Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.9 StormwaterPermitChange CITY CLERK File # 1030-20 AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 17, 2002 SUBJECT: Update on Pending Changes to the City's Stormwater permit Under the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program doni Pattillo, Assistant City Manager ATTACHMENTS: 1) Draft Letter to the Regional Water Quality Control Board 2) Letter from the League of California Cities to the State Water · Resources Control Board 3) Letter from the Alameda County City Managers Association to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) RECOMMENDATION:/~7 ^ 1) Review and Accept Staff RePort ~' ~d,~ 2) Authorize the Mayor to Sign the Letter to the Regional Board FINANCIAL STATEMENT: The financial impact of implementing the new requirements will i, largely be determined by how strictly the Regional Water Quality Board qualifies compliance with requirements of the new NPDES permit; however, costs are potentially significant for both developers and the City. The program is currently being funded from the City's General Fund. DESCRIPTION: Background In 1972, Congress responded to the public's growing concerns over water Pollution by passing the Clean Water Act (CWA). The goals of the CWA were to restore the biological, physical, and chemical integrity of the nation's water so that all waters would be suitable for fishing and swimming. Section 402 of the CWA established the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program, which set nationwide permitting requirements for discharging pollutants into waterways. The limits varied by category of industry and were based on a level of treatment that was achievable using the best available technology. The 1987 amendments to the CWA required that municipal stormwater dischargers obtain NPDES permit coverage. These amendments required individual municipalities to effectively prohibit non-stormwater discharges from entering jurisdictional storm drainage systems and to implement controls to reduce pollutants in stormwater to the maximum extent practicable. COPIES TO: ~ ITEM. NO. ~ H/cc-formsdagdastmt.doc NPDES Permit: The purpose of the NPDES permit is to reduce stormwater pollution entering into area creeks and the San Francisco Bay. Stormwater pollution is impacted by Industrial and Illicit Discharges and the presence of impervious surfaces, including roofs, sidewalks, driveways, streets and parking areas, which prevent stormwater from infiltrating the soil, thereby naturally filtering out pollutants. As a result of impervious surfaces, stormwater and the pollutants carded in it are concentrated in the storm drain system where area waterways may be negatively impacted. The Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP) is a consortium that was formed in 1991 by' a Memorandum of Agreement and Joint NPDES Permit, and is comprised of Alameda County and its 14 cities and the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (ACFCWCD) and Zone 7 of the ACFCWCD. The NPDES permit is granted to the ACCWP and is administered locally by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for the San Francisco Bay (Regional Board). The NPDES permit is renewed every five years. ACCWP has been actively working with the Regional Board on its third NPDES permit, which will be in effect from 2002 through August 2007. The City of Dublin complies with the NPDES requirements as part of the ACCWP. With each subsequent five-year period, the NPDES permit has increased in scope and specificity. The Regional Board has notified the ACCWP of its intent to impose more stringent requirements in the proposed new permit, with special emphasis being placed on new and redevelopment projects. The requirements being proposed are similar to those imposed on Santa Clara County in 2001 and are in the process of being imposed on San Mateo and Contra Costa Counties. The intent of the proposed new NPDES regulations is to reduce the negative impact of stormwater pollution by ensuring that all "applicable projects" creating or replacing impervious surface incorporate and Provide for the maintenance of structural stormwater detention and water quality treatment devices to the maximum extent practicable. Some of the other proposed requirements are: [] Public Education and Outreach on Stormwater Impact [] Public Involvement/Participation [] Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination [] Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control [] Post Construction Stormwater Management in New Development and Redevelopment [] Pollution Prevention/Good Housekeeping for Municipal Operations Impacts of the Proposed New NPDES Permit Requirements The most significant permit changes are in the areas of new development and redevelopment. Local agencies will be responsible for ensuring that all "applicable projects" incorporate and provide for the maintenance of water quality and quality control measures in accordance with the new requirements. "Applicable projects" include all public and private development, redevelopment, and capital improvement projects (including street and highway projects) resulting in the creation or replacement of 5,000 square feet of impervious surface. This is a major change from the current permit because the requirements will: 1) apply to redevelopment projects (rather than only new development) and include replacement of impervious surface; 2) specifically define the size of projects that must have stormwater treatment; 3) define specific numerical sizing requirements for the stormwater treatment measures (based upon volume or peak flows); 4) set limits on peak discharge rates, and 2 5) require that municipalities revise local design standards to ensure stormwater quality compliance. In order to comply with and implement the new regulations, local