s Permit Reissuance,
focusing on the new development Provision C.3.
July 18, 2001: Regional Board meeting - Informational Workshop on the new development Provision C.3.
proposed Tentative Order for permit amendment.
Sept. 19, 2001: Regional Board meeting - Informational Workshop on the types of stormwater treatment
controls that are appropriate for new development and significant redevelopment under Provision C.3.
17.The Regional Board, through public testimony in public meetings and in written form, has
received and considered all comments pertaining to the revision of Provision (2.3.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Dischargers, in order to meet the provisions contained
in Division 7 of the California Water Code and regulations adopted hereunder and the
provisions of the Clean Water Act as amended and regulations and guidelines adopted
hereunder, shall comply with the following:
Provision C.3. New and Redevelopment Performance Standards of Order No. 01-024 is
hereby revised to read as follows:
The Management Plan contains performance standards and supporting documents to
address the post-construction and construction phase impacts of new and redevelopment
projects on stormwater quality (Planning Procedures and Construction Inspection
Performance Standards). The Dischargers shall continue to implement these
~-1204787
6
performance standards and continuously improve them to the maximum extent
practicable in accordance with the following sections.
Performance Standard Implementation: The Dischargers shall continue to
implement and continually improve, as necessary and appropriate, the following
performance standards for planning procedures:
i. Each Discharger shall have adequate legal authority to implement new
development control measures, including all requirements of this Provision C 3,
as part of its development plan review and approval procedures, and other
appropriate new development and redevelopment permitting procedures;
ii. Each Discharger shall provide developers with information and guidance
materials on site design guidelines, building permit requirements, and BMPs for
stormwater pollution prevention early in the application process, as appropriate
for the type of project;
iii.Each Discharger shall require developers of projects that disturb a land area of
five acres or more to demonstrate coverage under the State’s General Permit for
Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activity;
iv.Each Discharger shall require developers of projects with potential for significant
erosion and planned construction activity during the wet season (as defmed by
local ordinance) to prepare and implement an effective erosion and/or sediment
control plan or similar document prior to the start of the wet season;
Each Discharger shall ensure that municipal capital improvement projects
include, stormwater quality control measures during and after construction, as
appropriate for each project, and that contractors comply with stormwater quality
control requirements during construction and maintenance activities; and,
vi.Each Discharger shall provide training at least annually to its planning, building, and
public works staffs on planning procedures, policies, design guidelines, and BMPs for
stormwater pollution prevention.
bo Development Project Approval Process: Dischargers shall modify their project review
processes as needed to incorporate the requirements of Provision C.3. Each Discharger
shall include conditions of approval in permits for applicable projects, as defined in
Provision C.3.c., to ensure that pollutant discharges are reduced by incorporation of
treatment measures and other appropriate source control and site design measures, and
increases in runoff flows are managed in accordance with C.3.f., to the maximum extent
practicable. Such conditions shall, at a minimum, address the following goals:
Require project proponent to implement site design/landscape characteristics where
feasible which maximize infiltration (where appropriate), provide retention or
detention, slow runoff, and minimize impervious land coverage, so that post-
development pollutant loads from a site have been reduced to the maximum extent
practicable; and
For new and redevelopment projects that discharge directly to water bodies listed as
impaired by a pollutant(s) pursuant to Clean Water Act Section 303(d), ensure that
post-project runoff does not exceed pre-project levels for such pollutant(s), through
~ff-1204787
implementation of the control measures addressed in this provision, to the maximum
extent practicable, in conformance with Provision C.1.
Modification of project review processes shall be completed by July 1, 2003, subject to a
workplan, submitted by March 1, 2002, acceptable to the Executive Officer, identifying
incremental progress already made and to be made toward this completion by July 1,
2003. If no acceptable workplan is received, modification of project review processes
shall be completed by October 15, 2002.
Applicable Projects - New and Redevelopment Project Categories: New
development and significant redevelopment projects that are subject to Provision C.3. are
grouped into two categories based on project size. New and redevelopment projects that
do not fall into Group 1 or Group 2 are not subject to the requirements of Provision C.3.
Provision C.3. shall not apply to projects for which a privately-sponsored development
application has been deemed complete by a Discharger or, with respect to public projects,
for which funding has been committed and for which construction is scheduled by
October 15, 2003..
Group 1 Projects: Dischargers shall require Group 1 Projects to design and
implement stormwater treatment BMPs to reduce stormwater pollution to the
maximum extent practicable. Implementation of this requirement shall begin on July
15, 2003, subject to a workplan, submitted March 1, 2002, acceptable to the
Executive Officer, identifying incremental progress already made and to be made
toward implementation of C.3.c.i. by July 15, 2003. If no acceptable workplan is
received, implementation of C.3.c.i. requirements shall begin on October 15, 2002.
Group 1 Projects consist of all punic and private projects in the following categories:
Commercial, industrial, or residential developments that create one acre (43,560
square feeO or more of impervious surface, including roof area, streets and
sidewalks. This category includes any development of any type on public or private
land, which falls under the planning and building authority of the Dischargers,
where one acre or more of new impervious surface, collectively over the entire
project site, will be created.
Streets, roads, highways, and freeways that are under the Dischargers ’jurisdiction
and that create one acre (43,560 square feet) or more of new impervious surface.
This category includes any newly constructed paved surface used for the
transportation of automobiles, trucks, motorcycles, and other motorized vehicles.
