Contra Costa Clean Water Program

Transcription

1 Contra Costa Clean Water Program Site Design Measures Guidance and Standards Development Draft Review and Analysis of Local Standards and Guidance November 15, 2004 Submitted to the California Regional Water Quality Control Boards for the San Francisco Bay and Central Valley Regions in compliance with NPDES Permit Provision C.3.j

2

3 November 15, 2004 Bruce H. Wolfe, Executive Officer California Regional Water Quality Control Board San Francisco Bay Region 1515 Clay Street, Suite 1400 Oakland, CA Mr. Thomas R. Pinkos, Executive Officer California Regional Water Quality Control Board Central Valley Region Sun Center Drive #200 Rancho Cordova, CA Re: Provision C.3.j (Site Design Measures Guidance and Standards Development) Dear Messrs. Wolfe and Pinkos: Provision C.3.j of Order R states in part: The Dischargers shall review their local design standards and guidance for opportunities 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. Provision C.3.j lists nine areas of site design as examples of design standards and guidance that might be changed. The Provision includes the following schedule: August 15, 2003: Submit a detailed workplan and schedule for review of the standards and guidelines, any proposed revisions thereto, and any implementation of revised standards and guidance. November 15, 2004: Submit a draft review and analysis of local standards and guidance, opportunities for revision, and any proposed revised standards and guidance.

4 Mr. Bruce Wolfe Mr. Thomas Pinkos November 15, 2004 Page 2 of 4 November 15, 2005: Incorporate any revised standards and guidance into local approval processes and fully implement the revised standards and guidance. This letter and attachments constitute the Co-Permittees draft review and analysis of local standards and guidance. Review Process In July 2003, the Management Committee approved a Site Design Standards and Guidelines Work Plan (Work Plan), which called on the Program to prepare a suggested checklist of site design elements, and for municipalities to use that checklist to internally review their local site design standards. The Work Plan also called on the Program to compile references and examples of site design standards and guidelines. In September 2003, Program staff distributed two checklists: A Code and Ordinance Worksheet developed by the Center for Watershed Protection. A Policy, Code, and Ordinance Worksheet used by the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program as part of their Development Policies Comparison Project (which pre-dated the C.3 Provisions). In December 2003, Program staff distributed An Annotated Bibliography of Resources for C.3 Compliance. The bibliography, which is available on the Program's website at listed several publications that include site design guidance. Since the C.3.j Work Plan was submitted in August 2003, the following significant changes have taken place: At the C.3 Planning and Permitting Work Group s recommendation, the Program drafted a Stormwater C.3 Guidebook, which all Co-permittees will use to guide applicants to design their projects in compliance with the C.3 provisions. The Legal Work Group developed a revised model stormwater ordinance. The updated ordinance references the Stormwater C.3 Guidebook and gives force to its requirements.

5 Mr. Bruce Wolfe Mr. Thomas Pinkos November 15, 2004 Page 3 of 4 In June 2004, Program staff developed and distributed a questionnaire to survey municipalities plans for C.3 implementation. Questions 11 and 12 asked whether the specific instructions for site design and design of treatment BMPs conflicted with existing standards or policies. Eleven municipalities responded. The responses indicate that municipalities either found no conflicts or have acknowledged the conflicts and are revising policies as needed. The Planning and Permitting Work Group noted that municipalities generally have considerable flexibility to require new or changed designs through discretionary review, even without a general revision of standards. To facilitate preparation of this submittal, Program staff distributed to Co-Permittees a partially completed table (Attachment 1). The table lists the example areas of site design from Provision C.3.j and the corresponding standards included in the draft Stormwater C.3 Guidebook. Co-Permittees were asked to note related existing local standards and note any plans to revise the standards. Co-permittees were also asked to prepare a brief narrative elaborating on their plans to revise local policies, design guidance, and standards (if any revisions are planned). This format illustrates the close correspondence between the Guidebook standards, the example areas the Water Board specified in Provision C.3.j, and the Co-permittees ongoing revisions to local standards and guidance. Changes to Local Site Design Measures Guidance and Standards The following 14 municipalities submitted tables and/or narratives in time to be included in this report (Attachment 2): City of Antioch, City of Brentwood, City of Concord, Contra Costa County, Town of Danville, City of Lafayette, Town of Moraga, City of Orinda, City of Pittsburg, City of Pleasant Hill, City of Richmond, City of San Pablo, City of San Ramon, and City of Walnut Creek. Tables and/or narratives from the following six municipalities will be included in a followup submittal: City of Clayton, City of El Cerrito, City of Hercules, City of Martinez, City of Oakley, and City of Pinole. Reviewing the submitted tables and narratives, the following are apparent:

6 Mr. Bruce Wolfe Mr. Thomas Pinkos November 15, 2004 Page 4 of 4 Contra Costa municipalities have conducted a thorough and detailed review of local design standards and guidance and identified opportunities to make revisions that would result in reduced impacts to water quality and beneficial uses of waters. To conduct the review process, local stormwater coordinators engaged local staff broadly (across departments) and deeply (up and down ranks in each organization). Planned revisions include adoption of an updated stormwater ordinance and the Stormwater C.3 Guidebook, revision of existing local standards to resolve conflicts with the Guidebook, and additional revisions to standards, beyond those covered in the Guidebook, which will reduce imperviousness and protect natural resources on development sites. Municipal planners and engineers have noted the need for iterative review and consideration of local standards and guidance as developers and municipalities gain more experience with implementation of C.3. Summary and Next Steps This submittal fulfills Provision C.3.j.ii.2., which requires the Co-permittees to submit, by November 15, 2004, a draft review and analysis of local standards and guidance, opportunities for revision, and any proposed revised standards and guidance. The Program s next Annual Report, due on September 15, 2005, will summarize the Co-permittees progress in making the planned revisions. Should you have any questions regarding this report, please contact Tom Dalziel at (925) Sincerely, DPF:td cc. C. Boschen, SFBRWQCB C. Palisoc, CVRWQCB Donald P. Freitas Program Manager

7 No. Water Board Example Standards in C.3.j Page Standards Municipalities will adopt with Stormwater C.3 Guidebook Related Existing Local Standards (Cite Title or Code Section) Standard to be Revised? 1 Minimize land disturbance 23 Conform the site layout along natural landforms, avoid excessive grading and disturbance of vegetation and soils, and replicate the site s natural drainage patterns. 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., neotraditional 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, use of landscaping as a stormwater drainage feature, use of pervious pavements, and parking maxima 23 For all types of development, limit overall coverage of pavement and roofs. 23 Consider narrower streets and sidewalks in the context of overall design to limit imperviousness. 23 smaller parking lots (fewer stalls, smaller stalls, and more efficient lanes), and indoor or underground parking. 5 Clustering of structures and pavement 23 Concentrate development on portions of the site with less permeable soils and preserve areas that can promote infiltration. (Planning and Permitting Work Group concluded that using the word clustering would be confusing since cluster is also used to refer to a particular type of development.) Attachment 1: Reporting Form

8 No. Water Board Example Standards in C.3.j Page Standards Municipalities will adopt with Stormwater C.3 Guidebook Related Existing Local Standards (Cite Title or Code Section) Standard to be Revised? 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) Microdetention, including landscape detention and use of cisterns (may also be considered treatment measures) 24 Direct runoff from impervious areas to adjacent pervious areas or depressed landscape areas. Select permeable pavements and surface treatments Use drainage as a design element. Use above-ground drainage swales, depressed landscape areas, vegetated buffers, and bioretention areas as amenities Guidebook Chapter 5 details a method to quantify the benefits of these practices and use them to comply with Provision C.3.c. 7 Preservation of high-quality open space 23 Define development envelope and protected areas, identifying areas that are most suitable for development and areas that should be protected 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 (may also be considered treatment measures) 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 (may also be considered treatment measures). These measures would typically be considered as part of CEQA review for a project that could potentially have an impact on streams or riparian areas. Guidebook Chapter 4 discusses the relationship between C.3 and CEQA. 25 To be addressed in detail in the Hydrograph Modification Management Plan (HMP). The HMP is designed to require consideration of measures to minimize changes in volume, flow rate, timing, and duration of runoff at all sites subject to C.3. Attachment 1: Reporting Form

9 City of Antioch

10

11 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT P.O. Box 5007, Antioch, CA November 1, 2004 Tom Dalziel Senior Watershed Management Planning Specialist Contra Costa Clean Water Program 255 Glacier Drive, Martinez, CA RE: DESIGN STANDARDS REVIEW Dear Tom, The City of Antioch Community Development Department has reviewed the Antioch Zoning Ordinance and development standard policies for potential conflicts with the intent of the amendment of NPDES Permit Provision C.3.j (C-3). The attached document contains the proposed changes/additions to the code sections identified. The City is currently in the process of updating our Zoning Ordinance and expects the initial draft of the revised zoning document to go before the Planning Commission and City Council early in 2005, with the expectation that the new Zoning Code will be adopted and in effect well in advance of the November 15, 2005 date for implementing revised standards as identified by Provision C-3.j. The changes related to C-3 guidelines identified by staff, as well as the Stormwater Management and Discharge Control model ordinance shall be included the initial draft. As a part of the overall update, the City s current off street parking requirements will be compared to those recommended by the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE), with City requirements reduced where appropriate. In addition to the proposed code revisions, the City policy requiring paved parking areas has been expanded to allow uses with significant variations between normal parking demand and seasonal peak demand to propose an overflow parking concept, in instances where it can be demonstrated that such a design will help achieve C-3 stormwater management goals. Under this policy pervious areas (i.e. parking grove or grasscrete overflow lot) in the site design, which would be opened temporarily in response to seasonal peaks of parking demand could be incorporated into the development. Building Services Phone (925) Fax (925) Planning Services Phone (925) Fax (925) Capital Improvement Phone (925) Fax (925) Neighborhood Improvement Phone (925) Fax (925) Land Development/Engineering Phone (925) Fax (925)

12 As the C-3 guidelines are developed, and as the City and developers become more familiar with the processing of applications under the C-3 guidelines, the City will be watchful for other opportunities to revise to our codes and policies to encourage and enable achievement of C-3 goals. If you have any questions, please contact me at (925) , or via at Sincerely, FRANK ALBRO Associate Planner ATTACHMENT Page 2 of 2

13 CITY OF ANTIOCH November 9, 2004 No Water Board Example Standards in C.3.j Page Standards Municipalities will adopt with Stormwater C.3 Guidebook Related Existing Local Standards (Cite Title or Code Section) Standard to be Revised? 1 Minimize land disturbance 23 Conform the site layout along natural landforms, avoid excessive grading and disturbance of vegetation and soils, and replicate the site s natural drainage patterns. Development of sites as suggested may be achieved under Zoning Ordinance ARTICLE 23: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT and ARTICLE 24: HILLSIDE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO, except for reference to HMP and Stormwater Management and Discharge Control ordinance requirements Page 1 of 5