agencies will need to do the following: [] Incorporate structural and non-structural (i.e., Open Space) controls into all applicable projects, including road repairs. Projects will need to incorporate structural stormwater designs, such as detention ponds and other water quality treatment devices. [] Modify the project review process to incorporate new requirements into the project review, approval and implementation processes. [] Amend the General Plan and adopt ordinances to include water quality and watershed protection principles and policies and add new requirements into the municipal code (i.e., zoning, parking, street, drainage, etc.) [] Maintain structural controls on City projects throughout the life of the water quality treatment devices, including sediment and debris removal and vector control. [] Consider narrow roads and other "green measures" in order to prevent through better project designs the discharge of pollutants in runoff. [] Expand inspection and enforcement activities to ensure compliance with the new requirements. This would include developing an operation, maintenance and verification program to ensure that stormwater measures have been implemented on new and redevelopment projects and are being maintained. This would likely be incorporated into the industrial inspection program currently performed by the City of Dublin. Agencies would be required to carry out enforcement action on businesses and residents that failed to conduct maintenance of structural controls. [] Develop an alternative compliance program that will include identifying alternatives to on-site treatment requirements, with the possibility of including regional solutions. [] Increase data management and reporting. Agencies would need to compile and update the list of structural devices .within their jurisdiction and report on their maintenance verification program. [] Develop a Hydrograph Modification Management Plan, which is a modeling tool used to determine the amount of runoff generated from a proposed project and its impact on erosion downstream. A project applicant would need to demonstrate through the use of this model that peak discharge limits are not being exceeded. [] Allocate staff and funding for program development, plan review, inspection, enforcement and maintenance activities. NPDES Permit Adoption Process: In August 2001, the ACCWP submitted the 2002-2007 NPDES application to the Regional Board and received initial comments on the document in December 2001. The ACCWP was notified that the Regional Board intended to reissue the Alameda County Stormwater Permit to incorporate requirements similar to those adopted for Santa Clara County in 2001. Staff from the Regional Board, ACCWP staff and impacted jurisdictions have been meeting to discuss the new requirements since February 2002 and will continue to do so until the public hearings are held in September or October of this year. These discussions have focused on specific elements of the new 3 permit that the jurisdictions believe are not well defined, and attempts are being made to elicit clarification on what the Regional Board considers compliance. For example, a road repair project replacing more than 5,000 square feet of impervious surface would appear to require installation of a stormwater treatment measure. Compliance with this requirement could be expensive and problematic due to space constraints. In this case, Regional Board Staff has indicated to City Staff that the Regional Board is inclined to require treatment measures only if the road is being widened, but not if it is just being repaired. Initially, this distinction was not clear in the draft permit language. Public hearings by the Regional Board are statutorily required, and initial hearings are expected to be scheduled sometime in the latter part of Summer 2002. Regional Board staff is recommending that comments be provided to the Board before the public heatings to allow for adequate review and comment. The Regional Board will issue the new NPDES permit following the public hearings, with implementation scheduled for 18 to 36 months after issuance, depending upon the specific requirement. Status Update on Related NPDES Processes: The cities of San Jose and Milpitas and the Homebuilders Association of Northern California have appealed the permit to the State Water Resources Control Board, citing concerns about the impact of the Santa Clara County NPDES permit on redevelopment projects and other issues. This appeal is being held in abeyance pending resolution of some waiver provisions that Santa Clara County is seeking for redevelopment projects. The Regional Board has also reopened the current NPDES permits for San Mateo and Contra Costa Counties to incorporate the enhanced new and redevelopment requirements imposed upon Santa Clara County. The revised permits for San Mateo and Contra Costa Counties are expected to be adopted in 2002. In 1996, the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board issued an NPDES permit containing some of the new provisions to Los Angeles County and to the 85 incorporated cities within the County. The agencies appealed the permit to the State Water Resources Control Board (State Board), and a hearing was held in June 2000. The State Board upheld the requirements, with a few modifications. The County and cities responded by submitting a petition and Stay request to the State Board, and the California League of Cities submitted a policy statement in support of the Stay in March 2002. In that letter (Attachment #2), the League cited a number of concerns, including a lack of California Environmental Quality Assurance (CEQA) review in connection with the adoption of the subject Permit, and the legal and regulatory issues that were raised by the Petitioners, including the cost of permit implementation. The State Board has denied the Stay request. The Alameda County City Managers Association has sent a letter to the Regional Water Quality Board (Attachment #3) highlighting the Association's concerns about the proposed new permit and is encouraging affected cities to send letters as well. The existing NPDES permit was set to expire in February 2002, but will remain in effect until the new permit is issued. It is anticipated that the new permit is expected to be issued to the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP) in the latter part of Summer or early Fall 2002. 