Significant redevelopment projects. This category is defined as a project on a
previously developed site that results in addition or replacement which combined
total 43,560 ft2 or more of impervious surface on such an already developed site
("Significant Redevelopment"). Where a Significant Redevelopment project
results in an increase of, or replacement of, more than fifty percent of the
impervious surface of a previously existing development, and the existing
development was not subject to stormwater treatment measures, the entire project
must be included in the treatment measure design. Conversely, where a
Significant Redevelopment project results in an increase of, or replacement of,
less than fifty percent of the impervious surface of a previously existing
development, and the existing development was not subject to stormwater
treatment measures, only that affected portion must be included in treatment
~-1204787
design. Excluded from this category are interior remodels and routine
maintenance or repair, including roof or exterior surface replacement and
repaying.
Group 2 Projects: The Group 2 Project definition is in all ways the same as the
Group 1 Project definition above, except that the size threshold of impervious area for
new and Significant Redevelopment projects is reduced from one acre (43,560 ft2) to
5000 square feet. Dischargers shall require Group 2 Projects to design and implement
stormwater treatment BMPs to reduce stormwater pollution to the maximum extent
practicable. Implementation of this requirement shall begin on October 15, 2004, at
which time the definition of Group 1 Project is changed to include all Group 2
Projects.
Alternative Project Proposal: The Program may propose, for approval by the
Regional Board, an alternative Group 2 Project definition. Any such proposal shall
contain supporting information about the Dischargers’ development patterns, and
pollutant source information, that demonstrates that the proposed definition is
comparable in effectiveness to the Group 2 Project defmition (i.e., that a comparable
development area and!or~ pollutant loading would be addressed under the proposed
alternate def’mition). Proposals must be submitted by April 15, 2004, in order to be
considered by the Regional Board before the Group 2 Project implementation date in
C.3.c.ii.
d.Numeric Sizing Criteria For Pollutant Removal Treatment Systems: All Dischargers
shall require that treatment BMPs be constructed for applicable projects, as defined in
C.3.c., that incorporate, at a minimum, the following hydraulic sizing design criteria to
treat stormwater runoff. As appropriate for each criterion, the Dischargers shall use or
appropriately analyze local rainfall data to be used for that criterion.
ii.
Volume Hydraulic Design Basis: Treatment BMPs whose primary mode of action
depends on volume capacity, such as detention/retention units or infiltration
structures, shall be designed to treat stormwater runoff equal to:
the maximized stormwater quality capture volume for the area, based on historical
rainfall records, determined using the formula and volume capture coefficients set
forth in Urban Runoff Quality Management, V/EF Manual of Practice No. 23/
ASCE Manual of Practice No. 87, (1998), pages 175-178 (e.g., approximately the
85t~ percentile 24-hour storm runoff event); or
the volume of annual runoff required to achieve 80 percent or more capture,
determined in accordance with the methodology set forth in Appendix D of the
California Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbook, (1993), using local
rainfall data.
Flow Hydraulic Design Basis: Treatment BMPs whose primary mode of action
depends on flow capacity, such as swales, sand filters, or wetlands, shall be sized to
treat:
~-1204787
10% of the 50-year peak flow rate; or
the flow of runoff produced by a rain event equal to at least two times the 85th
percentile hourly rainfall intensity for the applicable area, based on historical
records of hourly rainfall depths; or
3.the flow of runoff resulting from a rain event equal to at least 0.2 inches per hour
intensity.
Operation and Maintenance of Treatment BMPs:
Each Discharger shall implement an operation and maintenance (O&M) verification
program, which shall include the following:
i.Compiling a list of properties (puNic and private) and responsible operators for all
treatment BMPs. In addition, the Dischargers shall inspect a subset ofprioritized
treatment measures for appropriate operation and maintenance, on an annual basis,
with appropriate follow-up and correction.
Verification at a minimum shall include: Where a private entity is responsible for
O&M, the developer’s signed statement accepting responsibility for maintenance
until the responsibility is legally transferred; and either
°
ii.
111.
A signed statement from the public emity assuming post-construction
responsibility for treatment BMP maintenance and that the BMP meets all local
agency design standards; or
Written conditions in the sales or lease agreement, which require the recipient to
assume responsibility for maintenance consistent with this provision; or
Written text in project conditions, covenants and restrictions (CCRs) for
residential properties assigning maintenance responsibilities to the Home Owners
Association for maintenance of the treatment BMPs; or
4. Any other legally enforceable agreement or mechanism that assigns responsibility
for the maintenance of post-construction treatment BMPs.
O&M Reporting: The Dischargers shall report on their Treatmem BMPs Operation
and Maintenance Verification program in each Annual Report. The Annual Report
shall contain: a description of the organizational structure of the Discharger’s O&M
Verification program; an evaluation of the Discharger’s O&M verification program’s
effectiveness; summary of any planned improvements in O&M Verification; and a
list or summary of treatment BMPs that have been inspected that year with inspection
results.
Limitation on Increase of Peak Stormwater Runoff.Discharge Rates:
The Dischargers shall manage increases in peak runoff flow and increased runoff
volume, for all Group 1 Projects, where such increased flow and/or volume can cause
increased erosion of creek beds and banks, silt pollutant generation, or other impacts
to beneficial uses. Such management shall be through implementation of a
Hydrograph Modification Management Plan (H). The HMP, once approved by the
Regional Board, will be implemented so that post-project runoff shall not exceed
estimated pre-project rates and/or durations, where the increased stormwater
discharge rates and/or durations will result in increased potential for erosion or other
~-1204787
111 ¯
I0
adverse impacts to beneficial uses, attributable to changes in the amount and timing
of runoff. The term duration in this section is defined as the period that flows are
above a threshold that causes significant sediment transport and may cause excessive
erosion damage to creeks and streams.