14 CITY OF ANTIOCH November 9, 2004 No Water Board Example Standards in C.3.j Page Standards Municipalities will adopt with Stormwater C.3 Guidebook Related Existing Local Standards (Cite Title or Code Section) Standard to be Revised? 2 Minimize impervious surfaces (e.g., roadway width, driveway area, and parking lot area), especially directly connected impervious areas 23 For all types of development, limit overall coverage of pavement and roofs. The revision of the City Code to include the Stormwater Management and Discharge Control ordinance will place additional emphasis on the reduction of such areas. No code sections specifically in conflict with reducing impervious areas. Please see #4 and # SHOPPING CART STORAGE. Current Code implies cart storage is to be located as a specified area in the parking field. Require the primary shopping cart storage shall be in designated areas on the site plan, or on the floor plans where the area is internal to the building PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING; DESIGN STANDARDS. (E) No more than 10 consecutive parking spaces should be allowed in any row of parking without a tree well or tree well finger parking lot landscape island extending from a landscape strip. (F) The minimum dimension of the parking lot landscape islands shall match the dimension of the adjacent parking stalls, including curb or edging widths. ((I) That the design and location of the parking lot landscape areas shall be consistent with the storm water control plan. (J) That the parking lot landscape areas be excavated to a depth of XXX feet to ensure the health of the plant material, and to aid in achieving a mature parking lot tree canopy. Modify the Code as noted Page 2 of 5

15 CITY OF ANTIOCH November 9, 2004 No Water Board Example Standards in C.3.j Page Standards Municipalities will adopt with Stormwater C.3 Guidebook Related Existing Local Standards (Cite Title or Code Section) Standard to be Revised? 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) 23 Consider narrower streets and sidewalks in the context of overall design to limit imperviousness. ARTICLE 23: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT and ARTICLE 24: HILLSIDE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT allow for applicants to propose modified street dimensions. No Specific sections identified for revision. 4 Minimum-impact parking lot design standards, including parking space maximization within a given area, use of landscaping as a stormwater drainage feature, use of pervious pavements, and parking maxima 23 smaller parking lots (fewer stalls, smaller stalls, and more efficient lanes), and indoor or underground parking ADDITIONAL DESIGN STANDARDS. (B) Surface water shall be controlled in conformance with the storm water control plan prior to being discharged to natural or engineered off-site drainage facilities and may not drain off or across public or private sidewalks, pedestrian walkways, or areas not designed as drainage facilities. (D) All weather surfacing is required for all off-street parking, loading, storage, sales, rental or service areas for vehicles (e.g. service stations, used car lots). Parking areas open to public use must be paved. Other areas but may have alternate all-weather and/or pervious surfacing consistent with an approved Storm Water Control Plan, and as permitted by the City Engineer. Yes, As Noted OFF-STREEET PARKING REQUIREMENTS BY USE. Compare off street parking requirements to those recommended by the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE), with City requirements reduced where appropriate. Off Street Parking code review will be conducted as a part of the Zoning Ordinance Update. Page 3 of 5

16 CITY OF ANTIOCH November 9, 2004 No Water Board Example Standards in C.3.j Page Standards Municipalities will adopt with Stormwater C.3 Guidebook Related Existing Local Standards (Cite Title or Code Section) Standard to be Revised? 5 Clustering of structures and pavement 23 Concentrate development on portions of the site with less permeable soils and preserve areas that can promote infiltration. (Planning and Permitting Work Group concluded that using the word clustering would be confusing since cluster is also used to refer to a particular type of development.) Current Site Development Standards and Code requirements to not impede the design of sites as suggested. Geotechnical studies are required for the majority of development projects No Specific sections identified for revision. 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) Microdetention, including landscape detention and use of cisterns (may also be considered treatment measures) 24 Direct runoff from impervious areas to adjacent pervious areas or depressed landscape areas. Select permeable pavements and surface treatments Use drainage as a design element. Use aboveground drainage swales, depressed landscape areas, vegetated buffers, and bioretention areas as amenities Guidebook Chapter 5 details a method to quantify the benefits of these practices and use them to comply with Provision C.3.c. Expand City policy requiring paved parking areas to allow pervious overflow parking, in instances where it can be demonstrated that such a design will help achieve C-3 stormwater management goals. Please also see #4. Alternate Driveway Standards and detention methods may be proposed as a part of a development application PARKING AREA SCREENING. Current Code allows for parking area screening with either landscaping or berms. Revise City Policy. No code sections specifically in conflict with these concepts were identified. Modify the Code to allow for the possibility of stormwater basins within openspce adjacent to parking. 7 Preservation of high-quality open space 23 Define development envelope and protected areas, identifying areas that are most suitable for development and areas that should be protected ARTICLE 23: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT and ARTICLE 24: HILLSIDE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NO, except for reference to HMP and Stormwater Management and Discharge Control ordinance requirements Page 4 of 5

17 CITY OF ANTIOCH November 9, 2004 No Water Board Example Standards in C.3.j Page Standards Municipalities will adopt with Stormwater C.3 Guidebook Related Existing Local Standards (Cite Title or Code Section) Standard to be Revised? 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 (may also be considered treatment measures) These measures would typically be considered as part of CEQA review for a project that could potentially have an impact on streams or riparian areas. Guidebook Chapter 4 discusses the relationship between C.3 and CEQA. Both ARTICLE 23: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT and ARTICLE 24: HILLSIDE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT enable development applications to include such riparian/wetland areas as amenities. The revision of the City Code to include the Stormwater Management and Discharge Control ordinance will place additional emphasis on such areas. No code sections specifically in conflict with these concepts were identified. The City of Antioch Creek Development Policy (Resolution 92/237) encourage the treatment of such areas as amenities. The Creek Development Policy will be revised and updated to reflect HMP and Stormwater Management and Discharge Control ordinance requirements. 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 (may also be considered treatment measures). 25 To be addressed in detail in the Hydrograph Modification Management Plan (HMP). The HMP is designed to require consideration of measures to minimize changes in volume, flow rate, timing, and duration of runoff at all sites subject to C.3. Development projects shall submit a HMP in conformance the Stormwater Management and Discharge Control ordinance. No code sections specifically in conflict with these concepts were identified. The Stormwater Management and Discharge Control model ordinance shall be included as a part of the Zoning Ordinance Update. Page 5 of 5

18

19 City of Antioch Provision C.3.j. Code and Standards Review November 1, 2004 Additions to Code Sections are indicated by bold text, deletions are indicated by strike-out text SECTIONS IDENTIFIED FOR REVISION REQUIRED LANDSCAPE PLANS. (A) Landscape plans shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect, or equally qualified professional. The Zoning Administrator, Planning Commission, and/or Design Review Board may require as a project specific condition that final landscape plans be prepared by a licensed landscape architect. All landscape plans shall be drawn to scale and be consistent with architectural and civil engineering site plans, and storm water control plan for the proposed site. (C) Final landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted concurrently with architectural, structural, and civil engineering, and storm water control plans when a building permit is requested. No building permit shall be issued for any project governed by the requirements of this section, until final landscape and irrigation plans have been reviewed and approved by staff REQUIRED STORMWATER CONTROL PLANS. (A) Stormwater Control Plans shall be prepared by an engineer, or equally qualified professional as determined by the City Engineer. The City Engineer may require that the Stormwater Control Plan be prepared by a licensed civil engineer. All architectural, civil engineering, and landscape site plans shall be consistent with the storm water control plan GENERAL DESIGN STANDARDS. (1) Plant materials shall be selected for drought tolerance; adaptability and relationship to city environment; color, form and pattern; ability to provide shade; soil retention; fire resistance, and the like. The overall landscape plan shall be integrated with all elements of the project, such as buildings, parking lots and streets, and the storm water control plan, to achieve desirable micro-climate and minimize energy demand. Plant materials and landscape design shall be consistent with the city's water conservation guidelines. (3) The use of crushed rock or gravel for large area coverage shall be avoided (except for walks and equestrian paths, or as a functional part of a storm water control plan). Page 1 of 3

20 ARTICLE 14: REFUSE STORAGE AREA DESIGN GUIDELINES REFUSE STORAGE AREA DESIGN GUIDELINES. Refuse enclosures shall incorporate a roof. Upon the determination of City staff the enclosure may be required to drain to a sanitary sewer and shall incorporate berms at front gate and at pedestrian access point to hold refuse runoff within the enclosure and prevent stormwater from entering the enclosure. ARTICLE 17: PARKING REQUIREMENTS OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS BY USE SHOPPING CART STORAGE. For commercial uses which utilize shopping carts for customer convenience, the site plan shall designate appropriate areas for temporary storage of shopping cart storage in the parking lot. Storage areas in the parking lot shall not decrease the required vehicle parking spaces, remove required landscaping or impede the flow of traffic. Primary shopping cart storage areas shall be designated on the site plan, or on the floor plans where the area is internal to the building PARKING AREA SCREENING. A parking area for five or more cars shall be screened from an adjoining residential property or a ground-floor residential use by a solid decorative concrete or masonry wall six feet in height, however the height of a wall adjoining a required residential front yard shall be three feet. Parking areas shall be screened from adjacent streets with a solid decorative concrete or masonry wall, berming and/or landscaping having a minimum height of three feet above the adjacent grade of the parking area PARKING LOT LANDSCAPING; DESIGN STANDARDS. (A) Parking lots for non-residential uses shall have minimum interior perimeter planting areas of 10 feet width adjacent to a residential district and five feet adjacent to other districts. (B) A parking lot in any district having parking adjoining a street shall have a frontage planting area reflecting the setback of the street. (C) All other landscaped areas shall be a minimum of five feet in width. (D) The end of each row of parking stalls shall be separated from driveways by a landscaped planter, sidewalk, or other means. (E) No more than 10 consecutive parking spaces should be allowed in any row of parking without a tree well or tree well finger parking lot landscape island extending from a landscape strip. Page 2 of 3

21 (F) The minimum dimension of the parking lot landscape islands shall match the dimension of the adjacent parking stalls, including curb or edging widths. (F G) Where standard spaces are adjacent and perpendicular to landscaping, the required planting area shall be increased two feet in depth by decreasing the length of the parking stall by two feet. Where autos will overhang into both sides of an interior landscaped strip or well, the minimum curb-to-curb interior planter dimension shall be six feet. Compact spaces are not eligible for this provision. (I) That the design and location of the parking lot landscape areas shall be consistent with the storm water control plan. (J) That the parking lot landscape areas be excavated to a depth of XXX feet to ensure the health of the plant material, and to aid in achieving a mature parking lot tree canopy ADDITIONAL DESIGN STANDARDS. (A) A parking area may not be used for the vehicle sales, renting, leasing, storage, repair work, dismantling, or outdoor open sales displays. Exceptions may be granted for special outdoor events by the Zoning Administrator. (B) Surface water shall be controlled in conformance with the storm water control plan prior to being discharged to natural or engineered off-site drainage facilities and may not drain off or across public or private sidewalks, pedestrian walkways, or areas not designed as drainage facilities. (D) All weather surfacing is required for all off-street parking, loading, storage, sales, rental or service areas for vehicles (e.g. service stations, used car lots). Parking areas open to public use must be paved. Other areas but may have alternate all-weather and/or pervious surfacing consistent with an approved Storm Water Control Plan, and as permitted by the City Engineer. Add references to the C-3 Stormwater control plan for submittal requirements in ARTICLE 23: PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT and ARTICLE 24: HILLSIDE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT Add definitions to ARTICLE 2: DEFINITIONS for terms introduced by the new CHAPTER 9. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND DISCHARGE CONTROL, when that revised chapter is approved by the City Council. Page 3 of 3