'Summary, and Recommendation Staff believes that the implementation of the new requirements will place a serious burden upon the City. It will be the City's responsibility to increase the level ofplanchecking to determine which projects 4 meet the criteria necessitating the incorporation of water quality maintenance measures. In addition to allocating funds, it may be necessary to hire additional Staff for plan review, inspections, enforcement and maintenance activities. Although the NPDES program is federally mandated, federal funds are not allocated to local jurisdictions for carrying out the program. Staff recommends that the City Council review and accept this report and authorize the Mayor to sign the letter to the Regional Board. 5 CITY OF DUBLIN 100 Civic Plaza, Dublin, California 94568 Website: http://www, ci.dublin.ca.us September 4, 2002 DRAFT Ms. Loretta Barsamain Executive Officer Regional Water Quality Control Board 1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400 Oakland, CA 94612 Subject: Proposed Provisions of the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program's Revised NPDES Permit Dear Ms. Barsamain: : On behalf of the City Council of the City of Dublin, the purpose of this letter is to state the City's concern regarding new requirements proposed for inclusion in the 2002-2007 NPDES permit. The City is aware that member jurisdictions of the Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program (ACCWP) have been discussing the permit language with the Regional Water Quality' Control Board, and that several important issues have been identified. Although several language revisions were suggested by the ACCWP to address these issues, it appears that many of the revisions have been denied. The City would like to convey its concern and understands that the Alameda County City Manager's Association has voiced some of these same concerns. The City requests that the following comments be considered by the Regional Board staff: .1) Delay until the next permit period the requirement to include projects 5,000 square-foot or more in size. Imposing this lower size limit will cause a hardship on single-family home projects, as well as development and redevelopment projects with smaller sites. The requirement will necessitate small engineered treatment systems that have not yet been perfected, such as wet vaults, storm drain inlet inserts, and swirl concentrators. 2) Pavement reconstruction should be included in the definition of routine maintenance Or repair of streets. It is suggested that provision C.3.c.i.3 be revised as follows: "Excluded from this categOry are interior remodels and routine maintenance or repair, including roof or exterior surface replacement and pavement resurfacing and reconstruction." The current NPDES permit's requirement for installing storm water treatment measures excludes routine maintenance of streets. The City feels strongly that pavement reconstruction should fall within the definition of routine maintenance. Reconstructing streets within existing street limits is considered maintenance, and incorporating effective stormwater treatment controls into existing storm drain systems is not possible. Area Code (925). o City Manager 833-6650 · City Council 833-6650 · Personnel 83,5 Finance 833-6640 · Public Works/Engineering 833-6630 · Parks & Community! Planning/COde Enforcement 833-6610, Building Inspection 833-6620. F Printed on Recycled Paper : August 6, 2002 Ms. Loretta Barsamain Page 2 of 3 3) Development and redevelopment projects that discharge completely to an existing engineered flood control system should be removed from the hydrograph modification management plan requirements. The City joins with the ACCWP in recommending that the following be added to provision C.3.f. iii.: "Information that the discharge will flow to the Bay totally within an existing engineered flood control system that was designed and constructed to accommodate runoff under full development scenarios is sufficient information that the HMP requirements are inapplicable." The Regional Board has not accepted this proposed language. The City would like to encourage the Regional Board to work with the ACCWP on discussing and incorporating mutually agreeable language into the permit. 4) In determining which projects should be included or excluded from proposed Provision C.3 requirements, the term "impervious surface" should be defined more clearly. To achieve this goal, the following language should be included in Finding 19: "The Permittees have encouraged developers to minimize increases in impervious surfaces through a number of techniques described in the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association's "Start at the Source Design Guidance Manual for Stormwater Quality Protection" (Start at the Source), 1999 edition. One of the techniques recommended by Start at the Source is to use permeable pavements to infiltrate stormwater while still providing a stable load-bearing surface. Fur purposes of this Order, the use of any of the permeable pavements as described in Start at the Source is considered to be pervious surfaces, and thus not count toward the creation or replacement of impervious surfaces. This additional language was not accepted as proposed by the ACCWP. The City believes that Regional Board staff and the ACCWP can successfully incorporate mutually agreeable language into the permit to resolve this issue. 