2012-05-22_PWETC_Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

transferring that LGU role is lack of notification when WSD's (e.g. CRWD and RCWD) performs reviews with their staff experts in-house, they fail to notify her. Ms. Bloom advised that the City did need to be aware of permits filed and issues to ensure City Codes related to wetlands are adhered to; and suggested a solution would be if a partnership could be initiated with those WSD's for the process. Ms. Bloom suggested that could be a goal or policy, as well as implementation activity, of the Plan to develop those partnerships and transfer LGU to WSD's. Member DeBenedet opined that it seemed to be only common sense if all storm water plans were supposed to be reviewed and coordinated by those agencies, if the City's Plan went to those agencies as well, that they, as an LGU should be required to communication all wetland decisions to applicable parties and cities. Member DeBenedet suggested calling that out as part of the Plan update; with the WSD's needing to agree with that portion of the Plan, or demand a change in the Plan. Chair Vanderwall noted the demands on staff time, and suggested that if this was an area that was not our main focus and by eliminating it could free up additional time for other things, the WSD's should be allowed to use their expertise as the LGU and tasked with the responsibility for reporting it to the City as part of the updated Implementation Plan. Chair Vanderwall, with PWETC consensus, spoke in support of transferring that LGU role since they had in-house water management staff Member Stenlund opined that"streamline" should be the overriding emphasis of the Plan, whether through transferring LGU responsibilities, as well as WSD's communication responsibilities to the City, not through adding another regulation or another bureaucratic layer, but through"streamlining" the process. Regarding development standards, discussion ensued regarding at what point the City should require storm water compliance, if different than the current 10,000 square feet minimum threshold for erosion control as previously discussed. Ms. Bloom advised that the City's current BMP practical practice is requiring compliance for any new impervious surface over 5,000 square feet or any disturbance over '/4 acre. Ms. Bloom questioned at what point that became a requirement, not a practice (e.g. home additions, porches) and staff s perspective that they needed a vehicle for enforcement and public information that was consistent rather than arbitrary, via a standard policy. Ms. Bloom noted that, in the past, there were no storm water requirements for single-family residences unless they were exceeding the impervious surface threshold. Discussion among Commissioners and staff included the need, while problematic, of properties on a hillside or having unique topographical circumstances and hoe to implement regulations without being arbitrary; how to set up a framework for case by case review, with special cases, as a goal. Page 13 of 19