22

23 City of Brentwood

24 No. Water Board Example Standards in C.3.j Page Standards Municipalities will adopt with Stormwater C.3 Guidebook Related Existing Local Standards (Cite Title or Code Section) Standard to be Revised? 1 Minimize land disturbance 23 Conform the site layout along natural landforms, avoid excessive grading and disturbance of vegetation and soils, and replicate the site s natural drainage patterns. 1. General Plan Community Design Element Goal 2, Policy 2.1, which guides development planning to preserve ridgelines and hillsides, including revegetation of graded slopes with indigenous plant materials; and Policy 2.2, which seeks to preserve agricultural lands adjacent to urban development with buffers, landscape corridors and perimeter open space. 2. Engineering Design Standards Article 5. Storm Drainage; (A) General; Paragraph 3 The diversion of natural drainage will be allowed only within the limits of a proposed improvement. All natural drainage must leave the improved area at its original horizontal and vertical alignment unless a special agreement, approved by the City Engineer, has been executed with adjoining property owners. Additional drainage runoff resulting from the improved area shall not be allowed to drain onto, or cause to be ponded on, adjacent properties. Existing drainage patterns on adjacent properties shall be maintained 3. Policy of the Land Use Element pg. II Policies 8.1 and 8.3 of the Conservation / Open Space Element pg. IV NO

25 No. Water Board Example Standards in C.3.j Page Standards Municipalities will adopt with Stormwater C.3 Guidebook Related Existing Local Standards (Cite Title or Code Section) Standard to be Revised? 2 Minimize impervious surfaces (e.g., roadway width, driveway area, and parking lot area), especially directly connected impervious areas 23 For all types of development, limit overall coverage of pavement and roofs. 1. New development standard conditions of approval limit the building footprint to a maximum of 40% of the space within a subdivision parcel lot. 2. Engineering Design Standards Article 4. Street Design; (C) Appurtenances; (1) Driveways Residential Driveways shall be of the same width as the garage doors, not more than forty percent (40%) of the lot frontage of any parcel shall be devoted to driveways and a minimum of twenty feet (20 ) of clear distance per lot frontage is required for on-street parking. 3. Municipal Code Landscape Standards 4. Policy 2.3 of the Community Design Element on pg. II 3-6. NO 3 Minimum-impact street design standards for new development and redevelopment, including typical specifications (e.g., neotraditional street design standards and/or street standards recently revised in other cities, including Portland, Oregon, and Vancouver, British Columbia) 23 Consider narrower streets and sidewalks in the context of overall design to limit imperviousness. 1. Policies 1.4, and of Community Design Element on pgs. II 3-4 and Policy 3.3 of the Community Design Element (pg. II 3-7) and the Rural Byway roadway category within the Circulation Element. 3. Policy of the Conservation/Open Space Element on pg. IV 1-9. NO 4 Minimum-impact parking lot design standards, including parking space maximization within a given area, use of landscaping as a stormwater drainage feature, use of pervious pavements, and parking maxima 23 smaller parking lots (fewer stalls, smaller stalls, and more efficient lanes), and indoor or underground parking. 1. Use of turf block to protect trees within or near parking lots (e.g Albertson s Shopping Center). NO

26 No. Water Board Example Standards in C.3.j Page Standards Municipalities will adopt with Stormwater C.3 Guidebook Related Existing Local Standards (Cite Title or Code Section) Standard to be Revised? 5 Clustering of structures and pavement 23 Concentrate development on portions of the site with less permeable soils and preserve areas that can promote infiltration. (Planning and Permitting Work Group concluded that using the word clustering would be confusing since cluster is also used to refer to a particular type of development.) 1. Policy 8.1 and of the Conservation/Open Space Element pg. IV 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) Microdetention, including landscape detention and use of cisterns (may also be considered treatment measures) 24 Direct runoff from impervious areas to adjacent pervious areas or depressed landscape areas. Select permeable pavements and surface treatments Use drainage as a design element. Use above-ground drainage swales, depressed landscape areas, vegetated buffers, and bioretention areas as amenities Guidebook Chapter 5 details a method to quantify the benefits of these practices and use them to comply with Provision C.3.c. 1. In planning the largest single development project in the City of Brentwood adjoining Marsh Creek, the Natural Heritage Institute is assisting the developer to optimize the site layout by incorporating restoration in the watershed. Conceptual designs include setting aside 5 acres along the creek with a foot buffer for a linear park. Drainage from the subdivision is being envisioned to drain into a bioretention basin and surface area percolation directly into the vegetated watershed buffer to improve runoff water quality. 2. Policy 8.4 of the Conservation/Open Space Element pg. IV NO 7 Preservation of high-quality open space 23 Define development envelope and protected areas, identifying areas that are most suitable for development and areas that should be protected 1. Parks, Trails and Recreation Master Plan, Section 6.2 Goal 2, Preservation of Open Space, Objective 2.1, which encourages the establishment of an edge to the developed area of the city to act as a buffer, recreational amenity, and trail connector to outlying regional trail systems. This edge should be in the form of a linear park and/or greenway and serve as a view enhancement, ecological resource and reminder of Brentwood s continuing history as a part of California s agrarian culture. This objective will be accomplished in compliance with the General Plan. 2. Policy 7.2 of the Conservation/Open Space Element on pg. IV NO

27 No. Water Board Example Standards in C.3.j Page Standards Municipalities will adopt with Stormwater C.3 Guidebook Related Existing Local Standards (Cite Title or Code Section) Standard to be Revised? 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 (may also be considered treatment measures) These measures would typically be considered as part of CEQA review for a project that could potentially have an impact on streams or riparian areas. Guidebook Chapter 4 discusses the relationship between C.3 and CEQA. 1. In planning the largest single development project in the City of Brentwood adjoining Marsh Creek, the Natural Heritage Institute is assisting the developer to optimize the site layout by incorporating restoration in the watershed. Conceptual designs include setting aside 5 acres along the creek with a foot buffer for a linear park. Drainage from the subdivision is being envisioned to drain into a bioretention basin and surface area percolation directly into the vegetated watershed buffer to improve runoff water quality. 2. Policy 7.2 and 7.3 of the Conservation/Open Space Element on pg. IV Policy of the Growth Management Element on pg. II NO

28 No. Water Board Example Standards in C.3.j Page Standards Municipalities will adopt with Stormwater C.3 Guidebook Related Existing Local Standards (Cite Title or Code Section) Standard to be Revised? 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 (may also be considered treatment measures). 25 To be addressed in detail in the Hydrograph Modification Management Plan (HMP). The HMP is designed to require consideration of measures to minimize changes in volume, flow rate, timing, and duration of runoff at all sites subject to C Engineering Design Standards Article 5. Storm Drainage; (A) General; Paragraph 4 All storm drainage facilities shall include provisions for ultimate future upstream development and no development shall discharge at a rate which exceeds the capacity of any portion of the existing downstream system. Calculations for storm drain design within a development as well as calculations for runoff generated by upstream areas within the contributing watershed shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval. These calculations are to be based upon the ultimate watershed development 2. Policy of Growth Management Element. 3. Policy of the Community Facilities Element on pg. III Policy 8.4 of Conservation/Open Space Element on pg. IV. 1-9 Zoning setback requirements that provide urbanized open space to absorb precipitation and limit runoff. See also City s Urban Forest Guidelines. NO Summary The City of Brentwood adopted Ordinance No. 670 in June 2001, which adds Chapter to the Municipal Code addressing Stormwater System Management and Discharge Control. The 10,000 square foot threshold of impervious area to be mandated by August 2006 has already been covered by our existing ordinance. Chapter of the Municipal Code, Reduction of pollutants in stormwater, Section (b) Standard for parking lots, paved area, and related stormwater systems, reads: Persons owning, operating, or maintaining a paved parking lot, the paved areas of a gas station or a paved private street or road shall install and maintain the related stormwater conveyance systems and appurtenances on an ongoing basis. Maintenance efforts under this subsection shall be performed without runoff or disposal into the city's storm drain system. Construction of new or reconstructed, private paved areas covering five thousand or more square feet shall incorporate permanent stormwater treatment facilities to the satisfaction of the city engineer. While Ordinance No. 670 is consistent with the intent of Provision C.3, the City plans to adopt a new ordinance, consistent with the County model by amending Chapter to specifically identify Provision C.3 and to include sections relating to the requirements for a Stormwater Control Plan and Compliance Certificates for Stormwater Management Facilities.

29 City of Concord

30 No. Water Board Example Standards in C.3.j Page Standards Municipalities will adopt with Stormwater C.3 Guidebook Related Existing Local Standards (Cite Title or Code Section) Standard to be Revised? 1 Minimize land disturbance 23 Conform the site layout along natural landforms, avoid excessive grading and disturbance of vegetation and soils, and replicate the site s natural drainage patterns. Prevent erosion and sediment during grading by following Best Management Practices (Concord Municipal Code paragraph 86-71) Hillside development will conform to natural landforms (Concord Municipal Code Chapter 122, article VI) No 2 Minimize impervious surfaces (e.g., roadway width, driveway area, and parking lot area), especially directly connected impervious areas 23 For all types of development, limit overall coverage of pavement and roofs. 3 Minimum-impact street design standards for new development and redevelopment, including typical specifications (e.g., neotraditional street design standards and/or street standards recently revised in other cities, including Portland, Oregon, and Vancouver, British Columbia) 23 Consider narrower streets and sidewalks in the context of overall design to limit imperviousness. Public street width, typically 36, can be reduced to as little as 28 depending on the circumstances (Concord Municipal Code Chapter 94) No 4 Minimum-impact parking lot design standards, including parking space maximization within a given area, use of landscaping as a stormwater drainage feature, use of pervious pavements, and parking maxima 23 smaller parking lots (fewer stalls, smaller stalls, and more efficient lanes), and indoor or underground parking. 5 Clustering of structures and pavement 23 Concentrate development on portions of the site with less permeable soils and preserve areas that can promote infiltration. (Planning and Permitting Work Group concluded that using the word clustering would be confusing since cluster is also used to refer to a particular type of development.) Open space and clustered development (Concord Municipal Code, Sec (c)(5)) Planned unit development (Concord Municipal Code, Sec ) No

31 No. Water Board Example Standards in C.3.j Page Standards Municipalities will adopt with Stormwater C.3 Guidebook Related Existing Local Standards (Cite Title or Code Section) Standard to be Revised? 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) Microdetention, including landscape detention and use of cisterns (may also be considered treatment measures) 24 Direct runoff from impervious areas to adjacent pervious areas or depressed landscape areas. Select permeable pavements and surface treatments Use drainage as a design element. Use above-ground drainage swales, depressed landscape areas, vegetated buffers, and bioretention areas as amenities Guidebook Chapter 5 details a method to quantify the benefits of these practices and use them to comply with Provision C.3.c. 7 Preservation of high-quality open space 23 Define development envelope and protected areas, identifying areas that are most suitable for development and areas that should be protected Permanent open space designation and management (Concord Municipal Code, Sec ) No 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 (may also be considered treatment measures) 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 (may also be considered treatment measures). These measures would typically be considered as part of CEQA review for a project that could potentially have an impact on streams or riparian areas. Guidebook Chapter 4 discusses the relationship between C.3 and CEQA. 25 To be addressed in detail in the Hydrograph Modification Management Plan (HMP). The HMP is designed to require consideration of measures to minimize changes in volume, flow rate, timing, and duration of runoff at all sites subject to C.3.