This requirement does not apply to new development and redevelopment projects
where the project discharges stormwater runoff into creeks or storm drains where the
potential for erosion, or other impacts to beneficial uses, is minimal. Such situations
may include discharges into creeks that are concrete-lined or significantly hardened
(e.g., with rip-rap, sackrete, etc.) downstream to their outfall in San Francisco Bay,
underground storm drains discharging to the Bay, and construction of infill projects in
highly developed watersheds, where the potential for single-project and/or cumulative
impacts is minimal. Guidelines for identification of such situations shall be included
as a part of the HMP. However, plans to restore a creek reach may re-introduce the
applicability of liMP controls, and would need to be addressed in the HMP.
The HMP may identify conditions under which some increases in runoff may not
have a potential for increased erosion or other impacts to beneficial uses. Reduced
controls or no controls on peak stormwater runoff discharge rates and/or durations
may be appropriate in those cases, subject to the conditions in the HMP. In the
absence of information demonstrating that changes in post-development runoff
discharge rates and durations will not result in increased potential for erosion or other
adverse impacts to beneficial uses,the HMP requirements shall apply.
iv. The HMP proposal shall include:
1. A review of the pertinent literature;
2. A protocol to evaluate potential hydrograph change impacts to downstream
watercourses from proposed projects;
3. An identification of the rainfall event below which these standards and
management requirements apply, or range of rainfall events to which this
limitation applies;
4. A description of how the Dischargers will incorporate these requirements into
their local approval processes, or the equivalent; and
5. Guidance on management practices and measures to address identified impacts.
The identified maximum rainfall event or rainfall event range may be different for
specific watersheds, streams, or stream reaches. Individual Dischargers may utilize
the protocol to determine a site- or area-specific rainfall event standard.
vi.The HMP’s evaluation protocols, management measures, and other information may
include the following:
1. Evaluation of the cumulative impacts of urbanization of a watershed on
stormwater discharge and stream morphology in the watershed;
2. Evaluation of stream form and condition, including slope, discharge, vegetation,
underlying geology, and other information, as appropriate;
3. Implementation of measures to minimize impervious surfaces and directly
connected impervious area in new development and redevelopment projects;
4.Implementation of measures including stormwater detention, retention, and
infiltration;
~-1204787
11
5.Implementation of land use planning measures (e.g., stream buffers and stream
restoration activities, including restoration-in-advance of floodplains,
revegetation, use of less-impacting facilities at the point(s) of discharge, etc.) to
allow expected changes in stream channel cross sections, stream vegetation, and
discharge rates, velocities, and/or durations without adverse impacts to stream
beneficial uses;
6. A mechanism for pre- vs. post-project assessment to determine the effectiveness
of the HMP and to allow amendment of the HMP, as appropriate; and,
7. Other measures, as appropriate.
vii.Equivalent limitation of peak flow impacts: The Dischargers may develop an
equivalent limitation protocol, as part of the HMP, to address impacts from changes
in the volumes, velocities, and/or durations of peak flows through measures other
than control of those volumes and/or durations. The protocol may allow increases in
peak flow and/or durations, subject to the implementation of specified BMPs and land
planning practices that take into account expected stream change (e.g., increases in
the cross-sectional area of stream channel) resulting from changes in discharge rates
and/or durations, while maintaining or improving beneficial uses of waters.
viii. The Dischargers as a group shall complete the HMP according to the schedule
below. All required documents shall be submitted acceptable to the Executive
Officer, except the HMP, which shall be submitted for approval by the Regional
Board. Development and implementation status shall be reported in the Dischargers’
Annual Reports, which shall also provide a summary of projects incorporating
measures to address this section and the measures used.
March 1, 2002: Submit a detailed workplan and schedule for completion of the
literature review, development of a protocol to identify an appropriate limiting
storm, development of guidance materials, and other required information;
2. September 15, 2002: Submit literature review;
3. March 1, 2003: Submit a draft HMP, including the analysis that identifies the
appropriate limiting storm and the identified limiting storm event(s) or event
range(s);
4. October 15, 2003: Submit the HMP for Regional Board approval; and,
5. Upon adoption by the Regional Board, implement the HMP, which shall include
the requirements of this measure. Prior to approval of the HMP by the Regional
Board, the early implementation of measures likely to be included in the HMP
shall be encouraged by the Dischargers
g. Waiver Based on Impracticability and Compensatory Mitigation:
The Dischargers may establish a program under which a project proponent may
request a waiver from the requirement to install treatment BMPs for a given project,
upon an appropriate showing of impracticability, and with provision to treat an
equivalent pollutant loading or quantity of stormwater runoff, or provide other
equivalent water quality benefit.. The location of this equivalent stormwater
treatment, or water quality benefit, would be where no other requirement for treatment
exists, within the same stormwater runoff drainage basin and treating runoff
discharging to the same receiving water, where feasible. The Dischargers should
~-1204787
ii.
vi.
12
specifically defme the basis for impracticability or infeasibility, which may include
situations where treatment is technically feasible, but excessively costly, as determined
by set criteria.
Regional Solutions: The waiver program may allow a project to participate in a
regional or watershed stormwater treatment facility, without a showing of
impracticability on the individual project site, if the regional or watershed
stormwater treatment facility discharges into the same receiving water, where
feasible.
The Program is encouraged to propose a model waiver program on behalf of the
Dischargers, for approval by the Regional Board, and for potential adoption and
implementation by the Dischargers.