5) Alternatives should be considered to the proposed Provisions C.3.b.ii and C.3.m.vi language that post- construction runoff of impairing pollutants, as listed under Clean Water Act Section 303(d), does not exceed pre-project levels. The City of Dublin is in agreement with the ACCWP's recommendation to change the following specific language: "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(3), and for which a TMDL has been established which provides _for implementation _for established load allocations, ensure that post project runoff is consistent with the established load allocations for such pollutant(s), through implementation of the control measures addressed in this provision, to the maximum extent practicable, in conformance with Provision C. 1." "Is the project tributary to an already impaired water body, as listed on the Clean Water Act Section 303(3) list and for which a TMDL has been established which provides _for implementation _for established load allocations? If so, will it ensure that post project runqf_f is consistent with the established load allocation for any pollutant for which the water body is already impaired?" August 7, 2002 Ms. Loretta Barsamain Page 3 of 3 Regional Board staff did not accept the language proposed by the ACCWP. However, the City feels it is important that this provision consider specific Total Maximum Daily Load limits. To this end, the Regional Board staff is requested to work with the ACCWP to incorporate mutually agreeable language into the permit. 6) Language should be incorporated into the permit to provide some assurance that the Regional Board and other state agencies will not impose further permitting requirements to hinder the maintenance of stormwater treatment and/or flow retention Best Management Practices (BMP) constructed to meet the permit's requirements. The City is concerned that the proposed permit's requirements are vulnerable to future, additional regulatory burdens being placed on the maintenance of constructed BMPs. The City Council would like to express appreciation for consideration of the comments and revisions made to the previous draft version of this proposed amendment to the NPDES permit. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Ms. Joni Pattillo, Assistant City Manager at (925) 833-6650. Sincerely, CITY OF DUBLIN Janet Lockhart Mayor JL/mb cc: City Council City Manager Assistant City Manager G:\CORRESWIayor~Itr rwqcb new p~rmit.doc League of California Cities 1400 K Street, Suite 400 ,, Sacramento, California 95814 Phone: (916) 658-8200 Fax: (9't6) 658-8240 www. cacities.org March 19, 2002 VIA FACSIMILE AND FIRST CLASS MAIL Mr. Arthur H. Baggett, Jr., Chair and Members of the State Water Resources Control Board 1001 "1" Street, 15th Floor Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Policy Statement in Support of Stay of Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board Order No. 01-182 for Municipal Storm Water and Urban Runoff Discharges Within Los Angeles County, Except for Long Beach (NPDES No. CAS 004001), SWRCB/OCC Files A- 1448(a)-(e) Dear Mr. Baggett: On behalf of the League of.California Cities, I would like 'to thank you for the opportunity to submit a policy statement in support of the Stay request submitted by the City of Los Angeles and the Cities of Arcadia et al. in connection with the subject Petitions. We support a stay for all parties to the permit, not for just those who petitioned for a stay. The League of California 'Cities is an association of representing the 477 cities working together to enhance their knowledge and skills, exchange information, and combine resources in order to address significant policy issues throughout the ' State. The issues that are identified in the Stay requests and Petitions involving the Los Angeles Regional Water Quality Control Board NPDES Permit for municipal storm water and urban runoff discharges raise significant statewide issues. They have serious implications for pending and new municipal storm water permits throughout the state issued by other regional boards. It is because of the very serious potential statewide impacts beyond the LA County permit that the League supports the Stay request and believes a Stay is in the best interest of both water quality, the State and California cities. We understand that the subject NPDES Permit (and others throughout the State) include terms that can be interpreted as expanding the authority and .jurisdiction of the regional boards into local land use regulation, an area that has long been considered one of local concern and one that is within the exclusive purview of cities and county. As you can appreciate, the League and cities throughout the state have serious concerns about the potential implications of such issues on cities and their land use and other home rule authority. For example, we understand that in the Los Angeles County Permit, the regional board is attempting to require that the Permittees modify their existing CEQA procedures for purposes of reviewing proposed development projects within their respective jurisdictions in a way that not only conflicts with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, but also in a fashion that would infringe upon the local land use authority of the municipalities. Similarly, in the Los Angeles County NPDES Permit and others in the State, we understand permittees are being required to amend and revise their General Plans to include certain requirements on watershed and 3 storm water quality and quantity management. Again, these issues involving General Plans are local land use issues that are within the clear jurisdiction and authority of local governments, and