32

33 Contra Costa County

34

35 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT 255 GLACIER DRIVE, MARTINEZ, CALIFORNIA DATE: November 4, 2004 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: FILE: Tom Dalziel, Senior Watershed Management Planning Specialist, Contra Costa Clean Water Program Rich Lierly, Senior Civil Engineer, County Watershed Program County Status of compliance with Provision C.3.j. - SITE DESIGN MEASURES GUIDANCE AND STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT , New Development and Construction As discussed the County is currently working with several departments and divisions reviewing existing standards, policies, codes and Ordinances to see if there are areas that need to be revised to facilitate the implementation and enforcement of the C.3 provisions. Some of the major departments and or divisions involved in this effort and areas that we are considering making revisions to include: Building Inspection Department, Title 7, Building Regulations: Do conflicts exist between our current Building Ordinance and C.3? Are there opportunities to incorporated stormwater quality components into our existing building standards? Community Development Department (current planning), Title 8, Zoning Ordinance: Chapter 82-16, Off-Street Parking: modification of our parking ordinance to decrease the area of impervious surface where feasible. Chapter 82-26, Water Conservation Landscaping in New Developments: consider modification of the drought tolerant plant limits to also require a percentage of native plant drought tolerant plants. Also consider requiring moisture sensors, drip irrigation and ample irrigation zones where appropriate. Chapter 82-30, Dual Water Systems: consider further promotion of dual water systems utilizing captured untreated surface waters for irrigation. Chapter 82-32, Transportation Demand Management: consider further promotion of transportation demand management efforts to emphasize alternative modes of transportation and further reduce the need for wider roads and to lessen required parking where feasible. Modifications to allow drainage to be conveyed to landscaped areas. Decrease the percentage of lot coverage by structures in some zoning districts. Modifications to allow more planned unit development concepts based on clustering of development.

36 Public Works Department (Engineering Services, Transportation Engineering and Design Divisions) Title 9, Subdivision Ordinance and PWD standard plans and street X-sections: Require hydro modification plan analysis and adequate mitigation of additional erosion potential. Chapter 96-8, Sidewalks and Paths: modify the requirement for Portland cement concrete sidewalks to decrease sidewalk installation in certain zoning districts. Chapter 96-12, Curbs and Gutters: modify the requirement for curb and gutter to decrease installation of curb and gutter in certain zoning districts. Chapter 98-4, Width: modification of road standards to allow narrower roads, grassy swales and unpaved shoulders where appropriate. Chapter 914-8, Conduits: consider elimination of the requirement to channelize flows or place flows in closed conduits, for drainage facilities conveying less than 80 cubic feet per second. Chapter , Detention Basins: modify our detention basin requirements to allow sizes less than 15 acre-feet of storage capacity. Require perpetual maintenance of improvements. Flood Control and Water Conservation District, Title 10, Encroachment Ordinance: Chapter , Road Dedication and Improvement: consider a reduction in roadway width standards and consider using inverted medians that accept roadway drainage and treat it. Chapter , Permits: require compliance with the new C.3 provisions of our NPDES Permit. Chapter , Application: modify the Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance to reflect the new C.3 provisions of our NPDES Permit. Various County Departments and Divisions, Modification of Standards and Policies Modify standard plans to further minimize the area of impervious surface and to emphasize stormwater quality mitigation, i.e. grassy swales, detention and infiltration facilities. Modify general notes for improvement plans to emphasize stormwater quality mitigation. Modify standard conditions of approval to consider stormwater quality mitigation. Modify maintenance policies for stormwater quality mitigation measures to provide for perpetual maintenance of stormwater quality mitigation measures. Community Development Department (advanced planning) Modify the County General Plan: Modify the County General Plan to address stormwater quality impacts and to reflect the above stormwater quality mitigation measures. Each of these efforts is a work in progress. During the next few months we hope to determine which of these standards, policies and Ordinances may need to be revised and then revise them. But we must be careful that we do not make changes that might promote the efforts of water quality but at 2

37 the same time may jeopardize the public s health and safety or expose the County to unnecessary liability. Since many of the C.3 requirements are new and in some cases are contrary to our traditional way of doing business we also hope to be working with and learning from the Development Community to determine what might be the best way to support the goals of C.3. Also as you are aware the County has been working with the Contra Costa Clean Water Program to develop the C.3 Guidebook. We plan on utilizing this guidebook to a large extent and believe that by adopting this guidebook in our new Ordinance we will also be meeting many of the goals as spelled out in provision C.3j. SJW:rcl G:\GrpData\FldCtl\NPDES\C3\Status Rept\ C.3j cc: G. Connaughton, Assistant Public Works Director, Flood Control S. Wright, County Watershed Program 3

38

39 Town of Danville

40 No. Water Board Example Standards in C.3.j Page Standards Municipalities will adopt with Stormwater C.3 Guidebook Related Existing Local Standards (Cite Title or Code Section) Standard to be Revised? 1 Minimize land disturbance 23 Conform the site layout along natural landforms, avoid excessive grading and disturbance of vegetation and soils, and replicate the site s natural drainage patterns. Danville General Plan, Scenic Hillside / Major Ridgeline Ordinance and Design Guidelines, grading ordinance and drainage ordinance Unnecess ary 2 Minimize impervious surfaces (e.g., roadway width, driveway area, and parking lot area), especially directly connected impervious areas 23 For all types of development, limit overall coverage of pavement and roofs. Minimizing impervious surfaces will be accomplished by applying the new Stormwater C.3 Guidebook to all new discretionary projects per the Regional Water Quality Control Boards C.3 requirements. See the next section for examples of additional reduction in impervious area. Unnecess ary at this time the Town s Enabling authority is the newly adopted Stormwate r Ordinance 3 Minimum-impact street design standards for new development and redevelopment, including typical specifications (e.g., neotraditional street design standards and/or street standards recently revised in other cities, including Portland, Oregon, and Vancouver, British Columbia) 23 Consider narrower streets and sidewalks in the context of overall design to limit imperviousness. The Town already has reduced standard street widths. Most of our subdivision paved street widths that include parking on both sides is 36 feet, which is less than standard width. Frequently parking is only on one side. In this situation, the standard is further reduced to 30 feet in width. Any further reduction in impervious surfaces will be accomplished by applying the new Stormwater C.3 Guidebook to all new discretionary projects per the Regional Water Quality Control Boards C.3 requirements. Unnecess ary at this time the Town s Enabling authority is the newly adopted Stormwate r Ordinance 4 Minimum-impact parking lot design standards, including parking space maximization within a given area, use of landscaping as a stormwater drainage feature, use of pervious pavements, and parking maxima 23 smaller parking lots (fewer stalls, smaller stalls, and more efficient lanes), and indoor or underground parking. The Town s Downtown Ordinance requires shared parking and compact stalls in the downtown area. Underground, tandem and off-site parking is an option as well. Most development proposals do not provide an excess of parking in Danville due to high land costs. Any further reduction in these standards will be accomplished by applying the new Stormwater C.3 Guidebook to all new discretionary projects per the Regional Water Quality Control Boards C.3 requirements Unnecess ary at this time the Town s Enabling authority is the newly adopted Stormwate r Ordinance

41 No. Water Board Example Standards in C.3.j Page Standards Municipalities will adopt with Stormwater C.3 Guidebook Related Existing Local Standards (Cite Title or Code Section) Standard to be Revised? 5 Clustering of structures and pavement 23 Concentrate development on portions of the site with less permeable soils and preserve areas that can promote infiltration. (Planning and Permitting Work Group concluded that using the word clustering would be confusing since cluster is also used to refer to a particular type of development.) The Town utilizes Planned Unit Development (PUD) zoning in order to apply land planning flexibility when reviewing larger development projects. In addition, the concentrated development approach is contained in the Town s General Plan for the Tassajara Valley area. Further enhancement of these existing standards will be accomplished by applying the new Stormwater C.3 Guidebook to all new discretionary projects per the Regional Water Quality Control Boards C.3 requirements. Unnecess ary at this time the Town s Enabling authority is the newly adopted Stormwate r Ordinance 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) Microdetention, including landscape detention and use of cisterns (may also be considered treatment measures) 24 Direct runoff from impervious areas to adjacent pervious areas or depressed landscape areas. Select permeable pavements and surface treatments Use drainage as a design element. Use above-ground drainage swales, depressed landscape areas, vegetated buffers, and bioretention areas as amenities Guidebook Chapter 5 details a method to quantify the benefits of these practices and use them to comply with Provision C.3.c. The Town s Downtown Ordinance requires a minimum of 10% landscaping for all projects and porous pavement is an option that can be utilized for pedestrian areas as well as remote parking areas. A maximum of 30% compact parking stalls are allowed for all new development projects. The new Stormwater C.3 Guidebook will also be utilized for all new discretionary projects per the Regional Water Quality Control Board s C.3 requirements; specifically Chapter 5 where it details a method to quantify the benefits of these practices and use them to comply with Provision C.3.c. Unnecess ary at this time the Town s Enabling authority is the newly adopted Stormwate r Ordinance 7 Preservation of high-quality open space 23 Define development envelope and protected areas, identifying areas that are most suitable for development and areas that should be protected The Town s General Plan preserves over 27% of the Town as open space and another 12.6% as agricultural/rural and 11% is in country estates. The Town s Scenic Hillside and Major Ridgeline Ordinance also protects major hillside areas from over development by restricting all pad sites to be at least 100 feet below the major ridgeline. No action needed

42 No. Water Board Example Standards in C.3.j Page Standards Municipalities will adopt with Stormwater C.3 Guidebook Related Existing Local Standards (Cite Title or Code Section) Standard to be Revised? 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 (may also be considered treatment measures) These measures would typically be considered as part of CEQA review for a project that could potentially have an impact on streams or riparian areas. Guidebook Chapter 4 discusses the relationship between C.3 and CEQA. One of the Town General Plan major components addresses Environmental Quality. Specifically, Goal 18 and 19 of the General Plan, including policies through address environmental protection. Also the Town is currently undergoing review and updating of the Town s Parks, Recreation and Arts Strategic Plan in which preservation of riparian corridors is a high priority. CEQA is also applied to all discretionary projects in Danville. Unnecess ary, updated language may be needed to update the Parks, Recreation and Arts Strategic Plan. 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 (may also be considered treatment measures). 25 To be addressed in detail in the Hydrograph Modification Management Plan (HMP). The HMP is designed to require consideration of measures to minimize changes in volume, flow rate, timing, and duration of runoff at all sites subject to C.3. Further enhancement of these standards will be accomplished through implementation of the new Stormwater C.3 Guidebook for all discretionary projects. The Town s Enabling authority to implement the C.3 Guidebook is the newly adopted Stormwate r Ordinance