The waiver program proposal should state the criteria for granting waivers;
criteria for determining impracticability or infeasibility; and criteria for use of
regional or watershed stormwater treatment facilities. The proposal should also
describe how the project sponsor will provide equivalent water quality benefits or
credit to an alternative project or to a regional or watershed treatment facility and
tracking mechanisms to support the reporting requirements set forth in Section
C.3.g.v. below.
Reporting: Each year, as part of its Annual Report, each Discharger shall
provide a list of the waivers it granted. For each project granted a waiver, the
following information shall be provided:
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Name and location of the project for which the waiver was granted;
Project type (e.g., restaurant, residence, shopping center) and size;
Percent impervious surface in final design;
Reason for granting the waiver;
Terms of the waiver; and,
The stormwater treatment project receiving the benefit, and the date of
completion of the project.
Interim Waiver: In the event that a waiver program has.not been proposed by
the Program, approved by the Regional Board, or implemented by a particular
Discharger by the date of implementation of Group 1 Projects, an interim waiver
may be granted by a Discharger. An interim waiver may be granted if the project
proponent (1) demonstrates impracticability due to extreme limitations of space
for treatment and lack of below- grade surface treatment options, and (2) presents
assurance of provision of equivalent stormwater pollutant and/or volume
treatment at another location within the drainage basin, for which construction of
stormwater treatment measures is not otherwise required, discharging into the
same receiving water, where feasible. The Discharger will be responsible for
assuring that equivalent treatment has occurred for any use of this interim waiver,
within six months of project construction, and will report the basis of
impracticability and the nature of equivalent treatment for each project in its
Annual Report. Any equivalent treatment that does not include construction of
stormwater treatment BMPs must be approved by the Executive Officer. This
~-1204787
interim waiver clause will be void when the waiver program described in C.3.g.i-
iv. above is approved by the Regional Board.
13
Alternative Certification of Adherence to Design Criteria for Stormwater
Treatment Measures: In lieu of conducting detailed review to verify the adequacy of
measures required pursuant to Provisions C.3.d. and C.3.f., a Discharger may elect to
accept a signed certification from a Civil Engineer or a Licensed Architect or Landscape
Architect registered in the State of California, or another Discharger that has overlapping
jurisdictional project permitting authority, that the plan meets the criteria established
herein. The Discharger should verify that each certifying person has been trained on
BMP design for water quality not more than three years prior to the signature date, and
that each certifying person understands the groundwater protection principles applicable
to the project site (see Provision C.3.i. Limitations on Use of Infiltration Treatment
Measures). Training conducted by an organization with stormwater treatment BMP
design expertise (e.g., a university, American Society of Civil Engineers, American
Society of Landscape Architects, American Public Works Association, or the California
Water Environment Association) may be considered qualifying.
Limitations on Use of Inffitration Treatment Measures - Infiltration and
Groundwater Protection: In order to protect groundwater from pollutants that may be
present in urban runoff, treatment BMPs that function primarily as infiltration devices
(such as infiltration trenches and infiltration basins) must meet, at a minimum, the
following conditions:
Pollution prevention and source control BMPs shall be implemented at a level
appropriate to protect groundwater quality at sites where infiltration devices are to be
used;
iV.
Use of infiltration devices shall not cause or contribute to degradation of groundwater
water quality objectives;
Infiltration devices shall be adequately maintained to maximize pollutant removal
capabilities;
The vertical distance from the base of any infiltration device to the seasonal high
groundwater mark shall be at least 10 feet. Note that some locations within the
Dischargers’ jurisdiction are characterized by highly porous soils and/or a high
groundwater table; in these areas BMP approvals should be subject to a higher level of
analysis (e.g., considering the potential for pollutants such as on-site chemical use, the
level ofpretreatment to be achieved, and similar factors);
Unless stormwater is first treated by a means other than infiltration, infiltration devices
shall not be recommended for areas of industrial or light industrial activity; areas
subject to high vehicular ~xaffic (25,000 or greater average daily traffic on main
roadway or 15,000 or more average daily traffic on any intersecting roadway);
automotive repair shops; car washes; fleet storage areas (bus, truck, etc.); nurseries; and
other high threat to water quality land uses and activities as designated by each
Discharger;
vi.Infiltration devices shall be located a minimum of 100 feet horizontally from any water
supply wells.
~-1204787
14
j.Site Design Measures Guidance and Standards Development:
The Dischargers shall review their local design standards and guidance for
oppommities to make revisions that would result in reduced impacts to water quality
and beneficial uses of waters. In this event, the Dischargers shall make any such
revisions and implement the updated standards and guidance, as necessary.
Areas that may be appropriate to address include the following, which are offered as
examples:
1. Minimize land disturbance;
2. Minimize impervious surfaces (e.g., roadway width, driveway area, and parking
lot area), especially directly connected impervious areas;
3. Minimum-impact street design standards for new development and
redevelopment, including typical specifications (e.g., neo-traditional street design
standards and/or street standards recently revised in other cities, including
Portland, Oregon, and Vancouver, British Columbia);
4. Minimum-impact parking lot design standards, including parking space
maximization within a given area, useof landscaping as a stormwater drainage
feature, use of pervious pavements, and parking maxima;
5.Clustering of structures and pavement;
6.Typical specifications or "acceptable design" guidelines for lot-level design
measures, including:
, Disconnected roof downspouts to splash blocks or "bubble-ups;"
,Alternate driveway standards (e.g., wheelways, unit pavers, or other pervious
pavements); and,
® Microdetention, including landscape detention and use of cisterns.