absent any specific statutory authority from the legislature or Congress, are not within the regulatory authority of regional boards. The League is similarly concerned with what we understand to be the lack of CEQA review in connection with the adoption of the subject Permit. The League also is troubled with what we understand to be the expansion of the maximum extent practicable standard required under the federal Clean Water Act to a point where municipalities would be held responsible, through enforcement actions and third party citizen lawsuits, for any exceedances in urban runoff, including the existence of trash in our water ways. We have serious concerns about the legal and regulatory implications of such an expansion and about the basis upon which it is made, not only for the LA County permit, but for other municipal storm water permits elsewhere in the state, as proposed by other regional boards. Finally, we understand that the petitioners have raised a number of other important legal and regulatory issues, including the cost of permit implementation, which could have a profound impact on cities and which should be discussed and hopefully resolved during the requested Stay. The League applauds the State Board's efforts in attempting to address California's water quality problems. However, the League requests that the Board do so by considering the totality of these issues throughout the State, as opposed to only within the LA County permit. Similar issues and potential permit conditions have been 4 raised elsewhere in southern, central, and northern California, where regional boards have in places incorporated, verbatim, language from the LA County permit, even though the environmental issues are much different in these diverse regions. We would contend that, as in many other environmental issues, a one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate, except perhaps in the context of a general permit. If the Board intends to use the LA County permit as a "template" for Other regional board permits, then the Stay request should be granted until a workable permit is adopted with which all parties can agree. We note that the State Board recently consolidated two petitions filed by the Western States Petroleum Association with respect to the application of permits to retail gasoline outlets (RGOs). The League believes a Stay for the LA county permit is appropriate because of the significant legal and policy issues raised by the petitioners and because of the impact of the LA permit on other municipal storm water permits being developed. A Stay of the provisions of the NPDES Permit that is before you should be granted for all padies to the permit, not to just those parties that petitioned for the stay. We request that the Permit be stayed until such time as a properly crafted and legally appropriate permit can be developed. Requiring compliance with a defective permit which could become the basis for similar permits issued by other regional boards that appears to infringe on local land use authority, that violates the requirements of CEQA, and that imposes undue and unnecessary liability and responsibility on municipalities, in conflict with requirements of the Clean Water Act, would result in substantial harm to the public and municipalities throughout the State, with no perceived benefit to the public.' For these reasons, the League of California Cities respectfully requests that the board grant the Stay requested by the petitioners and that the Stay apply to all parties to the permit. We thank you for the opportunity to present our views in support of the request. Sincerely, Yvonne Hunter Legislative Representative c: Members, State Water Resources Control Board Celeste Cantu, Executive Officer Betsy Jennings, Senior Staff Counsel, SWRCB Mayors and City Managers, Petitioners SWRCBLAPermitAppealFinal.doc Deborah Acosta ALA ED COUNTY CITY MANAGERS McKeehan,.Chair Pleasanton ..... SSOCI'TIO Susan Muranishi, June 5, 2002 Alameda County Karen Smith Alameda County Ms. Loretta Barsamain Waste Management Executive Officer "i~'~ Authority Regional Water Quali~ Co'~l Board 1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400 ~'~=,.~.~:.~. ..... Eugene Leong Oakland, CA 94612 ~sociation of Bay Area Governments RE: Comments on the Proposed C.3 Provisions of the Alameda CoUntywide James Flint Clean Water Program's Revised NPDES Permit Alameda Dear Ms. Barsamian: Beth Pollard Albany The Alameda County City Managers Association is comprised of the Ci~ Weldon Rucker Manager's from the 14 cities in Alameda Coun~ and our Coun~ Chief Berkeley Administrative Officer. Our association has met several times in the last few months to discuss the revised countywide NPDES Permit. We have a number Richard Ambrose Dublin of concerns with the draft permit, and we request that you consider the following comments and suggestions. John Flores Eme~ville Eliminate extension of requirements to 5,000 square foot projects. Jan Perkins Fremont We understand that extending the requirements to projects as small as 5,000 square foot may be eliminated. If they are not, we request that the requirement Jesus Armas to extend storm water treatment from one-acre projects down to 5,000 square Hayward foot projects be held in abeyance during the next fiv~year permit period for the Linda Ba~on following reasons. Livermore 1. Pollution prevention and source control measures should be the main Al Huezo methods for minimizing the potential release of pollutants from smaller Newark sized projects. It is mo. re practicable and dependable to rely on these Robe~ Bobb types of BMPs for site activities that a~ually generate pollutants. The Oakland proposed permit amendment's Provision "k. SourCe Control Measure ~ Guidance Document" addresses these ~pes of controls, and this is an Geoffrey Grote area where municipal storm water programs have already made Piedmont significant progress. John Jermanis San Leandro 2. There is currently a lack of good storm water treatment methods that are suitable for smaller sized projects. Most of ~he a~ention of BASM~ and David Berger .the Regional Board staff has been focused over the last several years on Union City Wes McClure Loretta Barsamian june 5, 2002 Page 2 development sites where there is room for the Start at the Source types of landscape-based storm water treatment BMPs. Smaller sites will need to rely on small, engineered treatment systems that currently need improvement, such as storm drain inlet inserts, swirl concentrators and wet vaults. An evaluation concluded that, at bes(, these devices could be expected to treat storm water for gross solids and coarse particles. 