43 City of Lafayette

44 City of Lafayette Compliance with Provision C.3.j No. Water Board Example Standards in C.3.j Page Standards Municipalities will adopt with Stormwater C.3 Guidebook Related Existing Local Standards (Cite Title or Code Section) Standard to be Revised? 1 Minimize land disturbance 23 Conform the site layout along natural landforms, avoid excessive grading and disturbance of vegetation and soils, and replicate the site s natural drainage patterns. Residential Design Review Guidelines. Chapter 6-20 Hillside Development, Lafayette Municipal Code (LMC). Chapter 3-7 Grading, LMC. Drainage Plan Guidelines. General Plan programs OS and S None. 2 Minimize impervious surfaces (e.g., roadway width, driveway area, and parking lot area), especially directly connected impervious areas 23 For all types of development, limit overall coverage of pavement and roofs. Pervious materials encouraged in site planning or as standard condition of approval. Discretionary review triggers and thresholds are low so most development projects receive site planning review and have conditions of approval to minimize impacts on stormwater quality and volumes. General Plan goal OS-6. None. 3 Minimum-impact street design standards for new development and redevelopment, including typical specifications (e.g., neotraditional street design standards and/or street standards recently revised in other cities, including Portland, Oregon, and Vancouver, British Columbia) 23 Consider narrower streets and sidewalks in the context of overall design to limit imperviousness. Lafayette does not construct new public roads. All new streets are private. The minimum pavement width is 18 feet. None. 4 Minimum-impact parking lot design standards, including parking space maximization within a given area, use of landscaping as a stormwater drainage feature, use of pervious pavements, and parking maxima 23 smaller parking lots (fewer stalls, smaller stalls, and more efficient lanes), and indoor or underground parking. Stall size is 8.5 x 18 ; shared parking is promoted; commercial parking ratio is 4/1,000; single-family residential ratio is 2/residence; perimeter landscaping of parking lots is required; 5-10% of parking lot interior is to be landscaped. Chapter 6-6 Off-street Parking, LMC. Parking garages are encouraged due to land/space limitations in the city. Pervious materials encouraged in site planning or as standard condition of approval. None.

45 No. Water Board Example Standards in C.3.j Page Standards Municipalities will adopt with Stormwater C.3 Guidebook Related Existing Local Standards (Cite Title or Code Section) Standard to be Revised? 5 Clustering of structures and pavement 23 Concentrate development on portions of the site with less permeable soils and preserve areas that can promote infiltration. (Planning and Permitting Work Group concluded that using the word clustering would be confusing since cluster is also used to refer to a particular type of development.) Chapter 6-20 Hillside Development, LMC, promotes clustering of development. None. 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) Microdetention, including landscape detention and use of cisterns (may also be considered treatment measures) 24 Direct runoff from impervious areas to adjacent pervious areas or depressed landscape areas. Select permeable pavements and surface treatments Use drainage as a design element. Use above-ground drainage swales, depressed landscape areas, vegetated buffers, and bioretention areas as amenities Guidebook Chapter 5 details a method to quantify the benefits of these practices and use them to comply with Provision C.3.c. Pervious materials are encouraged in site planning or as standard conditions of approval. Discretionary review triggers and thresholds are low so most development projects receive site planning review and have conditions of approval to minimize impacts on stormwater quality and volumes. There are no City standards or specifications that conflict with our ability to incorporate or encourage site design measures that reduce water quality impacts. City engineer reviews development plans for appropriate drainage design; discharge to vegetated areas is encouraged/required. Drainage Plan Guidelines. None. 7 Preservation of high-quality open space 23 Define development envelope and protected areas, identifying areas that are most suitable for development and areas that should be protected Chapter 6-20 Hillside Development, LMC. Residential Design Guidelines. General Plan goal OS-1. None. 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 (may also be considered treatment measures) These measures would typically be considered as part of CEQA review for a project that could potentially have an impact on streams or riparian areas. Guidebook Chapter 4 discusses the relationship between C.3 and CEQA. Environmental Checklist/CEQA review Section Creek Setback Requirements, LMC. Chapter 6-17 Tree Protection, LMC. Chapter 3-7 Grading, LMC. General Plan policy OS-4.1 and program OS None.

46 No. Water Board Example Standards in C.3.j Page Standards Municipalities will adopt with Stormwater C.3 Guidebook Related Existing Local Standards (Cite Title or Code Section) Standard to be Revised? 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 (may also be considered treatment measures). 25 To be addressed in detail in the Hydrograph Modification Management Plan (HMP). The HMP is designed to require consideration of measures to minimize changes in volume, flow rate, timing, and duration of runoff at all sites subject to C.3. City engineer reviews development plans for appropriate drainage design; discharge to vegetated areas and use of dissipaters are encouraged/required. Drainage Plan Guidelines. General Plan programs OS-5.1.1, S-3.1.1, S-3.1.2, and S None.

47 Town of Moraga

48 No. Water Board Example Standards in C.3.j Page Standards Municipalities will adopt with Stormwater C.3 Guidebook Related Existing Local Standards (Cite Title or Code Section) Standard to be Revised? 1 Minimize land disturbance 23 Conform the site layout along natural landforms, avoid excessive grading and disturbance of vegetation and soils, and replicate the site s natural drainage patterns. General Plan Policy CD 1.5 Design Guidelines II Site Planning #1 Design Guidelines II Grading, Drainage and Erosion Control # 5 Design Guidelines III, Additional Guidelines, Residential #16 No No No No 2 Minimize impervious surfaces (e.g., roadway width, driveway area, and parking lot area), especially directly connected impervious areas 23 For all types of development, limit overall coverage of pavement and roofs. Moraga Municipal Code (MMC) Ch 8.76, Off Street Parking MMC Ch 8.32, Multifamily Residential District MMC Ch 8.36, Community Commercial District MMC Ch 8.40 Limited Office District MMC Ch 8.44, Suburban Office District Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 3 Minimum-impact street design standards for new development and redevelopment, including typical specifications (e.g., neotraditional street design standards and/or street standards recently revised in other cities, including Portland, Oregon, and Vancouver, British Columbia) 23 Consider narrower streets and sidewalks in the context of overall design to limit imperviousness. General Plan Policy c 1.1 Standard Plans and Specifications No Yes 4 Minimum-impact parking lot design standards, including parking space maximization within a given area, use of landscaping as a stormwater drainage feature, use of pervious pavements, and parking maxima 23 smaller parking lots (fewer stalls, smaller stalls, and more efficient lanes), and indoor or underground parking. MMC Ch 8.76, Off Street parking Yes 5 Clustering of structures and pavement 23 Concentrate development on portions of the site with less permeable soils and preserve areas that can promote infiltration. (Planning and Permitting Work Group concluded that using the word clustering would be confusing since cluster is also used to refer to a particular type of development.) MMC Ch 8.48, Planned development District General Plan Policy LU 1.6 Yes Yes

49 No. Water Board Example Standards in C.3.j Page Standards Municipalities will adopt with Stormwater C.3 Guidebook Related Existing Local Standards (Cite Title or Code Section) Standard to be Revised? 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) Microdetention, including landscape detention and use of cisterns (may also be considered treatment measures) 24 Direct runoff from impervious areas to adjacent pervious areas or depressed landscape areas. Select permeable pavements and surface treatments Use drainage as a design element. Use above-ground drainage swales, depressed landscape areas, vegetated buffers, and bioretention areas as amenities Guidebook Chapter 5 details a method to quantify the benefits of these practices and use them to comply with Provision C.3.c. Design Guidelines II, Building Design #15 Design Guidelines III Residential Development # 8, 9, and 17 General Plan Policy PS 5.6 General Plan Poilcy CD 1.2 Design Guidelines II, Scenic Corridors, #1 Design Guidelines III Additional Guidelines, Residential #17 Design Guidelines IV Additional Guidelines Non- Residential, Landscaping #1 Yes Yes No No Yes Yes Yes 7 Preservation of high-quality open space 23 Define development envelope and protected areas, identifying areas that are most suitable for development and areas that should be protected MMC Ch 8.52 Moraga Open Space Ordinance General Plan Policy CD 1.1 No No 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 (may also be considered treatment measures) These measures would typically be considered as part of CEQA review for a project that could potentially have an impact on streams or riparian areas. Guidebook Chapter 4 discusses the relationship between C.3 and CEQA. General Plan Policy PS 5.5 General Plan Policy PS 5.1 General Plan Policy OS 3.5 General Plan Policy PS 5.4 No No No No 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 (may also be considered treatment measures). 25 To be addressed in detail in the Hydrograph Modification Management Plan (HMP). The HMP is designed to require consideration of measures to minimize changes in volume, flow rate, timing, and duration of runoff at all sites subject to C.3. General Plan Policy OS 3.6 No

50

51 City of Orinda

52 No. Water Board Example Standards in C.3.j Page Standards Municipalities will adopt with Stormwater C.3 Guidebook Related Existing Local Standards (Cite Title or Code Section) Standard to be Revised? 1 Minimize land disturbance 23 Conform the site layout along natural landforms, avoid excessive grading and disturbance of vegetation and soils, and replicate the site s natural drainage patterns. Section General Design Review Standards; Section Special Design Review Standards (Hillside and Ridgeline Design Guidelines); North Orinda Specific Plan Design Standards; Section Tree Management; Section Landscaping; Section Setbacks for Creeks, Streams and Watercourses; Section Unimproved Water Course Setbacks; Section 17.5 Ridgeline and Environmental Preservation Overlay District; Section Minimize grading and retain trees and other vegetation; Section Slope Limitations; Section Open Space; Section Drainage; Reduction of Pollutants in Stormwater; Section Special Flood Hazards; Section Grading; Section 16 Subdivisions; Section Planned Development District; Section Specific Plan District Yes 2 Minimize impervious surfaces (e.g., roadway width, driveway area, and parking lot area), especially directly connected impervious areas 23 For all types of development, limit overall coverage of pavement and roofs. Section Drainage Impact Fees; Section Special Design Review Standards (Hillside and Ridgeline Design Guidelines); North Orinda Specific Plan Design Standards; Section Landscaping; Yes 3 Minimum-impact street design standards for new development and redevelopment, including typical specifications (e.g., neotraditional 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, use of landscaping as a stormwater drainage feature, use of pervious pavements, and parking maxima 23 Consider narrower streets and sidewalks in the context of overall design to limit imperviousness. 23 smaller parking lots (fewer stalls, smaller stalls, and more efficient lanes), and indoor or underground parking Minimum Paving Requirements Yes Off-street parking and loading spaces required Yes 5 Clustering of structures and pavement 23 Concentrate development on portions of the site with less permeable soils and preserve areas that can promote infiltration. (Planning and Permitting Work Group concluded that using the word clustering would be confusing since cluster is also used to refer to a particular type of development.) Section Planned Development District Maybe