7. Preservation of high-quality open space;
8. Maintenance and/or restoration of riparian areas and wetlands as project
amenities, including establishing vegetated buffer zones to reduce runoff into
waterways, allow for stream channel change as a stream’s contributing watershed
urbanizes, and otherwise mitigate the effects of urban runoff on waters and
beneficial uses of waters; and,
9. Incorporation of supplemental controls to minimize changes in the volume, flow
rate, timing, and duration of runoff, for a given precipitation event or events.
These changes include cumulative hydromodification caused by site development.
Measures may include landscape-based measures or other features to reduce the
velocity of, detain, and/or infiltrate stormwater runoff.
The standards and guidance review shall be completed according to the schedule
below. A summary of review, revision, and implementation status shall be submitted
for acceptance by the Executive Officer and reported in the Dischargers’ Annual
Reports.
ii.
No later than March 1, 2002: The Dischargers shall submit a detailed workplan
and schedule for completion of the review, revision, and implementation of
revised standards and guidance;
~-1204787
15
2.No later than September 15, 2003: The Dischargers shall submit a draft review
and analysis of local standards and guidance, opportunities for revision, and
proposed revised standards and guidance; and,
3. No later than September 15, 2004: The Dischargers shall incorporate any revised
standards and guidance into their local approval processes and shall be fully
implementing the revised standards and guidance.
Source Control Measures Guidance Development: The Dischargers shall, as part of
their continuous improvement process, submit enhanced New and Redevelopment
Performance Standards which summarize source control requirements for new and
redevelopment projects to limit pollutant generation, discharge, and runoff, to the
maximum extent practicable.
Examples of source control measures may include the following, which are offered as
examples:
i.Indoor mat!equipment wash racks for restaurants, or covered outdoor wash racks
plumbed to the sanitary sewer;
ii. Covered trash and food compactor enclosures with a sanitary sewer connection for
dumpster drips and designed such that run-on to trash enclosure areas is avoided;
~. Sanitary sewer drains for swimming pools;
iv. Sanitary drained outdoor covered wash areas for vehicles, equipment, and
accessories;
v. Sanitary sewer drain connections to take fare sprinkler test water;
vi. Storm drain system stenciling;
vii. Landscaping that minimizes irrigation and runoff, promotes surface infiltration where
appropriate, minimizes the use of pesticides and fertilizers, and where feasible
removes pollutants from stormwater runoff; and,
viii. Appropriate covers, drains, and storage precautions for outdoor material storage
areas, loading docks, repair/maintenance bays, and fueling areas.
A model enhanced Performance Standard and proposed workplans for its implementation
shall by submitted by March 1, 2003. Implementation shall begin no later than July 1,
2003, and the status shall thereafter be reported in the Dischargers’ Annual Reports,
which shall also provide appropriate detail on projects reflecting the application of the
enhanced performance standards consistent with Provision C.3.b. above.
Update General Plans: At the next scheduled update/revision of its General Plan
occurring after October 15, 2004, each Discharger shall confirm that it has incorporated
water quality and watershed protection principles and policies into its Generai Plan or
equivalent plan, to the extent necessary, if any, to require implementation of the measures
required by Provision C.3. for applicable development projects. These principles and
policies shall be designed to protect natural water bodies, reduce impervious land
coverage, slow runoff, and where feasible, maximize opportunities for infiltration of
rainwater into soil. Such water quality and watershed protection principles and policies
may include the following, which are offered as examples:
~-1204787
16
i.Minimize the amount of impervious surfaces and directly connected impervious
surfaces in areas of new development and redevelopment and where feasible maximize
on-site infiltration of runoff;
Implement pollution prevention methods supplemented by pollutant source controls
and treatment. Use small collection strategies located at, or as close as possible to, the
source (i.e., the point where water initially meets the ground) to minimize the transport
of urban runoff and pollutants offsite and into an MS4;
Preserve, and where possible, create or restore areas that provide important water
quality benefits, such as riparian corridors, wetlands, and buffer zones. Encourage land
acquisition of such areas;
iv.
Vo
Limit disturbances of natural water bodies and natural drainage systems caused by
development including roads, highways, and bridges;
Prior to making land use decisions, utilize methods available to estimate increases in
pollutant loads and flows resulting from projected future development. Require
incorporation of structural and non-structural BMPs to mitigate the projected increases
in pollutant loads and flows;
Avoid development of areas that are particularly susceptible to erosion and sediment
loss; or establish development guidance that identifies these areas and protects them
from erosion and sediment loss; and,
vii. Reduce pollutants associated with vehicles and increased traffic resulting from
development.
If amendments of General Plans are determined to be legally necessary to allow for
implementation of any aspect of Provision C 3., such amendments shall occur by the
implementation date of the corresponding component of the Provision.
Water Quality Review Processes: When Dischargers conduct environmental review of
projects in their jurisdictions, the Dischargers shall evaluate water quality effects and
identify appropriate mitigation measures. This requirement shall be implemented by
March 1, 2003. Questions that evaluate increased pollutants and flows from the proposed
project include the following, which are offered as examples:
Would the proposed project result in an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving
waters? Consider water quality parameters such as temperature, dissolved oxygen,
turbidity and other typical stormwater pollutants (e.g., heavy metals, pathogens,
petroleum derivatives, synthetic organics, sediment, nutrients, oxygen-demanding
substances, and trash).
ii. Would the proposed project result in significant alteration of receiving water quality
during or following construction?
iii. Would the proposed project result in increased impervious surfaces and associated
increased runoff?
Would the proposed project create a significant adverse environmental impact to
drainage patterns due to changes in runoffflow rates or volumes?
v. Would the proposed project result in increased erosion in its watershed?