3. It would make more sense to collaborate with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District and Air Resources Board on finding better ways to control the s. ources of air emissions that eventually become storm water pollutants. Working on better controls of air emissions would also benefit storm water runoff from properties that are not involved in new development or significant redevelopment. Air pollutant emission control technology is improving. There may be other types of air emission sources that new technology is becoming available that would help both air and storm water pollution. The burden of managing legally created and deposited airborne pollutants should not be placed on storm water programs but prevented at the source through federal product reformulation requirements. 4. Extending the time to make a decision on whether to include the smaller development projects in the requirements for storm water treatment allows time to study how these requirements fit in with the TMDLs that the Regional Board staff is currently developing, and what other altern~atives are available that may produce a similar or better result. Make the language for what constitutes significant redevelopment less restrictive and remove. redevelopment projects from being subject to limitations on peak storm water runoff flow and runoff, vol umes. The new proposed language for what constitutes significant redevelopment states: "This category is defined as land-disturbing activity, in a project category that meets the size requirements set forth in C.3.c.i.1 or 2. above, that results in the creation or addition or replacement of 5,000 ft2 of impervious Surface on such an already developed site" (C. 3.c.3). For the same types of reasons described above, we believe that it makes sense not to require storm water treatment BMPs at smaller redevelopment sites where the options for treatment are very limited and the benefits of doing so have been inadequately evaluated. Significant redevelopment projects would also be subject to potential limitations on the peak storm water runoff flow and volume that a project could discharge if it was judged to have more than a minimal potential for erosion of creek channel or other impacts to beneficial uses or in situations where there are pl~ans to restore a creek reach (C.3.f.i.). While'the proposed amendment offers that the requirement may not apply to "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 Loretta Barsamian June 5, 2004 Page 3 in highly developed watersheds..." the proposed amendment also states that it will be assumed that these requirements will apply unless there is information proving that there will not be "increased potential for erosion or other adverse impacts to beneficial uses." We recommend that all redevelopment projects be excluded from the requirement to control peak storm water runoff flow and volumes because there are few options for detaining or retaining storm water on redevelopment sites; existing engineered flood control channels have been designed and constructed 'to accommodate runoff under full. development scenarios; creeks in redevelopment areas have already adjusted to the increases in flows associated with historic urbanization; and redevelol~ment is an important smart growth option that should be encouraged. Clarify what constitutes routine maintenance or repair for streets. Most cities routinely perform preventive maintenance on the surface of streets, such as resurfacing with slurry seals or asphalt overlays, and on a less frequent basis, through extensive street reconstruction. The latter typically involves the excavation of an existing street to or below the original subgrade and the rebuilding of the structural section of the street. The ACCWP staff requested clarification from the Regional Board's staff, Dale Bowyer and Myriam Zech, that such routine repair and preventive maintenance of streets is excluded from the preliminary administrative draft NPDES permit's requirement for installing storm water treatment best management practices. The Regional Board staff agreed that the exclusion for routine maintenance or repair for streets includes not only surface repaving, but also work to reconstruct the Streets' structural section. On this basis, we request that the wording of this section (Provision C.3.c.i.3) be modified by adding the following underlined words. "Excluded from this category are interior remodels and routine maintenance or repair, including roof or exterior surface replacement'and repaying and pavement resurfacing and reconstruction." We appreciate your consideration of our comments and the changes you made to the previous draft version of this proposed amendment. We hope that we can continue to work with you to make productive amendments to the regulations so that they can be more practical for those who must be regulated and those who must regulate. Sincerely, Deborah Acosta McKeehan Pleasanton City Manager Chair, Alameda Cot~nty City Managers Association (tq\npdes.doc:dam:6/5/02)