53 No. Water Board Example Standards in C.3.j Page Standards Municipalities will adopt with Stormwater C.3 Guidebook Related Existing Local Standards (Cite Title or Code Section) Standard to be Revised? 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) Microdetention, including landscape detention and use of cisterns (may also be considered treatment measures) 24 Direct runoff from impervious areas to adjacent pervious areas or depressed landscape areas. Select permeable pavements and surface treatments Use drainage as a design element. Use aboveground drainage swales, depressed landscape areas, vegetated buffers, and bioretention areas as amenities Guidebook Chapter 5 details a method to quantify the benefits of these practices and use them to comply with Provision C.3.c through Yes 7 Preservation of high-quality open space 23 Define development envelope and protected areas, identifying areas that are most suitable for development and areas that should be protected Open areas. A portion of every proposed residential development located on a parcel of land with an average slope of more than twenty-six (26) percent shall remain in its natural state as an undeveloped open area with no grading, tree or foliage removal, or structure or other development. Maybe 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 (may also be considered treatment measures) These measures would typically be considered as part of CEQA review for a project that could potentially have an impact on streams or riparian areas. Guidebook Chapter 4 discusses the relationship between C.3 and CEQA. Orinda General Plan 4.1 Creeks and Drainage. General Plan policies minimize negative impacts of increased runoff, erosion of slopes, accumulation of debris and pollution and sedimentation in creeks. Yes 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 (may also be considered treatment measures). 25 To be addressed in detail in the Hydrograph Modification Management Plan (HMP). The HMP is designed to require consideration of measures to minimize changes in volume, flow rate, timing, and duration of runoff at all sites subject to C.3. Will incorporate. Yes

54

55 City of Pittsburg

56 City of Pittsburg NPDES C.3 j Reporting/Compliance No. Water Board Example Standards in C.3.j Page Standards Municipalities will adopt with Stormwater C.3 Guidebook Related Existing Local Standards (Cite Title or Code Section) Standard to be Revised? 1 Minimize land disturbance 23 Conform the site layout along natural landforms, avoid excessive grading and disturbance of vegetation and soils, and replicate the site s natural drainage patterns. PMC section (B) Permit Required addresses this by stating: All land-disturbing or land-filling activities or soil storage shall be undertaken in a manner designed to minimize surface runoff, erosion and sedimentation. No PMC section (B) (Development standards for Hillside Planned Development Districts) Chapter 4 of the General Plan lays out policies and goals related to Hillside Development that coincide with minimizing land disturbance. No conflict. 2 Minimize impervious surfaces (e.g., roadway width, driveway area, and parking lot area), especially directly connected impervious areas 23 For all types of development, limit overall coverage of pavement and roofs. PMC Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance) limits lot coverage depending on zoning classification. Various sections applied. No conflict. No Page 1 of 5

57 City of Pittsburg NPDES C.3 j Reporting/Compliance No. Water Board Example Standards in C.3.j Page Standards Municipalities will adopt with Stormwater C.3 Guidebook Related Existing Local Standards (Cite Title or Code Section) Standard to be Revised? 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) 23 Consider narrower streets and sidewalks in the context of overall design to limit imperviousness. Engineering Department s Standard Details regulate adopted standards for City street widths. T-616 regulates hillside street widths and T-617 regulates normal street widths. See narrative 4 Minimum-impact parking lot design standards, including parking space maximization within a given area, use of landscaping as a stormwater drainage feature, use of pervious pavements, and parking maxima 23 smaller parking lots (fewer stalls, smaller stalls, and more efficient lanes), and indoor or underground parking. PMC chapter (Off-street parking regulations). PMC section (Landscape Ordinance). Interim Zoning Ordinance (Ord. No ) allows reductions to parking requirements in the downtown. See narrative See narrative for more discussion. Page 2 of 5

58 City of Pittsburg NPDES C.3 j Reporting/Compliance No. Water Board Example Standards in C.3.j Page Standards Municipalities will adopt with Stormwater C.3 Guidebook Related Existing Local Standards (Cite Title or Code Section) Standard to be Revised? 5 Clustering of structures and pavement 23 Concentrate development on portions of the site with less permeable soils and preserve areas that can promote infiltration. (Planning and Permitting Work Group concluded that using the word clustering would be confusing since cluster is also used to refer to a particular type of development.) No related local standards, however, policies in Chapter 4 of the General Plan, which restrict development on ridges and in areas oh high constraint, inherently lead to cluster type of development. See narrative 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) Microdetention, including landscape detention and use of cisterns (may also be considered treatment measures) 24 Direct runoff from impervious areas to adjacent pervious areas or depressed landscape areas. Select permeable pavements and surface treatments Use drainage as a design element. Use above-ground drainage swales, depressed landscape areas, vegetated buffers, and bioretention areas as amenities Guidebook Chapter 5 details a method to quantify the benefits of these practices and use them to comply with Provision C.3.c. PMC sections (A) and (Stormwater Management and Discharge Control Ordinance). This ordinance is currently being amended per the Program s model ordinance and will continue to promote such practices. See narrative 7 Preservation of high-quality open space 23 Define development envelope and protected areas, identifying areas that are most suitable for development and areas that should be protected This is done in the General Plan Land Use chapter (Ch. 2). No Page 3 of 5

59 City of Pittsburg NPDES C.3 j Reporting/Compliance No. Water Board Example Standards in C.3.j Page Standards Municipalities will adopt with Stormwater C.3 Guidebook Related Existing Local Standards (Cite Title or Code Section) Standard to be Revised? 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 (may also be considered treatment measures) These measures would typically be considered as part of CEQA review for a project that could potentially have an impact on streams or riparian areas. Guidebook Chapter 4 discusses the relationship between C.3 and CEQA. CEQA is used to measure project impacts on the physical environment. The City General Plan has policies that are used as guidelines that establish impact thresholds for CEQA when applicable. The City s current practices are consistent with the Regional Board s standards. No 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 (may also be considered treatment measures). 25 To be addressed in detail in the Hydrograph Modification Management Plan (HMP). The HMP is designed to require consideration of measures to minimize changes in volume, flow rate, timing, and duration of runoff at all sites subject to C.3. Page 4 of 5

60 City of Pittsburg NPDES C.3 j Reporting/Compliance NARRATIVE: #3. The City has adopted street standards that developers must meet when designing new streets. A developer must ask for an exception to these standards if they wish to design a street narrower than what is adopted. Currently, the City does not intend on revising the adopted street standards. Currently, the Engineering Department is in the process of revising standard and hillside street standards to allow more flexibility in design. Reducing impervious surface and/or narrowing streets is always looked at as an option and will continue to be in this current revision. #4. PMC chapter regulates minimum off-street parking requirements. The City is in the process of amending the Zoning Ordinance and will be looking at other ways to regulate parking such as, maximum spaces allowed or incentives for using permeable surfaces in low traffic areas. The Landscape Ordinance currently requires one tree for every six parking spaces (trees must be dispersed throughout the parking area. The Planning Department has interpreted this in a way that requires tree canopy to cover a large portion of the parking area surface. Other requirements regulate where landscaping must be located. All development projects are encouraged to use landscaping as a means to treat and infiltrate stormwater runoff. #5. During amendment to the Zoning Ordinance the City will consider adding language or development regulations to encourage clustering or structures and pavement. As of now, the City has slightly different (more strict) development regulations for areas on the hillsides. #6. The City will continue to review building and grading requirements that may conflict with some standards. Those areas will be amended as needed. Until then, if there is a conflict, the City will be using the newer standard, which will be associated with the C.3 Guidebook and enforceable through the Amended Stormwater Ordinance. Page 5 of 5

61 City of Pleasant Hill

62

63

64

65

66

67 City of Richmond

68 No. Water Board Example Standards in C.3.j Page Standards Municipalities will adopt with Stormwater C.3 Guidebook Related Existing Local Standards (Cite Title or Code Section) Standard to be Revised? 1 Minimize land disturbance 23 Conform the site layout along natural landforms, avoid excessive grading and disturbance of vegetation and soils, and replicate the site s natural drainage patterns. Hillside Ordinance: Richmond Municipal Code (RMC) No 2 Minimize impervious surfaces (e.g., roadway width, driveway area, and parking lot area), especially directly connected impervious areas 23 For all types of development, limit overall coverage of pavement and roofs. Hillside Ordinance: Richmond Municipal Code (RMC) No 3 Minimum-impact street design standards for new development and redevelopment, including typical specifications (e.g., neotraditional street design standards and/or street standards recently revised in other cities, including Portland, Oregon, and Vancouver, British Columbia) 23 Consider narrower streets and sidewalks in the context of overall design to limit imperviousness. Hillside Ordinance: Richmond Municipal Code (RMC) No 4 Minimum-impact parking lot design standards, including parking space maximization within a given area, use of landscaping as a stormwater drainage feature, use of pervious pavements, and parking maxima 23 smaller parking lots (fewer stalls, smaller stalls, and more efficient lanes), and indoor or underground parking. NONE Yes 5 Clustering of structures and pavement 23 Concentrate development on portions of the site with less permeable soils and preserve areas that can promote infiltration. (Planning and Permitting Work Group concluded that using the word clustering would be confusing since cluster is also used to refer to a particular type of development.) NONE Yes

69 No. Water Board Example Standards in C.3.j Page Standards Municipalities will adopt with Stormwater C.3 Guidebook Related Existing Local Standards (Cite Title or Code Section) Standard to be Revised? 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) Microdetention, including landscape detention and use of cisterns (may also be considered treatment measures) 24 Direct runoff from impervious areas to adjacent pervious areas or depressed landscape areas. Select permeable pavements and surface treatments Use drainage as a design element. Use above-ground drainage swales, depressed landscape areas, vegetated buffers, and bioretention areas as amenities Guidebook Chapter 5 details a method to quantify the benefits of these practices and use them to comply with Provision C.3.c. None Yes 7 Preservation of high-quality open space 23 Define development envelope and protected areas, identifying areas that are most suitable for development and areas that should be protected RMC No 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 (may also be considered treatment measures) These measures would typically be considered as part of CEQA review for a project that could potentially have an impact on streams or riparian areas. Guidebook Chapter 4 discusses the relationship between C.3 and CEQA. CEQA Guidelines Resolution # Yes 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 (may also be considered treatment measures). 25 To be addressed in detail in the Hydrograph Modification Management Plan (HMP). The HMP is designed to require consideration of measures to minimize changes in volume, flow rate, timing, and duration of runoff at all sites subject to C.3. None Yes