~-1204787
17
vi.Is the project tributary to an already impaired water body, as listed on the Clean Water
Act Section 303(d) list? If so, will it result in an increase in any pollutant for which the
water body is already impaired?
vii. Would the proposed project have a potentially significant environmental impact on
surface water quality, to marine, fresh, or wetland waters?
viii. Would the proposed project have a potentially significant adverse impact on ground
water quality?
ix. Will the proposed project cause or contribute to an exceedance of applicable surface
or groundwater receiving water quality objectives or degradation of beneficial uses?
x. Will the project impact aquatic, wetland, or riparian habitat?
Reporting, including Pesticide Reduction Measures: The Dischargers shall
demonstrate compliance with the requirements of Provision C.3. by providing in their
Annual Reports the information described in Table 1, beginning with the dates shown in
Table 1 and continuing thereafter. In addition, the following information shall be
collected for annual report submittal, beginning six months after adoption of this
amendment, unless otherwise specified below.
For all new development and significant redevelopment projects which meet the
Group 1 or Group 2 definitions in C.3.c., collect and report the name or other
identifier, type of project (using the categories in Provision C.3.c.), site acreage
or square footage, and square footage of new impervious surface. For significant
redevelopment projects, the square footage of land disturbance will be reported.
ii.For projects that must implement treatment measures, report which treatment
BMPs were used and numeric-sizing criteria employed, the operation and
maintenance responsibility mechanism including responsible party, site design
measures used, and source control measures required. This reporting shall begin
in the annual report following the implementation date specified in C.3.c.
iii. A summary of the types of pesticide reduction measures required for those new
development and significant redevelopment projects to be addressed under Provision
C.3.c., and the percentage of such new development and significant redevelopment
projects for which pesticide reduction measures were required. These measures are
required under Provision C.9.d.ii., and relate directly to Provision C.3. requirements.
Implementation Schedule: The Dischargers shall implement the requirements of
Provisions C.3.b. through C.3.n. according to the schedule in Table 2.
~--1204787
I, Loretta K. Barsamian, Executive Officer, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, tree,
and correct copy of an order adopted by the California Regional Water Quality Control Board,
San Francisco Bay Region, on October 17, 2001.
18
original signed by
Loretta K. Barsamian
Executive Officer
ATTACHMENTS:
Table !. Summary of Annual and One-Time Reporting Requirements
Table 2. Implementation Schedule
~-1204787
Table 1. Summary of Annual and One-Time Reporting Requirements
Provision
C.3.b
Information to Report
List of any modifications made to development project approval
process
Date
2002 & 2003
annual reportsDevelop ’t
Project
Approval Optional: Submit workplan for completion of C.3.b.March 1, 2002
Process requirements by July 1, 2003
C.3.c.i Optional: Submit workplan identifying incremental progress March 1, 2002
Group I toward implementation of C.3.c.i. requirements by July 15, 2003
Workplan
C.3.c.iii Optional: Propose an alternative minimum project size April 15, 2004,
Project may submit any
Categories time
C.3.e Details of O&M verification program: organizational structure,beginning with
O & M evaluation, proposed improvements, list/# of inspections and 2003
follow-up annual report
C.3.f Submit a detailed workplan and schedule March 1, 2002
Peak Submit literature review Sept. 15, 2002
Runoff Submit draft Hydrograph Modification Management Plan (HMP)March 1, 2003
Limitation
Submit final HMP
C.3.g
Waiver
C.3.h
Alternate
Certification
C.3.j
Site Design
Guidance
Name and location of project which was granted a waiver;
Project type and size; Percent impervious surface;
Reason for granting the waiver;
Terms of the waiver;
The stormwater treatment project or regional treatment receiving
the benefit, and the date of completion of the treatment project.
List the projects certified by someone other than a Discharger
employee.
Summarize the status of review, revision, and implementation of
Site Design Measures Guidance and standards
Submit workplan and schedule for revision of guidance
Submit draft proposal of revised standards and guidance
Summarize how any revisions to site design standards and/or
guidance have been incorporated into local approval process
Submit draft conditions of approval document for source control
measures
Summarize how any revisions to source control measures
guidance document have been implemented
C.3.k
Source
Control
October 15, 2003
In each annual
report;
Begin the year a
waiver is granted
In each annual
report
In each annual
report, as
applicable
March 1, 2002
Sept. 15, 2003
Sept. 15, 2004
Annual report
Sept. 15, 2002
2003
annual report
19
~-1204787
20
Table 1.
C.3.1
General
Plan
Environ ’l
Review
C.3.n
Reporting
Summary of Annual Reporting and One-Time Requirements, continued
Summarize any revisions to General Plans that direct land-
use decisions and require implementation of consistent
water quality protection measures for development projects
Summarize any revisions to Environmental Review
Processes
List new development and redevelopment projects by name,
type of project (using the categories in Provision C.3.c.),
site acreage or square footage, square footage of new
impervious surface. Where applicable, report treatment
BMPs and numeric sizing criteria used, O&M responsibility
mechanism, site design measures used, and source control
measures required
Describe the pesticide reduction measures required for new
development and redevelopment projects; give percentage
of new development and redevelopment projects for which
pesticide reduction measures were required
Year revision is
made, no later
than July 1,
2005
2003 & 2004
annual reports
In each annual
report following
implementation
In each annual
report
Table 2: Implementation Schedule
Provision Action Implementation
Date
July 1, 2003’
July 15, 2003’
October 15, 2004
C.3.b Modify development project approval process as needed
C.3.c Require stormwater treatment BMPs at Group 1 Projects
Project Require stormwater treatment BMPs at Group 2 Projects
Categories in addition to Group 1 Projects
Optional: Propose an alternative minimum project size April 15, 2004
C.3.e Implement an O&M verification program for Group 1 July 15, 2003
O & M Projects with structural in-ground BMPs such as sand
filters, filter inlets, detentiord retention basins
Implement an O&M verification program for Group 1 October 15, 2003
Projects with landscape and all other BMPs, such as
vegetated swales, dry or wet ponds
Begin reporting on O&M verification program in Annual September 15,
Report 2003
* This implementation date is subject to submittal of an acceptable work~lan by March 1, 2002. If no acceptable
workplan is received, the implementation date shall be October 15, 2002.
~-1204787
Table 2:
C.3.f
Peak
Runoff
Limitation
Implementation Schedule, continued
Submit a detailed workplan and schedule
Submit literature review
Submit draft HMP
Submit final HMP for Regional Board approval
Implement HMP
C.3.g Report on any waiver(s) granted by the Discharger in
Waiver Annual Report, due September 15 of each year
C.3.j Submit workplan and schedule for completion of review,
Site revision, and implementation of design standards and
Design guidance
Submit draft proposal of revised standards and guidance September 15,
2003
Incorporate revisions into local process and fully September 15,
implement site design standards and guidance 2004
C.3.k Submit draft conditions of approval document for source September 15,
Source control measures 2002
Control Implement source control measures guidance document March 1, 2003
C.3.1
General
Plans
ConfnTn that any water quality and watershed protection
principles and policies necessary to implement measures
required by Provision C.3. for applicable development
projects have been incorporated into General Plan or
equivalent plan
Revise Environmental Review Processes as needed to
evaluate water quality impacts of stormwater runoff from
new development and significant redevelopment
March 1, 2002
Sept. 15, 2002
March 1, 2003
October 15, 2003
Following
Regional Board
approval
Begin the year a
waiver is granted
March 1, 2002
Next scheduled
update/revision to
occur after
October 15, 2004
March 1, 2003
C.3.n See Table 1 See Table 1
Reporting
21
~-1204787
ATTACHMENT C
NOTICE OF UPCOMING CHANGES TO CITY STORM
WATER REGULATIONS (Effective 10/15/03)
INFORMATION REGARDING NEW REQUIREMENTS FOR
STORM WATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (BMPs)
FOR LAND DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
The City of Palo Alto (as well as all other cities in the Santa Clara Valley) will
be adopting new storm water regulations that apply to land development projects
that create or replace one acre or more or of impervious surface.
Effective October 15, 2003, the regulations will apply to projects that create or
replace one acre or more or of impervious surface. Permit applications deemed
complete prior to October 15, 2003 will not be subject to the new regulations.
In order to protect water quality, the Regional Water Quality Control Board has
modified the NPDES permit regulating the discharge of storm water runoff to
local creeks by Santa Clara Valley municipalities. The new permit provisions
mandate that the municipalities develop and enforce regulations that require
owners/developers of applicable projects to install and maintain permanent storm
water quality protection measures in accordance with specific design criteria.
The Palo Alto Municipal Code will be amended to comply with the NPDES
permit requirements.
The primary requirements for owners/developers of applicable land development
projects include:
Inclusion of measures to protect storm water quality:
~ storm water treatment measures sized in accordance
Long-term maintenance of storm water
verification by the City
Within certain watersheds, limitations on
newly developed and redeveloped sites
with numeric
standards specified in the NPDES permit
Source control measures that prevent pollutants from contacting storm
water runoff
Site design measures that reduce storm runoff and isolate contaminated
runoff in order to minimize the need for storm water treatment
treatment measures, subject to
peak runoff and volume from
May 29, 2003
The following relevant resource materials are currently available at the City’s
Development Center (285 Hamilton Avenue):
Start at the Source - Design Guidance Manual for Storm Water Quality Protection
Planning YourLand Development Project - Designing for Storm Water Pollution
Prevention (a City of Palo Alto companion document to Start at the Source)
The attached fact sheet from the Regional Water Quality Control Board staff
A copy of the revised Santa Clara Valley Municipal NPDES storm water discharge
permit is available on the web at:
wwwoscvurppp-w2k.eom/pdfs/other/NPDES_Permit__C3New_Finalodrtransltropdf
Additional guidance materials and training will be provided for project developers and
designers by the City of Palo Alto and the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution
Prevention Program prior to the October 15, 2003 effective date of these new regulations.
Prospective building permit applicants whose projects will exceed the one acre threshold
should contact Public Works Engineering staff at (650) 329-2151 for more information.
May 29, 2003
Municipal Storm Water Permit Revisions
Impacts to Cities and New Development Projects
Congress created the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Program in 1970 as
part of the federal Clean Water Act, to help meet
the Act’s goal of making the nation’s waters
fishable, swimmable, and drinkable. In the 1970s,
NPDES did substantially reduce pollution from "big
pipe" dischargers, such as waste water treatment
plants, refineries, and large manufacturing plants.
However, the nation’s waters remained significantly
impaired by non-point source pollutants, including
urban storm water runoff, one of the most
significant remaining single sources of pollutant
loading to waters. As a result, in 1987, Congress
expanded the NPDES permit program to include
urban storm water runoff. In the Bay Area, each
large municipality is covered by a municipal
NPDES storm water permit that requires the
municipality to act to reduce pollutants to the
maximum extent practicable.