70

71 City of San Pablo

72 No. Water Board Example Standards in C.3.j Page Standards Municipalities will adopt with Stormwater C.3 Guidebook Related Existing Local Standards (Cite Title or Code Section) Standard to be Revised? 1 Minimize land disturbance 23 Conform the site layout along natural landforms, avoid excessive grading and disturbance of vegetation and soils, and replicate the site s natural drainage patterns. San Pablo Municipal Code (SPMC) H Unlawful public nuisance. For work on property that causes erosion, subsidence, or surface water drainage problems. No since covered in Guidebook 2 Minimize impervious surfaces (e.g., roadway width, driveway area, and parking lot area), especially directly connected impervious areas 23 For all types of development, limit overall coverage of pavement and roofs. SPMC E3-4 (also known as the Zoning Ordinance) Residential off-street parking requirements. Each driveway shall lead to a covered parking space and paved and unpaved driveways not leading to a required parking space are prohibited. SPMC Table 10-B Development standards. Sets maximum parcel coverage (%) for residential districts. No 3 Minimum-impact street design standards for new development and redevelopment, including typical specifications (e.g., neotraditional street design standards and/or street standards recently revised in other cities, including Portland, Oregon, and Vancouver, British Columbia) 23 Consider narrower streets and sidewalks in the context of overall design to limit imperviousness. SPMC , 060, 070, 080, 090, Widths, major streets or highways, secondary streets or highways, local residential streets, substandard residential streets, cul-de-sac streets, and private streets. No 4 Minimum-impact parking lot design standards, including parking space maximization within a given area, use of landscaping as a stormwater drainage feature, use of pervious pavements, and parking maxima 23 smaller parking lots (fewer stalls, smaller stalls, and more efficient lanes), and indoor or underground parking. SPMC C Shared parking. In cases where operators of uses wish to cooperatively establish and operate parking facilities. General Plan (GP) Action CF 1.H - Zoning ordinance regulations. Parking standards permit shared parking and promote joint use of access driveways. No 5 Clustering of structures and pavement 23 Concentrate development on portions of the site with less permeable soils and preserve areas that can promote infiltration. (Planning and Permitting Work Group concluded that using the word clustering would be confusing since cluster is also used to refer to a particular type of development.) No standards since most sites in San Pablo have impermeable clay soils and infiltration is not an option. N/A

73 No. Water Board Example Standards in C.3.j Page Standards Municipalities will adopt with Stormwater C.3 Guidebook Related Existing Local Standards (Cite Title or Code Section) Standard to be Revised? 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) Microdetention, including landscape detention and use of cisterns (may also be considered treatment measures) 24 Direct runoff from impervious areas to adjacent pervious areas or depressed landscape areas. Select permeable pavements and surface treatments Use drainage as a design element. Use above-ground drainage swales, depressed landscape areas, vegetated buffers, and bioretention areas as amenities Guidebook Chapter 5 details a method to quantify the benefits of these practices and use them to comply with Provision C.3.c. SPMC C.3 Landscape plan and standards. Concrete curbs shall be required for all landscaped areas. SPMC B Planting requirement. Concrete berms shall be required for all landscaped areas CA Plumbing Code For one- and two-family dwellings, stormwater may be discharged on flat areas such as streets or lawns so long as the stormwater shall flow away from the building. Yes Yes No but will add in SPMC for all properties. 7 Preservation of high-quality open space 23 Define development envelope and protected areas, identifying areas that are most suitable for development and areas that should be protected GP Policy ER Open space as habitat. Where possible, cluster developments to encourage maximized open space areas. No 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 (may also be considered treatment measures) These measures would typically be considered as part of CEQA review for a project that could potentially have an impact on streams or riparian areas. Guidebook Chapter 4 discusses the relationship between C.3 and CEQA. GP Policy ER Creek maintenance, management and improvement GP Policy ER Protection of creeks natural character GP Policy ER New development along creeks Action ER 1.B - Creek improvement partnerships Action ER 1.C - Create a creek linkage and improvement program. No but we will develop creek trail development guidance for creek side property owner. 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 (may also be considered treatment measures). 25 To be addressed in detail in the Hydrograph Modification Management Plan (HMP). The HMP is designed to require consideration of measures to minimize changes in volume, flow rate, timing, and duration of runoff at all sites subject to C.3. SPMC Best management practices and standards. Yes to include development runoff requirements.

74

75 CITY OF SAN PABLO Draft Review and Analysis of Standards and Guidance In order to comply with the C.3 provisions and reduce impacts to water quality and beneficial uses of waters, the Public Works, Planning, and Redevelopment Divisions have reviewed local standards and identified policies and ordinances for opportunities to make revisions. The proposed changes will be in addition to the revised model stormwater ordinance prepared by the legal workgroup, the Stormwater C.3 Guidebook (Guidebook), and the model operations and maintenance program, which will all become effective on February 15, Attached is a table that includes the California Regional Water Quality Control Board s (Water Board) example standards to help municipalities comply with C.3.j, Site Design Measures Guidance and Standards Development. The table also includes information about which standards San Pablo will adopt as part of the Guidebook, related existing local standards that meet C.3 requirements, and whether any revisions will be made. San Pablo s current ordinances, the General Plan, and the Guidebook sufficiently address the Water Board s example standards 1-5 and 7 so no changes will be necessary. To address the Water Board s example standard number 6, language in our Municipal Code will be changed to eliminate concrete curbs around landscaped areas where feasible to allow drainage of the impervious areas. In addition, new language will be added in our stormwater ordinance that allows disconnecting roof downspouts for all development types since the California Plumbing Code is restricted to one- and two-family dwellings. These changes will be made at the same time as the adoption of the revised stormwater ordinance. The City is dedicated to restoring our riparian areas and the General Plan covers the issues discussed in standard 8. We are working towards connecting our current creek trail to the Bay Trail. This effort will not only provide better access and recreational opportunities for our residents, but it will provide a buffer to reduce runoff entering into our waterways from adjacent development. Since the City has a few creek side development projects proposed for the upcoming year and creek trails may help developers with their C.3 requirements, we are working closely with the Planning Division to develop creek side trail development guidance by late next spring. Finally, the revised stormwater ordinance includes a section on development runoff requirements that satisfies the Water Board standard 9 for minimizing volume and flow of runoff. This topic will also be addressed in the Hydrograph Modification Management Plan which will be adopted by the City. As we implement the C.3 provisions, the standards may need to be further revised or new standards may need to be developed. We understand this is an ongoing adaptive process and we hope that the revised standards, the Guidebook, and other supplemental information the City provides to developers, will help make this transition smooth for all parties involved.

76

77 City of San Ramon

78

79 CITY OF SAN RAMON NPDES Provision C.3j SUMMARY To address Provision C.3 of the revised NPDES permit, City staff formed a C.3 Internal Workgroup. The workgroup is headed by the City s Stormwater Coordinator, Rod Wui, and consists of members from the Public Works Department (Engineering, Transportation, and Public Services Divisions) and the Planning Department (Planning and Building Divisions). The first meeting was held on January 15, The first task of the C.3 Workgroup was to perform a Site Design and Guidelines Review of the City s current standards relating to development and redevelopment. This review is required by Provision C.3.j of the revised permit (see Appendix A Jan. 15, 2004 Meeting Summary). Staff reviewed the Center for Watershed Protection (CWP) Model Principles for Development and Codes and Ordinances Worksheet, as well as the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) Policy, Code and Ordinance Worksheet. Based on these guidelines, staff evaluated the City s current standards (see Appendix B Jan. 23, 2004 Meeting Summary). San Ramon scored a 76 (Opportunities exist to improve development rules). Following this discussion, staff proceeded to analyze potential areas where site design standards and guidelines could be revised to benefit water quality. A summary of these findings is included in Appendix C Apr. 6, 2004 Meeting Summary. Based on this information, staff found similar conclusions to many of the issues presented in the SCVURPPP memo. Generally, staff believes the City s standards to be more than adequate for the purposes of reducing stormwater pollution, however, staff will revise its standards when the opportunity presents itself. Additionally, with the development of the C.3 Guidebook by the Contra Costa Clean Water Program, staff believes that many of these deficiencies will be addressed. The C.3 Guidebook is specifically referenced in the City s proposed revisions to its Stormwater Ordinance (scheduled to be introduced to City Council in December 2004 and implemented by staff in January This will allow staff to address specific examples cited in Provision C.3j of the permit (see Appendix D - C.3j Reporting Table for a summary). C:\Data\Projects\CCCWP\C3jSubmittal\San Ramon C.3j Reporting Summary SR.doc

80 APPENDIX A CITY OF SAN RAMON NPDES C.3 Provision Internal Workgroup January 15, 2004 SUMMARY Attendee Title Department Division Phil Agostini, PE Sr. Engineer Public Works Eng - Transportation Roderick Wui, PE Assoc. Engineer Public Works Eng Develop/Dist Doug Spindler Supervising Inspector Public Works Engineering Chris Low Assist. Engineer Public Works Eng Develop/Dist Jean-Paul Ripert Sr. Inspector Public Works Engineering 1. Brief Recap of Intro to C.3 Meeting (All) R. Wui distributed copies of Provision C.3 Amendment- New Development & Redevelopment Performance Standards and Summary of C.3 Provisions & Impacts to Staff to those who were not able to attend the previous meeting. R. Wui summarized the City s increased efforts in complying with C.3 requirements. 2. General Overview of New Requirements of C.3 Provision (All) a. Budget allocations for other departments & divisions R. Wui reminded staff of importance of billing time to stormwater management and c.3 compliance. Staff time spent on developing, implementing and documenting C.3 needs to be tracked and analyzed before the City can pursue a funding mechanism for reimbursement (i.e. developers, SUA tax, etc ) 3. Task - Site Design & Guidelines Review (Eng/Trans/Plng) a. Center for Watershed Protection (CWP) Model Principles for Land Development b. CWP Codes & Ordinances Worksheet c. Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) Policy, Code & Ordinance Worksheet R. Wui directed staff to complete sections of these documents that were appropriate to their specialty. Charlie Mullen of Planning and Lonnie Martin of Public Services were unable to attend, but were notified of the need to complete this exercise for the next meeting. R. Wui informed staff that these worksheets would be used by all co-permittees to self-evaluate each City s stormwater program, and that this would be submitted to the RWQCB as part of C Schedule Next Meeting (All) Staff was given one (1) week to review and complete the worksheets. At the next regular meeting (January 23) staff would compile and comment on findings. C:\Data\Projects\CCCWP\C3jSubmittal\San Ramon Appendix A.doc