Examples of actions include stenciling storm drain
inlets with "No Dumping - Drains to Bay"
messages, street sweeping, and inspections of
industrial facilities. Federal law also recognizes
that new development and significant re-
development projects are significant sources of
pollutants. Existing municipal NPDES storm water
permit performance standards for new and re-
development projects are now being significantly
revised.
The following comprise the components of the
municipal storm water program.
Public Information and Participation
Industrial and Commercial Inspection.
Illicit Discharge Inspection.
Municipal Maintenance.
Monitoring
New Development
Unlike traditional NPDES permits, which have
numeric limits on the amounts of pollutants that can
be discharged (e.g., 5 parts per billion of lead),
municipal NPDES storm water permits require the
implementation of more qualitative Best Management
Practices, or BMPs. New and re-development BMPs
include source conti’ols, design measures, and
treatment controls to minimize the discharge of
pollutants to storm drain systems and creeks,
wetlands, and the Bay.
controls into projects and later to ensure
that treatment controls are maintained.
Increases in staff time to review plans and
inspect built treatment controls;
Changes in street, site design, and
drainage standards and guidance to reduce
runoff impacts;
Increases in stream restoration projects;
and,
Staff time to incorporate permit
requirements into a City’s General Plan,
CEQA review process, and development
project approval process.
New and redevelopment performance standards
require implementation of best management
practices (BMPs) --including incorporation of
treatment measuresmin new and redevelopment
projects during and after construction to minimize
pollutant discharges for the life of the project.
These standards are being significantly revised,
with the result that municipalities and municipal
staff must:
Become more knowledgeable about the
requirements;
Revise local approval processes to
incorporate controls into required projects;
Track and regularly inspect projects that
have incorporated controls, to ensure
controls are maintained; and,
Incorporate revised requirements into City
General Plans, CEQA review, and
development project approval processes.
Proposed permit revisions are summarized in
subsequent sections. Potential effects on
municipalities include:
Potential additional up-front costs to
developers and Cities to incorporate
Beginning October 15, 2003, new development and
significant redevelopment projects that create or
replace 1 acre or more of impervious surface are
covered by the revised standards. On January 15,
2005, this threshold falls to 10,000 square feet of
impervious surface.
The permit also allows Cities to propose their own
"small project" definition that could replace the
10,000 square foot standard, as long as the
proposal is comparably effective to the 10,000
square foot standard with respect to development
area and/or pollutant loading.
Covered new development projects include both
private development projects and public projects
such as streets, roads, and parking lots. Covered
significant redevelopment projects include major
reworking of existing sites, and can include
downtown redevelopment projects, but do not
include regular maintenance (e.g., roof
replacement, routine repaving, etc.) and interior
remodels.
Projects must incorporate source controls, design
measures, and treatment controls to minimize
storm water pollutant discharges. Treatment
controls must be sized to treat a specified
amount--about 85%---of average annual runoff. In
the Bay Area, this is typically less than the 1-inch
storm.
Where incorporating controls into a project is
clearly impracticable---for example, at highly
Exceptions, cont.
constrained downtown redevelopment sites---sites
are allowed to satisfy their obligation elsewhere by
implementing measures to provide an ’equivalent
water quality benefit.’ The permit allows Cities to
develop their own program to do this, subject to
approval of the Regional Board.
Alternately, projects may participate in regional
solutions--such as storm water wetlands that treat
runoff from a broad areamrather than providing
onsite treatment controls.
The revised permit requires source controls to.
prevent the discharge of pollutants from new
projects. Source controls have already been widely
implemented across the Bay Area. Examples
include:
Indoor mat/equipment wash racks;
Sanitary sewer drains for swimming pool
drains and covered areas of parking
structures;
and,
Covered trash enclosures, fueling bays,
and loading docks.
Listing properties with treatment controls;
Developing agreements with private entities
to maintain controls (e.g., incorporation into
CC&Rs or another legally enforceable
mechanism); and,
Periodic inspection of a subset of treatment
measures, with appropriate follow-up.
Urbanization creates impervious surfaces that
reduce the landscape’s natural ability to function as
a sponge. Instead of soaking in, storm water runs
off. These impervious surfaces increase peak
flows and runoff volumes in creeks, and can cause
creek erosion, threatening structures, increasing
flooding and desilting costs for flood control, and
impacting wildlife habitat. The permit requires that
Cities, through their Stormwater Programs, develop
a plan to minimize these impacts, for example by:
Designing projects to minimize changes to
runoff peak flows and volumes;
Doing downstream creek restoration in
advance of construction of impacting
projects, so that creeks can accommodate
increased flows; and/or,
Detaining flows on-site.
Under the permit, Cities review and, as appropriate,
revise local design standards to reduce potential
impacts. This could include revising standards to
reduce impervious surfaces, allow for certain types
of treatment controls that may be presently
prohibited, and reduce impacts to streams and
wetlands. Examples of site design measures
include:
Roof downspouts leading to splash blocks
or ’bubble-ups.’
Minimum-impact street design standards;
and,
Minimum-impact parking lot standards,
including use of landscaping as a storm
water drainage feature.
General Plans must be updated as a part of their
regularly scheduled review and update process to
appropriately incorporate water quality and
watershed protection principles, and to require
implementation of measures in the storm water
permit. Similarly, Cities’ CEQA and other
environmental review processes must be
appropriately updated to address impacts as
identified in the Permit.
As is presently the case, Cities must annually
report their compliance with performance standards
in the Permit to the Regional Board.
Treatment controls often do not work unless
periodically inspected and maintained. An O&M
verification program is required by the permit, and
includes:
Contact your local Stormwater Program, or San
Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control
Board staff at (510) 622-2300. This document was
prepared by S.F. Bay RWQCB staff.