81 APPENDIX B CITY OF SAN RAMON NPDES C.3 Provision Internal Workgroup January 23, 2004 SUMMARY Attendee Title Department Division Charlie Mullen Sr. Planner Community Development Planning Phil Agostini, PE Sr. Engineer Public Works Eng Transportation Detlef Curtis, PE Sr. Engineer Public Works Eng Develop/Dist Roderick Wui, PE Assoc. Engineer Public Works Eng Develop/Dist Chris Low Assist. Engineer Public Works Eng Develop/Dist Jean-Paul Ripert Sr. Inspector Public Works Engineering Roy Shields Sr. Inspector Public Works Engineering Lonnie Martin Maintenance Mgr. Public Works Public Services 1. Task - Site Design & Guidelines Review (All) (Compile Comments & Worksheet Answers) a. Center for Watershed Protection (CWP) Model Principles for Land Development b. CWP Codes & Ordinances Worksheet c. Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) Policy, Code & Ordinance Worksheet d. Discussion of City s status Items that may be considered for revision Staff discussed each item individually. Comments and notes are included as Attachment A. 2. Discussion of Potential Stakeholders (All) P. Agostini highly recommended that we consult the San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District (contact Mike Mentink, Deputy Fire Marshal, ) regarding minimum street widths. He believed that their min. is 20 wide (to allow for fire truck access). Staff also suggested contacting Waste Management, but it is believed that their standards are not as stringent as the Fire District s. Staff suggested we coordinate with the Police Department (contact Erica Reed, ) as well regarding street width standards. C. Mullen suggested that when we make changes to City documents (i.e. Municipal Code, standard COAs, procedures, etc ) that we make reference to another document, rather than having language that may become obsolete over time. By citing a specific document, such as current City of San Ramon Stormwater Code we would avoid a lengthy and timeconsuming process of amending ordinances, codes, etc C:\Data\Projects\CCCWP\C3jSubmittal\San Ramon Appendix B.doc

82 APPENDIX B 3. Schedule Next Meeting (All) R. Wui suggested that staff wait until all comments have been compiled and options have been formulated before setting another date (roughly 1 month). C:\Data\Projects\CCCWP\C3jSubmittal\San Ramon Appendix B.doc

83 APPENDIX B CITY OF SAN RAMON NPDES C.3 Provision Internal Workgroup January 23, 2004 ATTACHMENT A Codes & Ordinances Worksheet Summary SCORE 1. Street Width a. City has allowed 20 streets only on private roads. Public road min. street width 4 is 28 with parking on one (1) side. The General Plan 2020 does state a goal of < 500 ADT for low density residential, but it is not tied to street width standards. Staff believes SRV Fire District min. street width is 36, but needs to be verified. b. The City currently does not have any parking lanes that serve as traffic lanes 0 2. Street Length a. Street standards promote efficient layouts Right-of-Way Width a. Min. residential ROW is 21 for private roads and 32 for public roads. 3 b. Utilities (storm, sewer, water) are generally located under paved street ROW 1 4. Cul-de-Sacs a. Min. cul-de-sac radius is 45 1 b. The City has not allowed a landscaped island in a cul-de-sac. 0 c. The City has allowed a hammerhead on a private road Vegetated Open Channels a. Curbs and gutters are required for most residential street sections 0 b. There does not exist established criteria for swales for stormwater treatment Parking Ratios a. Min. parking ratio for professional office building is 3:1000ft2. 0 b. Min. parking ratio for shopping centers is 1:250 ft2 (4:1000ft2). 1 c. Min. parking ratio for residential single family home is 2:1. 1 d. Parking requirements are set minimums Parking Codes a. Shared parking arrangements have been promoted in the past. An example is 1 the Sierra Suites Hotel, located at 2323 San Ramon Valley Blvd. b. There does not exist a model shared parking agreement. 0 c. Parking ratios can be reduced if a shared parking arrangement exists. 1 d. Parking ratios have not been reduced in the past due to mass transit availability. 0 C:\Data\Projects\CCCWP\C3jSubmittal\San Ramon Appendix B2.doc Page 1 of 4

84 APPENDIX B 8. Parking Lots a. Min. stall width is 9 1 b. Min. stall length is 18 1 c. 30% of spaces in large commercial parking lots are required to be compact 1 d. Pervious materials can be used for spill over parking Structured Parking a. Incentives exist to developers to provide garage parking. Examples include the Bishop Ranch Business Park, located on Camino Ramon, which contains 2 multi-level parking structures, and the Optometric Center located at 2001 Crow Canyon Road Parking Lot Runoff a. Parking lots need to have a min. of 7% landscaped area around the perimeter. 2 b. Bioretention islands and other stormwater practices are allowed Open Space Design a. Open space & cluster developments are allowed and encouraged. 3 b. The General Plan 2020 specifies land conservation as an open space goal. 1 c. Requirements for open space developments are greater than those of 1 conventional developments. d. By policy, open space and cluster designs are by-right forms of development 1 e. Flexible site design criteria exist for developers of cluster design developments Setbacks and Frontages a. Pie-shaped & flag lots are allowed and exist in the City. Most cul-de-sacs in the 1 City utilize pie-shaped lots, and flag lots exist along Paddock Circle. b. Min. front setback for a ½ acre residential lot is c. Min. back setback for a ½ acre residential lot is d. Min. side setback for a ½ acre residential lot is e. Min. frontage for a ½ acre residential lot is Sidewalks a. Min. sidewalk width is 4. 2 b. Sidewalks are not required on both sides of residential streets. 2 c. Sidewalks are generally required to slope to drain to the street (per City detail). 0 d. Alternate pedestrian networks are allowed in the City. A meandering trail along the Canyon Lakes development substitutes a traditional monolithic sidewalk Driveways a. Min. driveway width b. Pervious materials are allowed for single-family homes. Porous pavers are used 2 at the Thomas Ranch development off Crow Canyon Road. c. Two track driveways are allowed. An example of this is at the Thomas 1 Ranch development off Crow Canyon Road. d. Shared driveways are permitted. See Thomas Ranch development. 1 C:\Data\Projects\CCCWP\C3jSubmittal\San Ramon Appendix B2.doc Page 2 of 4

85 APPENDIX B 15. Open Space Management a. Enforceable requirements exist (i.e. Conditions of Approval) that require 2 associations to effectively manage open space. b. Open space areas are not required to be consolidated into larger units. 0 c. All open space is required to be managed in a natural condition. 1 d. Allowable & unallowable uses for open space are defined in COAs and other 1 guiding documents. e. Open Space can be managed by third parties. Examples include the West Branch and Canyon Lakes Geologic Hazard Abatement Districts Rooftop Runoff a. Rooftop runoff is typically not discharged to yard areas. 0 b. Current drainage requirements do not allow temporary ponding of runoff on rooftops or on front yards Buffer Systems a. A stream buffer ordinance exists in the Municipal Code. 2 b. Min. buffer width is 100 (Ordinance 197). 1 c. The 100-year floodplain is included in the buffer area Buffer Maintenance a. The stream buffer ordinance specifies that the entire stream remain in a natural 2 state. b. The stream buffer ordinance defines allowable uses. 1 c. The stream buffer ordinance does not specify enforcement Clearing and Grading a. A Resource Conservation Overlay encourages the preservation of natural 2 vegetation at residential development sites. b. Septic field areas are required to be cleared of trees at time of development Tree Conservation a. In residential development, if existing, a portion of a forest is to be preserved. 2 b. Limits of disturbance areas shown on plans have proven adequate to prevent the clearing of natural vegetation Land Conservation Incentives a. Developers are given incentives to conserve open space. 2 b. Developers are given flexibility to meet regulatory restrictions Stormwater Outfalls a. Stormwater is required to be treated for quality before discharged. 2 b. Effective BMP design criteria for best management practices exist. 1 c. Untreated stormwater cannot be directly discharged into wetlands. 1 d. Division C4 Land Development, Chapter IV Flood Insurance Program of the Municipal Code prohibits development in the 100-year floodplain. 2 C:\Data\Projects\CCCWP\C3jSubmittal\San Ramon Appendix B2.doc Page 3 of 4

86 APPENDIX B TOTAL SCORE 76 Scoring: Community has above-average provisions that promote the protection of streams, lakes and estuaries Local development rules are good, but could use minor adjustments or revisions in some areas Opportunities exist to improve development rules. Consider creating a site planning roundtable Development rules are likely inadequate to protect local aquatic resources. A site planning roundtable would be very useful. < 60 Development rules are definitely not environmentally friendly. Serious reform is needed. C:\Data\Projects\CCCWP\C3jSubmittal\San Ramon Appendix B2.doc Page 4 of 4

87 APPENDIX C CITY OF SAN RAMON NPDES C.3 Provision Internal Workgroup April 6, 2004 SUMMARY Attendee Title Department Division Charlie Mullen Sr. Planner Community Development Planning Phil Agostini, PE Sr. Engineer Public Works Eng Transportation Detlef Curtis, PE Sr. Engineer Public Works Eng Develop/Dist Roderick Wui, PE Assoc. Engineer Public Works Eng Develop/Dist Roy Shields Sr. Inspector Public Works Engineering Lonnie Martin Maintenance Mgr. Public Works Public Services 1. Task - Site Design & Guidelines Review (All) (Review Comments & Worksheet Answers) a. Center for Watershed Protection (CWP) Model Principles for Land Development b. CWP Codes & Ordinances Worksheet c. Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) Policy, Code & Ordinance Worksheet d. Discussion of City s status Items that may be considered for revision Staff finalized the Site Design Standards Review. Comments are included as Attachment A. 2. Discussion of SCVURPPP Memorandum Summary of Fall 2003 Summary of Understanding Potential Hurdles Site Design Dialogues (1/27/04) Staff reviewed the SCVURPPP s findings regarding site design standards. Staff found similar conclusions to many of the issues presented in the SCVURPPP memo. Staff will incorporate appropriate comments and conclusions to the City s review of guidelines. 3. Discussion of Potential Stakeholders (All) a. San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District b. San Ramon Police Department c. Waste Management d. Other City Departments (Building) R. Wui will be scheduling a meeting the Fire District and Waste Management. 4. Schedule Next Meeting with Stakeholders (All) R. Wui suggested that monthly meetings seemed sufficient. C:\Data\Projects\CCCWP\C3jSubmittal\San Ramon Appendix C.doc

88 CITY OF SAN RAMON NPDES C.3 Provision Internal Workgroup April 06, 2004 APPENDIX C ATTACHMENT A Site Design Standards & Guidelines Review POTENTIAL ISSUE POSSIBLE SOLUTION COMMENTS / CONCERNS STAKEHOLDERS 1. Street Width b. The City currently does not have any parking lanes that serve as traffic lanes Change City standards to allow on street parking to serve as a travel lane Have not been necessary in the past, staff believes this may be implemented along Crow Canyon Road (Specific Plan). SRVFPD, SRPD 4. Cul-de-Sacs b. The City has not allowed a landscaped island in a cul-de-sac. Change City standards to allow landscaped median islands in cul-de-sacs. A possible accessibility and maintenance issue (overwatering, infiltration may affect local pavement conditions). SRVFPD, Waste Management 5. Vegetated Open Channels a. Curbs and gutters are required for most residential street sections b. There does not exist established criteria for swales for stormwater treatment. Change City standards to allow new development to have streets w/o C&G. Develop City standards for BMP swales. A safety issue for pedestrian traffic. May conflict with ADA requirements in some areas. Although generally not effective for San Ramon s soil conditions (clay), staff will address this in the C.3 Guidebook. ADA None 6. Parking Ratios a. Min. parking ratio for professional office building is 3:1000ft2. Change City standards to reduce parking ratio This could encourage on-street parking. To offset this, staff suggests supporting parking structures (i.e. at Bishop Ranch Business Park) and below ground parking (i.e. at the Courtyards). None C:\Data\Projects\CCCWP\C3jSubmittal\San Ramon Appendix C2.doc Page 1 of 2